Keep Fighting the Good Fight

If you have incredible memory, you may recall the name Dorrie O'Brien from a post I wrote on this story back in May:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

Dorrie O’Brien was booked months ago to speak to the North Tarrant Republican Club. She riled local Muslims last month when she delivered a speech to a Republican club in Hurst in which she said most or all American Muslims support terrorism.

In her presentation to about 80 people, O’Brien said that Muslims are intent on converting the Western world to Islam. She described as "stealth jihad" a malicious effort by Muslims to subvert schools, local governments and banks throughout the country.

O’Brien reviewed the five pillars of Islam, noting that one of them is zakat, which means to give a percentage of one’s income to charity. "There is a tremendous amount of proof out there that the zakat is now funding terrorism," she said.

O’Brien also compared the Quran to the Bible and dismissed any suggestion that atrocities committed by Christians in the past were relevant to a debate about the present.

"I am not going to get into a theological discussion tonight, but I will flatly say, no, there is no way we are praying to the same God," she said.

Well, Ms. O'Brien has made the local news again, this time for getting her group kicked out of the Arlington Public Library for violating rules on the use of meeting spaces:

The Grand Prairie chapter of ACT! for America had its meeting privileges revoked this month because the group broke two guidelines of the library’s meeting room usage policy, Arlington Library Director Cary Siegfried said.

The group, led by Dorrie O’Brien of Grand Prairie, had been meeting at the library since last year, Siegfried said. The Arlington Public Library offers its meeting room for free.

In an e-mail to Siegfried, O’Brien said the library was playing "into the hands of America’s enemies" and was just citing the rule violations as an excuse.

"I imagine there’s been a lot of pressure put on you to kick me out of the library by the people who want to stop me and others like me from getting the actual word out about Islam," O’Brien wrote.

Siegfried insisted that the content of the meetings had nothing to do with her decision.

"They didn’t follow the rules; that’s all there is to it," Siegfried said.

Siegfried said she warned ACT! for America this year after the library received a complaint that the group’s meetings were not fully open to the public and that group leaders were soliciting funds at the meeting, both violations of the library’s policy.

I must confess, I have no snark sufficient to deal with this story. These people are just lunatics.

Great job

While Rush Limbaugh and the people on FOX News were in a tizzy over President Obama's landmark speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt today, I found it interesting that the consistently crazy conservative blog Hot Air described the speech as "surprisingly good." It's qualified praise, of course, but still, any praise is astonishing given the "OMG President Obama is subservient to the Saudi King!" posts of the blog's recent past.

Anyway, it's not an overstatement that President Obama's speech (which was a campaign promise) was as rhetorically brilliant and substantive as normal. I highly advise you to watch and/or read it in full here. He offered tough words to Al Qaeda (who clearly don't know how to deal with him) and those who would justify 9/11 and deny the Holocaust, while simultaneously calling on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements (and promoting a Palestinian state) and admitting the the CIA's role in deposing Mosaddeq. He calls for expanded rights for women in the Muslim world but says that while the U.S. will always promote democracy it won't force it on others. He asks Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, but recognizes their right to peaceful nuclear energy and recommits to a nuclear-free world in general (could this hurt Ahmadinejad's re-election hopes? Let's hope so). Seriously, Barack Obama is so different from what we've seen before it's still, even nearly five months in now, amazing to know that he is indeed the President of the United States and is making history everyday.

Of course, U.S.-Muslim relations will not instantly be rid of tensions with one speech, but it's a damn good start and a down payment on President Obama's promise of a new foreign policy.

UPDATE: Pro-western coalition wins in Lebanon and the man expected to be the next prime minister hails President Obama's speech. Others is the Muslim world also reacted positively.

"Enough is Enough"

After years of remarkable patience, Ben Shapiro has finally had it with radical Islam:

So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasnt merely come -- its been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers blood cries out from the ground.

