The Diplomatic Times Review

October 28, 2005

Speculation on Possible Libby, Rove Indictments

Today U.S. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may make an announcement that could confirm or discredit media speculation that I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, American Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, will be indicted for making false statements to the Federal Grand Jury investigating the Bush Administration's leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame name to journalists such as syndicated columnist Robert Novak, Judy Miller of the New York Times' and Matt Cooper of Time.

The goal was to discredit Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson, for daring to publicly criticize in the pages of the New York Times President George W. Bush's bogus claim that Iraq sought to buy Uranium Yellowcake from Niger, for use in weapons of mass destruction.

According to The New York Times, it's sources don't expect presidential adviser Karl Rove to be indicted today, however, he would "remain under suspicion as Fitzgerald extends the grand jury."

Even if Rove is not indicted, he's damaged goods and will forever be viewed in some quarters as someone willing to sacrifice an American agent for political purposes. While President Bush may want to keep his "brain" around to bail him out of politically sticky situations, the honorable thing for Rove to do is resign whether he is indicted or not.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:28 AM | Comments (0)

October 17, 2005

If Fitzgerald Issues Indictments in the CIA Leak Investigation

Stephen F. Hayes notes in the October 24, 2005 edition of The Weekly Standard that:

FOR TWO YEARS, THE political class in Washington has followed with intense interest the story of Joseph Wilson and the events that led to the compromising of his wife's identity and undercover status as a CIA operative. The rest of the country seems to have responded with a collective yawn. That will soon change if special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issues indictments of senior White House aides in his investigation of the alleged leaking of Mrs. Wilson's name.

There is a reason that Karl Rove, President Bush's Brain, and Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, are worried. Fitzgerald is noted for securing indictments.

In fact, Rove has made four appearances before the Grand Jury. The last was a four-hour appearance on October 14, 2005. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:43 AM | Comments (0)

October 16, 2005

What Has Passed in Iraq, and What Does it Mean?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a guest editorial by Andrew Arato, Dorothy Hart Hirshon Professor of Political and Social Theory at the New School for Social Research, on the Iraqi constitution referendum. According to Arato:

We can now assume that in Saturday's referendum the 2/3 negative votes will not be attained in a third, Sunni majority province, and that the Constitutional Proposal submitted to the Iraqi people has passed. It is now going to be Iraq's Constitution, with international recognition. But what has passed, and what does it mean?

Here's Arato's attempt to answer the question.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2005

Is the Purported al-Zawahiri Letter to al-Zarqawi a Forgery?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment tells in an October 14, 2005 post why "The Arabic text of the recently released letter alleged to be by Zawahiri (al-Qaeda's number two man) to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq raises questions for me as to its authenticity."

Read his explanation here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:22 AM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2005

As'ad: 'Arab Officials Don't Commit Suicide...'

Professor As'ad AbuKhalil over at The Angry Arab News Service said in an October 12, 2005 post that, "Arab officials don't commit suicide (although they are on occasion made to commit suicide)." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:30 AM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2005

What if George Weah Win's Liberia's Presidential Election

Back on September 25, 2005, Kevin Mitchell of The Observer of London wrote: "The chances are that the citizens of Liberia, the west African hellhole riven by civil war and hopelessness, will soon entrust their immediate future to a retired footballer who has a wooden throne in his office and is happy to be called King George." He added:

George Weah grew up in a hut on a reclaimed swamp on Bushrod Island in the capital, Monrovia. He was raised by his grandmother before leaving to score spectacular goals for some of Europe's most glamorous clubs and amass a considerable fortune. Ten years ago, he was hailed as the finest player in the world. Now he is returning from his home in Florida and, on 11 October, will be one of 22 presidential candidates in his country's first free elections after 14 years of tribal fighting that have claimed at least 250,000 lives.

Weah has no political experience and is mocked by his rivals as naive and minimally educated. He resents the slur and goes to great lengths to impress journalists with his grandiloquence. Yet the people love him. That a country deprived of food and freedom for so long should turn to a footballer to save them says much about the desperation of the people, 85 per cent of whom have no work.A Liberian friend of mine is incensed that Mr. Weah could emerge as Liberia's next president. I wonder what he and others will do if Mr. Weah wins in what is essentially a democratic election.

