President, War Criminal

In an opinion piece published Tuesday, Joe Scarborough writes:

I suspect [history will be unkind] to those “progressives” horrified by George W. Bush’s anti-terror campaign but mute to the terror of the Obama administration’s savage drone wars. These sensitive souls, so repulsed by the waterboarding of three terrorists ten years ago, now celebrate their administration’s version of a war on terror that swapped out the targeted capture of terrorists with a drone program that all too often kills children, women, grandparents and scores of innocent young men.

Fair point. Barack Obama's record on civil liberties and executive privilege in the so-called war on terror is as bad as Bush's was. He has expanded the use of drones, which, yes, often kills innocent people and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups, and has "embraced" a policy where all "military-age males" in a strike zone are presumed combatants, effectively rendering them guilty until proven innocent. He oversaw the passage of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that includes, in the words of the ACLU, "an extraordinary expansion and statutory bolstering of authority for the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world." He even sidestepped the War Powers Act, the most symbolic and perhaps the most unequivocal restraint on executive power, during NATO's intervention in Libya.

Granted, not all liberals have been quiet about Obama's use of drones or other worrisome aspects of his civil rights record. (Glenn Greenwald immediately comes to mind.) But we on the left have far too often been quiet, when loud political pressure is needed if we ever want these policies to change.

So mea culpa, Joe, you are absolutely correct. Until you write:

The release of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" will surely lay waste to at least one of the left wing's lies: that the CIA's enhanced interrogation did nothing to gain actionable intelligence. “Zero” is generating angst amongst movie reviewers and essayists who were swept away by the film but left conflicted and uncomfortable specifically because this first draft of history accurately shows how the CIA's program played a major role in finding and killing Osama bin Laden.

So let me get this straight. Shame on liberals for being silent on Obama's unacceptable use of drones while loudly decrying Bush's apparently acceptable use of torture? I suppose you could make the moral case that drones are worse. But you cannot claim that torture is acceptable. You can't even claim that torture was effective in gathering intelligence (unless you want to believe a Hollywood movie over a report approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee).

Doing so makes you guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty you just accused us of.

Egyptian Uprising

January 2011 passed by this year with the protests in Tunisia, which resulted in the removal of former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Jordanian King Abdullah II dismissed Prime Minister Samir Rifai and his cabinet, replacing Rifai with ex-general and former premier Marouf al-Bakhit. There have also been protests in Yemen and several other Arab countries.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mess O'Slightly-to-the-Left O'Potamia - Pro-Mubarak Demonstrators
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Egypt has been engulfed with popular, peaceful protests. After police initially cracked down, the army refused to fire on the crowds. As seen in this article by The Atlantic, the activists are organized and have very clear objectives. Today, after millions gathered in Tahrir (Independence) Square in Cairo, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announced that he will not be seeking re-election in September and wants a transition government. The Obama administration has stated that Egypt should begin its process of transitioning peacefully to a new government. However, Mubarak’s vow to not flee from Egypt and his failure to resign immediately are not sitting well with the Egyptian protesters. While his “transition” government has tried to make compromises and half-hearted attempts at dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, they have still failed to meet the protesters’ demand of Mubarak’s resignation. The events have turned violent, with pro-Mubarak agitators assaulting the protesters. However, with the sheer number of demonstrators (estimates place the crowds around 2 million people), this is not an issue that will go away quickly or quietly.

For decades, Egypt under Mubarak has been an ally of the United States and a critical component of its Middle East foreign policy. The United States is now forced to re-evaluate its standing in the region, and in light of these developments, there are several questions as to what the Egyptian movement means for the future of Egypt and the Middle East. In understanding popular uprisings that ousted a dictator, several news media outlets and government officials are looking towards Iran as an example. Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was especially provocative in drawing connections between the Egyptian uprisings, Iran, and U.S. interests. Being the Yosemite Sam of International Relations, Bolton stated in an interview with Sean Hannity of FOX News that “ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.” Bolton has always been an “Iran hawk,” but these comments reveal a particularly interesting discussion regarding the Egyptian protests and their connection to 1979 and 2009 Iran.

With the anniversary of the 1979 revolution coming on February 11^th, the Islamic Regime has not wasted any time in attempting to spin the protests as a new, “Islamic” revolutions inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution. Mir Hossein Mousavi and members of the Green Movement have instead countered such claims with their own that their 2009 protests are the inspiration for the Egyptian movement today. However, the Iranian regime’s severe crackdown on the Green Movement clearly reveals its own hypocrisy, reflected in the regime’s loss of soft power among Arab populations in the region.