I was not aware that two wars against proponents of radical Islam and green-lighting a couple of bombing/invasions against radical Islam in Somalia and Lebanon counts as "empty talk" and "idle promises" so I'm not entirely sure what measures Shapiro thinks we should take next. Conveniently, his column ends exactly at the point at which the reader would think Shapiro might offer some useful suggestions. Funny, that. 

Underground

Israel lobby? What Israel lobby?

Dallas Killing

A Dallas double-homicide (technically it was in Irving, but whatever) has gotten unusual attention in the national blogosphere. Unfair Park chronicles how the murders, involving a Muslim father allegedy killing his two teenage daughters, have prompted various right-wing blogs to immediately jump to unsubstantiated, baseless and more than slightly racist conclusions. Though it's unusual to see the right-wing blogosphere surveyed on Unfair Park (which covers local issues), it's not at all unusual for the right-wing blogosphere to seize on any supposed outrage committed by a Muslim to condemn an entire religion and make themselves look like morons ("Dallastan"...seriously?) and assholes in the process.

Pakistanis Befuddled by the US

Naturally, many Pakistanis are wondering why President Bush has so little to say about General Musharraf's seizure of emergency powers. Barnett Rubin shares some of their thoughts with us:

The most common feeling toward the U.S. I have encountered is a kind of anger mixed with disappointment. Pakistanis are angry at the U.S. and consider it hypocritical because it has consistently supported dictatorship in Pakistan. Many are also baffled and furious because they see clearly the complicity of part of the Pakistani security forces with the Taliban on both sides of the border and cannot comprehend U.S. continued support for that same military.

They see a weak reaction by the U.S. to the virtual martial law decreed by General Musharraf. In particular they hear U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say, "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts." What they hear is, the U.S. will review its support for education and health programs, but it will continue its massive subsidy (an estimated $10 billion per year) to cover the cost of operations by the Pakistan military: the same military that has declared a pseudo-emergency (in reality, martial law), under which protesting lawyers have been beaten and hundreds of non-violent democratic political leaders arrested, while the militants continue their campaigns without hindrance.

Where is this policy getting us? Well, nowhere:

Let me describe the situation on the ground to which Musharraf has responded by suspending the constitution, arresting several senior judges, and detaining hundreds of non-violent democratic political leaders. According to sources in the Northwest Frontier Province, the Taliban (Afghan and Pakistani) have established an Islamic Emirate centered in Mirali, North Waziristan, the home base of Commander Jalaluddin Haqqani (Afghan Jadran from Khost) and his son Sirajuddin...The Emirate has established structures in all seven Tribal Agencies, though it is strongest in North and South Waziristan and has not penetrated the Shi'a areas of upper Kurram. Besides Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns, its forces include the Uzbeks displaced from South Waziristan and others from the former USSR (collectively if not accurately called "Chechens"), whom the local people accuse of the greatest brutalities, such as the beheading of prisoners.

From these bases, the Emirate has launched its offensive in Swat and has infiltrated around Peshawar from several directions. Recently Taliban appeared in Qisakhani Bazaar in the old city of Peshawar and ordered traders to remove "un-Islamic" posters. There was no reaction from the police or administration. There are dozens of Taliban FM stations broadcasting calls to jihad in both the tribal agencies and the "settled" (administered) areas of NWFP. Not one of them has been shut down; instead the martial law regime has blocked transmissions of liberal cable television stations and blocked the Blackberry network used by the political elite.

So, although Musharraf uses the threat of terrorism as an excuse to seize power in the Pakistan, he is not using his powers to retaliate against the Taliban militants. Rather, he is acting against moderate opposition to his regime, mostly by going after the judges and lawyers that would demand the upholding of the Pakistani constitution. In the meantime, actual terrorists are given free reign. Why? Because they do not pose the threat to Musharraf's power that the Pakistani people themselves do.

What does this mean for us? That once again we write off concerns over democracy and accommodate dictatorship and tyranny, only with the now signature Bush approach of doing it in a way that is detrimental to our interests.