With everyone in the United States scrambling to figure out which of the Iranian case studies is the best indicator for Egypt’s future, people forget that the Iranian and Egyptian case studies are completely different. Iran in 1979 had a series of very strong, well-known revolutionary leaders that were able to mobilize people over several years into what exploded in 1979 and forced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power for good. Of these revolutionary figures, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini emerged as the strongest and seized power, creating Iran’s theocratic republic of today. Unlike the Iranian example, there are no clear leaders in the Egyptian protests. While the Muslim Brotherhood is being incorporated at some level in talks with Mubarak’s regime, the Egyptian demonstrations were never about the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arabian Fights
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

In 2009, while Mousavi, despite being prime minister throughout the 1980s under Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, emerged as the leader of the Green Movement, the regime’s brutal crackdown and retention of military, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, police, and Basiji militia support left the movement fractured and weakened. This is not to say that the regime does not feel threatened – the human rights situation in Iran has drastically declined since 2009 and in one month’s time (December 19, 2010, and January 19, 2011), Iran executed 97 prisoners alone. It also executes more people per capita than any other country in the world. Clearly, the regime does feel threatened, but until the Green Movement can garner support of the country’s different armed forces, it will not see results like Egypt’s. The Green Movement also had several different leaders, each with their own ideas. The result is a lack of unity and unclear goals. The Egyptian movement on the other hand is unified behind one strong resolution – Mubarak’s immediate resignation.

Egyptians have a new opportunity before them. With the continued pressure of protesters, the military, and the Obama administration that Mubarak faces calling for his immediate resignation, the Egyptians have the chance to peacefully and single-handedly remove a cruel dictator from power and replace his government with one that better reflects their own aspirations and visions for their country. While Iran and Egypt are very different, both the Iranian stories of 1979 and 2009 offer lessons for Egypt. In 1979, Iranians were successful in overthrowing a dictator. However, the complete destruction of the previous government’s institutions and allowing the movement to be dominated by clerical elements created a situation today where Iranians of all backgrounds lack significant social and political freedoms. In 2009, Iranians attempted to rise up to challenge the direction in which the hardliners were taking the country. However, the lack of unity in and failure to clearly articulate demands resulted in the movement succumbing to brutal crackdown after brutal crackdown and the protesters were unsuccessful. Egypt has the chance to avoid a takeover by radicals of any persuasion. They have the chance to be successful where the Iranians were to date unable. The Egyptians’ success to date is already an inspiration to the world. If the Egyptian movement is able to successfully gain the ouster of Mubarak and transition to a system of government that better reflects the wishes of the Egyptian people, it could be powerful enough to lead to a re-invigoration of pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East.

A Tangle in the Loom: WikiLeaks and Iran

The recent thread of WikiLeaks sheds light on a foreign policy problem of nuclear proportions.

In the past week, thousands of important documents and information have been leaked from various U.S. government agencies on WikiLeaks. The leaks are controversial, not only for their sheer number, but for release of cables and conversations between U.S. and very high-ranking officials from other countries. The leaks even prompted Barack Obama to enact new sanctions on Iran today. These sanctions blacklist 10 Iranian businesses connected to the Islamic Republic’s national bank and shipping lines, as well as five executives of these businesses.

On Monday, November 29, 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the leaked documents as “American psychological warfare that would not affect his country’s relations with other nations.” While Ahmadinejad and his administration might be crediting the U.S. bureaucracy with a bit too undeserved organizational skills by calling the leaks “organized to be released on a regular basis,” the leaked documents definitely confirm prevalent theories about the relations between Iran and its Arab gulf state neighbors and its aspirations for regional hegemony.

It is well-known that Saudi Arabia and Iran are vying for regional hegemony, with Iran’s relative conventional military power and sphere of influence giving it a strong edge over the Saudi kingdom. Not only does this allow Iran to influence the trajectories of Iraq and Afghanistan, thus extending its regional influence, its status as a regional hegemon tips the regional balance of power away from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that have alliances with the United States. Feeling threatened by such expanding Iranian influence even in the face of decades of sanctions, it is hardly surprising that the Saudi regime harbors strong animosity for the Khamenei’s. However, it was previously unknown that the Saudi-Iranian enmity went so far that Saudi Arabian King Abdullah repeatedly begged the United States to “‘cut off the head of the snake’ by launching military strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” one of the final pieces of Iranian policy that would enable it to secure the role of an undisputed regional hegemonic power. In order to curb Iranian influence, the United States announced in October of 2010 that it will sell $60 billion worth of military aircraft to the Saudi regime.

Saudi Arabia is not the only gulf state feeling pressure to eliminate Iranian challenges to the current balance of power. King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain argued in favor of forceful action by any means necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. Bahrain, a tiny kingdom on the Persian Gulf that is home to the American Fifth Fleet’s naval base, has been feeling Iranian pressure and influence for years. In July of 2007, Iranian advisor to Khamenei Hossein Shariatmadari stated that “The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran.” An unnamed senior Omani military official (Oman being the country that helped secure the release of American Sarah Shourd from Evin Prison), is cited in a correspondence as unable to decide which would be worse – “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.” In a December 2005 meeting with American military commanders, United Arab Emirates defense chief and crown prince Mohammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi lobbied for American military action against Iran either “this year or the next.” Bin Zayed also expressed fears of a nuclear Iranian state, declaring that “any culture that is patient and focused enough to spend years working on a single carpet is capable of waiting years and even decades to achieve even greater goals.”

While Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, on MSNBC Live is not the best interviewer, the answers provided by Doctors Juan Cole and Trita Parsi in this brief interview are very informative and discuss the fears of changing regional balances of power.

Meanwhile, tensions in the region build as Israeli public opinion and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu perceive a growing, intolerable Iranian nuclear threat. Ehud Barak and prominent members of the Israeli intelligence community argue that Iran is not an existential threat nor is Israel the primary target of Iranian ambitions. Even Syrian president Bashar al-Assad argues that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon against Israel, stating that “an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would result in massive Palestinian casualties, which Iran would never risk.” However, Iranian weapons purchases from North Korea does little to convince the public and Israeli politicians writ large of this understanding. Netanyahu views the WikiLeaks as something positive for Israel, confirming his suspicions about Iranian nuclear ambitions and showing the extent to which Israel and Arab states share a strong mutual interest in preventing Iranian hegemonic aspirations.

Tensions continue to escalate between these states and power blocs in the Middle East. Yesterday, two prominent Iranian nuclear scientists, both professors at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University, were attacked in different parts of Tehran. Assailents on motorcycles managed to attach and detonate magnetized car bombs to the cars of scientists Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, the former killed and the latter injured with his wife. Shahriari was involved in a major project with Iran’s nuclear agency, and Abbasi is a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and listed as one of several involved in secret nuclear activity in a 2007 U.N. resolution. Abbasi was formerly an expert for Iran’s Defense Ministry and a top specialist in nuclear isotope separation. The Iranian regime currently blames Israel and the United States for orchestrating these attacks. Intelligence analysts blame Mossad for the 2007 death of top Esfahan uranium plant scientist Ardeshire Hassanpour. In January of 2010, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was also killed, but it is unclear whether his death was related to his support of Mir Hossien Mousavi or an Israeli/American operation; he also died in a car bombing similar to that of Shahriari.

The WikiLeaks available thus far clearly confirm the fears of Arab gulf states and seem to perpetuate Israeli public opinion and Netanyahu’s threat perceptions of Iran. In moving forward from the latest sanctions on Iran, the United States must decide how to manage these states’ interests to balance with its own in the Middle East and avoid yet another military conflict that would have, in Barak’s words, “unacceptable collateral damage,” on all sides.

America's Epidemic

President Obama has canceled his trip to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which was supposed to be one of the stops on his up-coming trip to India. Apparently, the administration canceled this portion of the visit out of domestic political concerns that Americans would see images of President Obama in the traditional Sikh head-covering necessary to enter the temple and interpret this to mean that he is a “secret” Muslim. Aside from the fact that Sikhism and Islam are two completely different religions with completely different histories, cultures, etc., the cancellation and concern of the ignorant reaction of the American people point directly to the ridiculous bigotry of the American public towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim.

First of all, this is the Golden Temple. It’s insanely beautiful, and it's an important piece of India. If you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to go there, how could you ever pass it up?!?

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a president, on a state visit to another country, participating in and experiencing important elements of the cultures of that country. It is crucial for building stronger relations and developing understanding between the two countries. India is an extremely diverse country and having the opportunity to learn about the cultures and hopefully educating the American public through exposure, all while continuing to foster stronger positive relations, is amazing – definitely not an opportunity to be squandered. And again, the Golden Temple is beautiful.

That the White House has to be worried that 1) most Americans apparently don’t know what Sikhism is, and 2) the American public is so unreasonably fearful of Islam or things that “look Islamic” are absolutely ridiculous. Today, Juan Williams was fired from National Public Radio for his comments on The O’Reilly Factor, espousing his fear of Muslims (thank you, NPR!). What was even more concerning than his comments were the comments of readers, posted below the story, that felt that he was correct in his statements and that the statements made were not bigoted or hateful. It seems that the best way to combat such pervasive ignorance, fear, and hatred is through exposure to improve cross-cultural understanding. Who better to lead such an initiative than the President of the United States?

The fact that a substantial proportion of Americans believe that Obama is a “secret Muslim” is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s comments regarding the freedom of religion in the United States when he was campaigning in 1960. President Kennedy stated that there are far more critical issues facing the country and that “they are not religious issues, for war, hunger, ignorance, and despair know no religious barrier.” Obama has emphatically and publicly stated that he is a Christian, but honestly, it should not matter at all, nor is it any business of the American people. In the words of President Kennedy:

...It has become necessary for me to state once again, not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…and where no man is denied political office because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…today I may be the victim, but tomorrow, it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart...