I was fortunate enough to hear a little of the Terry Gross interview with Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid this morning on the way to work. He made an interesting and troubling point about the Taliban that appears to be supported by Rubin's comments above, that whereas the pre-invasion Taliban were mostly nationalist in nature, the post-invasion Taliban have been infiltrated by adherents to al Qaeda's jihadist philosophy. Rashid said that instead of confining themselves to toppling Karzai in Afghanistan, they have now set their sights on spreading their jihad further into Pakistan and-Rashid fears-even further into Central Asia, into Uzbekistan and Chechnya.

The Taliban/Al Qaeda militants of Afghnistan and Western Pakistan pose one of the greatest threats to the stability of Central Asia, and are a growing national security threat to us. Our devil's bargain with Musharraf in Pakistan has done nothing to reduce this threat, and instead has only magnified it. It's past time to change course and seek broader democratic transformation in Pakistan. We can start by condemning Musharraf and calling for him to surrender his dictatorial powers.

UPDATE: Apparently, part of the problem is there isn't anyone in the government who knows a damn thing about Pakistan. You know, our major ally in the "war on terror."

No wonder Abizaid was replaced - he's saying too many smart things!

Arabic-speaking General John Abizaid, who retired after he headed Central Command (or CENTCOM, which is in charge of the Middle East for the U.S. armed forces) for nearly four years and was replaced by President Bush by a navy admiral (something that is happening a lot as army and marine commanders continually and increasingly criticize the war in Iraq), has been saying a lot of things that make sense recently.

First this:

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

As Nat-Wu responded in an email, it is complete idiocy that it seems "everybody thinks that once Iran gets a nuke, they're going to immediately drop it on Israel and immolate themselves in the process."

The truth is Iran can be deterred from nukes with strong diplomacy on the part of the U.S. that this administration and future Republicans ones will not engaged in. Furthermore, while no one thinks we should let them get nukes, the Bush/Republican/neo-con solution of going to war and bombing Iran is not a reasonable course of action and would have worse consequences for us than Iran having nuclear weapons.

Also, Gen. Abizaid has discredited the Republican tactic of using the phrase "Islamic extremism." According to Rudy Giuliani, the fact that Democrats do not use this word shows they are "weak on terror," while in reality, it is counterproductive to the cause against Al Qaeda and other jihadis because it drives away moderate Muslims needed to win the fight.

In a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the role of the military in counterterrorism, Gen. Abizaid that “even adding the word Islamic” makes it “very, very difficult” to “work together” with mainline regional leaders to keep extremism “from becoming mainstream.” Think Progress has video.

Given these intelligent statements, it is not surprising the general is out of a job these days with the current band of idiots running the country.

The Iraq War Divides Sunni and Shiite in the Middle East and at Home

Sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites is what drives the war in Iraq. But much of the Middle East is divided between the two branches of Islam, and historian Niall Ferguson tell us that the present situation is reminiscent of one we saw early last century:

The critical question today is whether the current civil war could spread beyond Iraq’s borders, engulfing its neighbors or sparking a regional war. Realists—not least James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group—have an interest in arguing that it could. In seeking to enlist the assistance of Iraq’s neighbors, specifically Syria and Iran, the United States would be appealing to their self-interest, not their altruism. Fear of contagion is why these long-standing foes of the United States might be willing to help stop the slaughter in Iraq.

Sixty years ago, Central and Eastern Europe was entering the final phase of a succession of wars and civil wars that originated with the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Before 1914, the Habsburg lands had been characterized by high levels of ethnic heterogeneity. Consequently, the transition from empire to the nation-states of the post-World War I era proved painful in the extreme.