The American public is infected with an epidemic of fear, arising from ignorance and the lack of interest in at least attempting to understand different cultures and religions. For those Americans who cannot appreciate the freedom of religion and are seemingly incapable of tolerance, what is it about this country that you just don’t get?

Hate Where Everyone Can See It

Recently, a billboard in Grand Junction, Colorado, became noticed by a larger audience. The billboard features offensive caricatures of Barack Obama and encourages its viewer to vote “DemocRAT.” David Williams of Real Aspen describes the billboard:

…The billboard depicts “President Barack Obama as a terrorist, a gangster, a Mexican bandit and a gay man. The four ‘Obamas’ [are] sitting around a table with playing cards showing only sixes bunched in groups of three.

“Also on the table is a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a liberty bell, a toy soldier and a statue of Justice holding a balance.

“Beneath the Obama caricatures are numerous rats, some of which are labeled as the IRS, trial lawyers, the EPA and the Fed. Sitting above all that is a line, ‘Vote DemocRAT. Join the game,’ which is positioned between two vultures, one of which is labeled the U.N. and the other with the name Soros, a reference to George Soros, a major national Democratic financial supporter.”

It is clear from the illustrated scene that the billboard is a racist and homophobic commentary on Barack Obama, personally, and his administration’s leadership. While I am not questioning the rights of the artist or the unnamed group that paid him to display these hateful images, but rather the dangerous attitude that allows for this type of representation and bigotry towards many different groups. While criticizing a leader is perfectly acceptable, the criticism should be directed towards things other than the leader’s race, religion, or sexual orientation. Criticism of policies is very different than a racist and hateful caricature and the latter should not be accepted as a legitimate piece of discussion about the first.

Ground Zero Mosque

Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," actually an Islamic community center located not on Ground Zero itself, but two blocks away. Newsweek magazine summarizes the background of the project in its August 8th, 2010 feature article by Lisa Miller, with an excerpt below:

Locally, the fight over the mosque has been more than ugly. Its founders—a well-known interfaith activist and spiritual leader named Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf; his wife, Daisy Khan; and a downtown Manhattan real-estate developer named Sharif El-Gamal—originally called their project Cordoba House, after the medieval town in Spain where a Muslim caliphate fostered one of the most vibrant periods of interfaith flourishing in history. But critics seized on the name as a signal that Rauf and the others had Islamic hegemony in mind, and the founders changed the name to the generic Park51 (based on the site’s street address)...

Park51 was born several years ago, the vision of Rauf, Khan, and El-Gamal. In 1997 Rauf and Khan founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization devoted to interfaith work and promoting the cause of moderate Islam. In addition, Rauf had been the imam, or pastor, of a mosque in Tribeca, just 10 blocks north of the new, controversial site, for nearly 30 years. El-Gamal had his office nearby and prayed there frequently. The mosque, which still exists today, is a tiny storefront wedged between a bar and a French bistro. On Friday afternoons—which for Muslims is like Sunday morning—congregants overflow onto the sidewalk.

Frustrated by the cramped quarters, El-Gamal, an American born to a Polish mother and an Egyptian father, was inspired to improve facilities for Muslims downtown—and, after 9/11, to show his friends and neighbors “a new face of Islam, the voice that is not heard.” He bought the building at 45–51 Park Place two years ago for $5 million, and together with Khan and Feisal sketched out a plan. They would demolish the existing building and put in its place a deluxe, multipurpose center big enough to house a swimming pool, a gym, exhibition space, conference rooms, day care, a senior center, and a 500-seat auditorium. It would accommodate all the downtown workers—lawyers and laborers—who wanted to pray on Fridays; it would have an interfaith board and interfaith programming; and it would present to the world a moderate, peace-loving, diverse, ordinary Islam. As of last week, El-Gamal says, they had gotten all the necessary city approvals to begin construction on Park51, though lawsuits are still pending. The budget for the proposed construction is $100 million, which Khan says they hope to raise mostly through a bond offering.

The site is huge, nearly 100,000 square feet. Standing in front of the building, you cannot see Ground Zero; tall buildings entirely block the view. Khan says they chose it because it was big enough and it had the right zoning. Moreover, it was symbolically advantageous. “We want to provide a counter momentum against extremism,” says Khan, who spoke to me in her office. (Her husband was out of town.) “We want peace, and we want it where it matters most. This is where it matters most.”

However, responses to the project have been severe. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert weigh in on some of these reactions below:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 16 August 2010:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Colbert Report, 16 August 2010:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Growing Intelligence Community - Richard Clarke
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Finally, President Barack Obama stepped up and directly addressed the issue, stating his emphatic support of religious freedom and tolerance for all beliefs.


To borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Obama nailed it. If there is anything that the United States should have learned in the past decade, it is that straying from the fundamental principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent abuse of these principles has caused more harm than good to American interests. If the United States really wants to improve relations in the Muslim world, demonstrating tolerance of Islam and all religious beliefs has to start at home. Furthermore, the problems in any faith lie at the extremes. It would behoove the American public to recognize this and work to support and encourage moderates who are interested in interfaith work in order to diminish the influence that these extremists can have on a population.

Tolerating this (and other) Islamic Center(s) is not something "extra" that Americans have to do - it is part of what comes with living in a country that draws strength from its diversity, even if the American people need occasional reminders of this. In the words of the late American author Kurt Vonnegut Jr., "The purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved," (Sirens of Titan).

Fo-Po Breakdown: Iran, USA, and a tad bit of Turkey

I am aware that this is sort of old news. However, since I have been busy lately and this is still an important on-going problem, I will write my blog post about it anyway. This began as a reaction to an op-ed in the New York Times, by Princeton doctoral candidate Elliot Hen-Tov and Princeton professor of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Haykel. With the recent tightening of the newest sanctions on Iran this past Thursday, July 1, 2010, it is important to revisit this issue.

First, back to the op-ed from last month. In order to make any real headway on US-Iran relations, it is absolutely essential that each side really understand the other. For prominent scholars of prestigious universities, this also holds true. Which is why this article must be revisited – the Princeton people have it wrong. Their main assertion is that “Iran… stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America.” While parts of this statement are correct, the article represents a flawed understanding of Iranian politics and its relationship to the United States. Principally, it does not really matter for the United States (or Israel for that matter) what type of fiery rhetoric Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses – it is generally not directed at American or Israeli audiences anyway. The poll quoted by the authors, although irrelevant to their article, proves this point. The two major regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, whose regime is a strong US ally, and Iran, whose regime clearly is not. When Ahmadinejad makes his statements in “support” of the Palestinian cause, he also does so bearing in mind that this can also play on Saudi Arabia’s weaknesses. Iran can claim to be the true supporter of Muslims in peril (despite a substantial number of Palestinians being of Christian or other backgrounds) while simultaneously making the Saudi regime appear weak to its people by alluding to its close relationship to the USA. In this manner, the Iranian regime hopes to remain dominant in the region over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.

Ahmadi-casual-Friday-nejad is not some “irrational, rouge leader” as realist IR theory would have us believe. The Iranian government’s support of Israel is mostly a domestic campaign to give the regime the appearance of standing up to the hegemonic rule of the United States and then Israel. Given the vastly superior military forces of both the USA and Israel, Iran would not risk attacking Israel. So, while these authors note that Turkey is seen by Palestinians as a much closer ally than Iran, it is crucial to understand that Iran’s political exploitation of this crisis is mostly for the purpose of bolstering domestic support for the regime and is targeted to domestic and Saudi, not international, audiences.

Secondly, I take issue with the Islam in Turkey being called “more liberal and enlightened.” Again, this is a fundamental mis-characterization of reality. While Saudi Arabia and Iran might be self-proclaimed Islamic states and Turkey a self-proclaimed secular state, the notion that any one regime is any more or less liberal/enlightened than the other is absurd when further examining their actual policies. In Iran, women are obligated to wear hijab at all times; in Turkey, there are laws making it illegal to wear the veil in some public places. Forcing people to appear secular is no better than forcing people to appear pious – these are merely two extreme ends of the spectrum. In a liberal Islam, it would seem that one would have the ability to choose without being compelled towards either end of such a spectrum. Furthermore, the fiercely secular and authoritarian policies enacted by the Turkish government can be just as bad as the authoritarian policies of Iran.

Returning to the sanctions and Turkey’s vote (along with Brasil), it is not really that much “against the United States” for Turkey to vote against the sanctions. The United States, while allies with Turkey, is far stronger allies with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, with the United States’ help, has stronger military and economic ties to the USA, and it is closer to the other Arab states in the Middle East than Turkey is. With Turkey looking to gain membership to the European Union, it is smart to keep its options open for markets in the Middle East for the EU, but if push came to shove for the United States, I would bet that it would retain Saudi Arabia as its ally over Turkey. Anyway, Iran and Saudi Arabia are focused on each other and Turkey is focused on the EU, so it really does not matter for Iran what Turkey says – although its vote was nice anyway.

As stated in the BBC article, the sanctions imposed in June were not very substantial. This would suggest that the Obama administration is just reacting initially to [uneducated] domestic pressures in Congress to appear to be doing something about the Iranian nuclear program. While it is good that these sanctions were not substantial, it is also extremely damaging to any potential for improving diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, only serving to prove Ahmadinejad correct when he claims that the United States is really not interested in changing the status quo. Bolstering domestic support for the current Iranian regime is the last thing that the United States should be doing.

In a more recent development, Nom Chomsky acknowledges that Iran poses a serious threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, despite citing sources earlier on in the article that discuss Iran’s relatively weak military capabilities; he just proposes different solutions instead of the United States “reinforcing [its] control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions.” However, with Iran, this is not a valid argument either. Georgetown scholar Mehran Kamrava and University of Colorado professor Nader Hashemi are both of the opinion that Iran does not want to actually acquire a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to obtain the technology and actually produce a nuclear weapon, this would push Iran into a whole new realm of military prowess in which it would find itself on the bottom, easily bested several times over by the United States, Israel, etc. In other words, Iran can be a relatively strong conventional military power in the region, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia’s military on its own (aka minus USA support), but it would lose this advantage if it entered the nuclear arena and would find itself in a situation it cannot win. Thus, even the idea that Iran’s nuclear program to gain such knowledge is the most serious threat is absurd. The best solution would be to focus on finding common ground and interests within the Middle East between Iran and the United States (two really good examples here are Afghanistan and Iraq… hint, hint State Department) and go from here to rebuild diplomatic ties.

Speaking of best solutions, July 1^st was not one of these. The New York Times reports that President Obama signed a law in one of the few moments of consensus in Congress during his administration that “imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” As stated several times before, the solution is to OPEN not close relations with Iran. This means diplomatically and economically. As Ahmadi-I-say-crazy-things-that-people-should-not-listen-to-nejad stated on June 28 that he would like to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States in August, giving the United States yet another opportunity to resume meaningful dialogue, the Obama administration missed it again and chose to respond to domestic pressures. This is where the State Department people need to step in and fix it.

Caving into absurd, ill-informed domestic pressures from a Congress that cannot even agree if sick people should get help to be less sick is certain to make the problem worse, not better. The Obama administration needs to focus on its priorities, improve its image in the Muslim world and the Middle East by closing Guantanamo and playing a meaningful role in improving the situation between Israel and Palestinian territories, and respecting the sovereignty of Iran and its government despite the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections. It is certainly not an easy task and will take time to produce the change promised by the Obama campaign, but it will be easier to accomplish with greater understanding of the nuances of regional politics in the Middle East and when the United States takes an active stance by following through on some good faith measures and working with Iran as a regional power in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Iran have a lot to gain from improving relations with one another and since the United States remains the global hegemonic power in this system of uni-multipolarity, it must responsibly take the first steps to initiate this process.

White House Correspondents Dinner

If this whole Leader of the Free World thing doesn't work out, Obama could always host a talk show. Although, since he's funnier than Leno, it might have to be on TBS.

The View from Section 6

As J-Mad wrote yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at the University of Michigan's spring commencement. The speech was characteristically level-headed and reasonable. Obama acknowledged that he and his opponents have legitimate disagreements, while simultaneously asserting and rationalizing that some went too far. Obama also deftly gave a political speech that was still relevant to the graduates.

(Sorry, Bryan Flory, but the overarching theme of the speech was how to maintain our republic, which is relevant to every American and seems appropriate for a commencement. I will agree, however, that Governor Granholm's speech, which was basically "Thank you, Mr. President, for (fill in the blank)" x 10, was almost completely irrelevant to the graduates. The only part that was relevant was when she said, "Thank you for coming here instead of that school to the south.")

There were two points of Obama's speech that I especially liked. First, he rejected the false dichotomy between complete liberty and total tyranny. He pointed out the aspects of government that everyone, especially the limited-government zealots, takes for granted: public high schools and universities, roads and highways, police and firefighters, safety standards, etc. And he articulated his view of the role government should play: "Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who’s willing to work hard."

Secondly, Obama advised the graduates on what they--and all of us--should do to maintain our republic: Don't vilify others simply because you disagree with them. Expose yourself to a diverse group of people and a diverse group of opinions. (Both of which I will attempt to do on this blog and in my personal life.)

Marine One leaves Ann Arbor.

With Barack Obama, the University of Michigan has set a high bar for commencement speakers that frankly cannot be surpassed. But on behalf of the Class of 2011, may I say, "Jon Stewart, please!"

Barack in the Big House

Today, President Barack Obama entered the Big House, packed to the brim, to send the 2010 graduating class of the University of Michigan off into the world. After being presented with an honorary doctorate of laws degree, he delivered a commencement address focusing on the need for each graduate to be a good citizen, treating others with respect and civility, while continuing to constantly broaden his or her horizons in order to guarantee the health of the United States for future generations. The pragmatic address had many words of wisdom for the graduating class, as well as their peers, friends, and families in the stands, for the future. The speech was decidedly non-partisan and employed a common Obama theme of unity while embracing diversity. Below, please find the video of the commencement address and some highlighted passages. For the full text, please click here.



Highlights:

"On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -– a republic or a monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: He said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” If you can keep it. Well, for more than 200 years, we have kept it... Through periods of great social and economic unrest... it has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union. And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant; how will you keep it well in this century?"