Two minorities were especially ill-placed in the new order of the 1920s: the Germans and the Jews. The former fought back against their minority status in places like Czechoslovakia and Poland and, under the leadership of a messianic Austrian, temporarily created a Greater German Empire. The latter were among that bloodthirsty empire’s principal victims. Only with the expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe and the creation of truly homogeneous but Soviet-controlled nation-states was peace restored. It is no coincidence that the one country that remained both heterogeneous and independent— Yugosla­via—was, in the 1990s, the scene of Europe’s last great ethnic conflict.

Only in our time, then, has the Middle East reached the political stage that Central and Eastern Europe reached after the First World War. Only now are countries like Iraq and Lebanon experimenting with democracy. The lesson of European history is that this experiment is a highly dangerous one, particularly at times of economic volatility and chronic insecurity, and particularly where tribes and peoples are mixed up geographically, both within and across borders. The minorities fear—with good reason—the tyranny of the majorities. People vote their ethnicity, not their pocketbook or ideology. And even before the votes are counted, the shooting begins.

This is not merely hypothetical. The Iraq civil war has served to highlight the differences between Sunni and Shiite; as the conflict has grown worse, members of each sect have felt increasing pressure to align themselves against the other:

Marc Lynch, who writes an excellent blog on Middle Eastern politics and Arabic media, has been covering this issue quite extensively. On a recent trip to Egypt, he noticed that "anti-Shia stuff is really spreading rapidly."

Sensational-looking books about the Shia are all over the bookstands, along with stories in the tabloids and scare-mongering editorials. Even in al-Masri al-Yom, op-eds in recent days have (for instance) attacked Bush's plan for Iraq because it would empower the Shia, who would abolish all forms of Arab identity and seek to unify with Iran. The tabloids are worse, and even Egyptian TV has been hosting some pretty nasty anti-Shia rhetoric.

This new divide between Shiites and Sunnis has actually become quite severe. As Lynch has said, and other analysts have also pointed out, anti-Shia sentiment has been on the rise primarily because of events in Iraq. While I wrote in my earlier post that I believed this to largely be a (Sunni) government-encouraged phenomenon, I seem to have been wrong on this point. Instead, more knowledgeable analysts suggest that it is the carnage in Iraq that is causing this new sectarianism. The brutal Shiite violence against Sunnis has resulted in anger towards the region's Shiite population and, as an extension of this, undermined Iran's popularity, because of their backing for these Shiite groups.

The power of ethnic and sectarian tension is such that it has divided members of the Muslim community even here in the United States:

Escalating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites across the Middle East are rippling through some American Muslim communities, and have been blamed for events including vandalism and student confrontations. Political splits between those for and against the American invasion of Iraq fuel some of the animosity, but it is also a fight among Muslims about who represents Islam.

Long before the vandalism in Dearborn and Detroit, feuds had been simmering on some college campuses. Some Shiite students said they had faced repeated discrimination, like being formally barred by the Sunni-dominated Muslim Student Association from leading prayers. At numerous universities, Shiite students have broken away from the association, which has dozens of chapters nationwide, to form their own groups.

“A microcosm of what is happening in Iraq happened in New Jersey because people couldn’t put aside their differences,” said Sami Elmansoury, a Sunni Muslim and former vice president of the Islamic Society at Rutgers University, where there has been a sharp
dispute.

As the article goes on to state, it is not merely the Iraq war the divides Sunnis and Shiites here at home. There are other causes. But often, precipitous events like wars serve as a focus for such tensions. They give people an excuse to act on long-simmering resentment and anger, feelings of hostility that might otherwise stay bured in more peaceful times. I don't cite to that article to say that civil war between Muslims will break out here in the United States. But if sectarian violence can serve to divide even here, what is it's power to divide the Middle East?

This is why many governments of the Middle East who find it convenient to use the Iraq war in some fashion to their own ends, also must find it disturbing that tension and violence between two communities in another country has the insidious ability to find its way into communities in other countries similarly divided. The neo-conservative experiment in Iraq may not have touched off a flowering of democracy, but a resurrection of the ancient politics of division and disunity that have resulted in inumerable wars throughout the centuries.