"There are some things we can only do together, as one nation -– and that our government must keep pace with the times... this notion...hasn’t always been partisan."

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, 'Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare' -- which is essentially saying 'Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan.'"

"When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

"So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need 'big government' or a 'small government,' but how we can create a smarter and better government."

"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate...we can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down...The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning..."

"For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain. What is certain -– what has always been certain -– is the ability to shape that destiny."

A Dangerous Precedent

There's a Facebook group called "DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN." It has over a million members.

Now, there is a slight difference between wishing Obama would die and wishing somebody would kill him. But with over a million members, I'm willing to bet at least one of them has made that leap.

This should be self-evidently dangerous. Democracy cannot flourish when people demand the deaths of everyone with whom they disagree. One of the reasons that the Weimar Republic failed is that communist and liberal leaders like Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Walter Rathenau were assassinated with at least the tacit support of respected conservatives.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with Barack Obama. You can contest him through legitimate means like protests, petitions, lawsuits, elections, and so on. You have the right to free speech, but wishing someone dead is something that should be reserved for the bin Ladens of the world.

Nothing for Something

Earlier this month, President Obama announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic and Arctic seaboards for offshore drilling. Most view it as a means to get Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate on board for a climate-change bill. But given that the Republican-bloc strategy is to oppose everything that Obama and the Democrats propose, this move raises fears that--in the words of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)--that Obama is "giving up something for nothing."

But perhaps Obama is being craftier that Menendez lets on. The move may convince a few moderate senators to vote for a climate bill. Or it may make it easier to paint Republicans as unthinking, obstinate reactionaries who care more about scoring political points than making good-faith attempts to improve the country. This should give Democrats a useful political argument for the 2010 mid-terms, also theoretically making it easier to pass a climate bill.

Now here's the kicker: Most of the land offshore won't be open for drilling until 2012. Who knows what the economics of energy will be like then, especially if a bill passes in 2010/2011? It may not be worth the cost to energy companies to explore and drill offshore, in which case Obama would be getting something for nothing.

But these are high stakes, and the fact remains that we can't drill our way out of global warming. We can't even drill our way to energy independence. The only solution is to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and even nuclear energy. So let's make sure that in the course of his political gamesmanship, Obama does not lose sight of that.

Don't Let's START

On April 8, President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague. The treaty would limit each country to 1,550 nuclear warheads, a 30% reduction from the Moscow Treaty (aka SORT).

Of course, because Barack Obama supports it, the Republicans oppose it in true knee-jerk fashion. Never mind that any substance-based opposition is not based on fact. Never mind that arms control has a long history of bipartisan support, with the Senate ratifying the Moscow Treaty 95-0. Never mind that 1,550 warheads is more than a sufficient nuclear deterrent. Never mind that reducing the number of nuclear weapons will make the U.S. safer by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism.

No, Republicans would rather oppose ratifying the treaty, which needs 67 votes in the Senate, just so they can make Obama look bad. But haven't we come to expect this kind of petty recklessness from the GOP?

The Moderation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Some positive signs seem to have been coming from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the past month or so. First, on April 15, he announced that his administration was preparing a new proposal for talks with the West over Iran's nuclear program. Next, when Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi was sentenced to eight years in prison on trumped-up charges of espionage, Ahmadinejad urged on April 19 "that the accused...enjoy all freedoms and legal rights to defend themselves and their rights...not be violated." Saberi was released on May 11.

Granted, I don't think that the nuclear proposal was ever completed. And Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel at a UN racism conference caused diplomats from 23 countries to walk out on him. However, his comments seem tamer than normal: Israel is a "cruel and repressive racist regime" as opposed to Israel must be "wiped off the map." He's like a smoker who's gone from two packs a day to a few cigarettes a day; he's not quite there, but he's progressing.

So why are we now seeing the softer side of Ahmadinejad? A combination, I think, of Barack Obama's willingness to engage the Iranians and their upcoming elections. Obama is popular in Iran (so popular that Ahmadinejad is willing to steal Obama's slogan), and Obama's popularity is making it difficult to maintain the hard-line, "death to America" position. Ahmadinejad is adopting a more moderate tack in an attempt to dispel the "view...that [he] was right for Bush, but not right for Obama."

Even if Ahmadinejad is re-elected, it seems that the next president of Iran will be more moderate. This is how foreign relations should be done. And just think how much better off we'd be now if it was done sooner.

TORTURE! Part 1: What Was Done

On April 16, the Obama Administration released the memos authored by Bush's Office of Legal Counsel that provided the legal rationale for torture.

Though this comparison seems a little over the top, the 2002 memo from Jay Bybee authorized "attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding."

Some in the CIA felt betrayed, "broken and bewildered" by the release of the memos. President Obama tried to allay these fears in his statement on the memos' release, saying:

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution...We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Not one, not two, but three scientists cited in the memos objected to their work's inclusion. The scientists researched the effects of sleep deprivation, and their conclusions were used to support using sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. But those who participated in their studies were (a) not deprived of sleep for as long as prisoners were (40 vs. 180 hours), (b) were in perfect health, and (c) were not simultaneously subjected to anything else.

The Bybee memo predicted that walling and cramped confinement would not constitute "serious physical injury." Compare to the Red Cross report:

Abu Zubaida's [often romanized as 'Zubaydah'] attorneys said he "has suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."...

"The stress on my legs held in this position [crouched in a confined wooden box] meant my wounds both in my leg and stomach became very painful," he told the ICRC.

The "learned helplessness" that psychologist James E. Mitchell believed was integral to a successful interrogation (even though he had never personally conducted one) leads to depression. ("You put an animal, human or non-human, in a situation in which bad things happen that it can neither escape nor control, and eventually it just gives up.") Furthermore:

Most of the released detainees, to this day, live with severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, including intrusive recollections of trauma suffered in detention, hyperarousal (persistent symptoms of increased arousal, e.g., difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance), avoidance and emotional numbing behavior. PHR’s clinicians determined that these symptoms were directly related to the torture and ill-treatment reported having taken place while in US custody.

Sounds like "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and "prolonged mental harm" (which constitute torture under US law) to me. So it's illegal, but was it, at least, effective?

Dick Cheney thinks so, and, bastion of openness that he is, thinks we should declassify "the memos that showed the success of the effort" so we could have an "honest debate."

However, it seems clear from items already in the public domain that torture techniques are ineffective and unnecessary. These techniques had, after all, solicited false statements when they were used on Americans in the Korean War.

A footnote in the 2005 Bradbury memo notes that:

The CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information. . . . On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.

Those who believe that information was acquired from torturing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and used to foil a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles are completely wrong. The plot was foiled a full year before Sheikh Mohammed was even captured. (h/t)

And a former FBI agent (h/t) who interrogated Abu Zubaydah argues that:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions.

But effectiveness is ultimately irrelevant:

If “effectiveness” is all we care about, any form of torture would necessarily be ok. One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.

But if they do concede that certain methods go too far (i.e., that such things are relevant), then they’re stuck having to argue that the methods we used simply
aren’t that bad. In other words, if they concede a line exists, then they’re forced to argue that these methods don’t cross it.

Sundry items of note:

• The memos were only lightly redacted, in contrast with documents released by the Bush administration, which were so heavily redacted that the Onion joked that the CIA had been accidentally using black highlighters.
• Glenn Greenwald: "Finally, it should be emphasized -- yet again -- that it was not our Congress, nor our media, nor our courts that compelled disclosure of these memos. Instead, it was the ACLU's tenacious efforts over several years which single-handedly pried these memos from the clutched hands of the government." (h/t)
• Andrew Sullivan: "If you want to know how democracies die, read these memos." (h/t)

Politics: You're Doing It Wrong

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't understand either politically or intellectually why prominent politicians and intellectuals are saying and behaving as they are. First,

President Obama

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Optimist Prime

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Let me explain. I think what Obama said he would do is both good and extremely important. But trying to achieve everything he said he would--fix the economy, improve health care, ameliorate the education system, slow climate change, stabilize Afghanistan, and so on--is incredibly ambitious. And promising accomplishments in all of these fields is politically dangerous. Despite the difficulties, a failure (and I will be pleasantly surprised if he succeeds on all fronts) could be held against him and could cause his being voted out of office in 2012.

Obama must walk a fine line between hope and realism, and it just seems that his non-State of the Union address fell too far away from the realistic side.

Republicans

Lately, Republicans' and conservatives' statements have seemed incredibly vacuous. Take, for example, this editorial by Charles Krauthammer about Obama's non-SOTU. You would think, it being an opinion piece, that Krauthammer would explain what he thinks and why he thinks it. Not so. He merely describes Obama's plans in a negative fashion:

Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take.

Let the debate begin.

"Let the debate begin." That's funny. One would think that Krauthammer would want to take part in that debate, but evidently not. 'Because it makes us look like Belgium' is not a good reason to oppose universal health care, limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, and providing college educations.

And claims that Obama is a socialist because he's raising taxes to Clinton-era levels are ridiculous. Ditto on claims of class warfare. No, what we've had, where "each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners," was class warfare.

The sad thing is that there are legitimate arguments to be made. But Republicans seem to be unable to make them. You cannot say that we should not do everything Obama wants because you're concerned about the national debt: you presided over its near doubling over the past five years. And you need to provide an alternative plan. Besides tax cuts. Because they obviously have not worked.

Lewis Black used to joke that the Republican Party was the party of bad ideas and the Democrats were the party of no ideas. For now, at least, the tables seem to have turned.