For The Observer's article on Mr. Weah, please see :"A great goal." Also see James Seitua's"From Disqualified Football Candidate to Commander-In-Chief: Will Liberians Clap For This, Too?"

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:37 AM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2005

The Devolution of Iraq

"Many commentators are writing about the process involved in the present Iraq draft constitution being one of "federalizing democratization" or "democratizing federalism"," notes Helena Cobban in an October 11, 2005 post at Just World News. "It is no such thing," the contributing editor of Boston Review said, adding:

To federate means "to come together for joint action". It is what happens when functioning, pre-existing states come together in a strong way, pooling many aspects of their sovereignty into a broader, federated union... Like the 13 US states, in 1787, after they found that their previous "articles of confederation" were too weak. Or the "United Arab Emirates": 7 small existing states that came together in the early 1970s to pool their respective capabilities.

What the present draft constitution proposes for Iraq is the exact opposite. It is the breakup of many key attributes of Iraqi sovereignty and their division among a still unknown number of smaller, new sub-entities. It is incorrect to call this process "federation"; it is more rightly called devolution.Ms. Cobban said, "What the present draft constitution proposes for Iraq is a breakup very similar to what happened with the breakup of Bosnia into ethnically distinct sub-entities, or the partition of India into India and Pakistan, or the still-continuing breakup of the previous "Soviet Russian Federation", including in Chechnya." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:27 PM | Comments (0)

River Bend's 'Constitution Conversations'

River Bend at Baghdad Burning opined in an October 3, 2005 post that:

What is more disturbing is the fact that most of the people who do want to vote, will vote for or against the constitution based not on personal convictions, but on the fatwas and urgings of both Sunni and Shia clerics. The Association of Muslim Scholars is encouraging people to vote against it, and SCIRI and Daawa are declaring a vote for the constitution every Muslims duty. Its hardly shocking that Sistani is now approving it and encouraging his followers to vote for it. (If I were an Iranian cleric living in south Iraq, Id vote for it too!)It is utterly frustrating to talk to someone about the referendum- whether they are Sunni or Shia or Kurd- and know that even before they've read the constitution properly, they've decided what they are going to vote.Women's rights aren't a primary concern for anyone, anymore. People actually laugh when someone brings up the topic. Lets keep Iraq united first... is often the response when I comment about the prospect of Iranian-style Sharia.

River Bend said, "Rights and freedoms have become minor concerns compared to the possibility of civil war, the reality of ethnic displacement and cleansing, and the daily certainty of bloodshed and death."

Her analysis of people's attitudes towards the constitution is quite informative. I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:13 PM | Comments (0)

Kathimerini Looks at 'Political Ethos, Made in Germany

The Athens, Greece-based newspaper Kathimerini said October 11, 2005 that, "Formal negotiations on Germany's grand coalition government between Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, who won a tissue-thin victory at the September 18 elections, and the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will continue into next week. That was to be expected as the makeup of the future Cabinet, a relatively small group featuring politicians with different ideological backgrounds, is not some minor, procedural detail."

"Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations," Kathimerini told readers, "Germany's two mainstream political parties have already displayed a strong degree of political responsibility. Their attempt to join hands in order to push the necessary reforms to revitalize the faltering German economy demonstrates that they have put the public good above narrow partisan interest."

For more, please see "Political ethos, made in Germany."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:49 AM | Comments (0)

October 07, 2005

Trying to Coverup Bad Policy in Iraq

During an October 6, 2005 White House Press Briefing, press secretary Scott McClellan answered a number of questions including many on terrorism and the Bush Administration's ongoing effort to justify the war in Iraq. Here are excerpts:

Q: Scott, all this talk about a radical Islamic empire stretching from Europe across to southeast Asia, even some Republicans are saying that it has the appearance of the President trying to cover up bad policy in Iraq by unduly alarming people.

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard any Republicans say that. Do you have one in mind?

Q: A couple in mind, yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, do you want to share them with me?

Q: You can call them and ask them, but I'm just wondering what you think of that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I -- you made a statement. I haven't heard any Republican make such allegation. So I was just wondering where that came from.

Q Part of the eight. (Laughter.)

Q: What's your response to the allegation that you're trying to cover up bad policy in Iraq by unduly alarming people?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an allegation by John Roberts.

Q: Pardon me?

MR. McCLELLAN: Are you saying it's an allegation by John Roberts?

Q: It's not my allegation, no.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, go and look at what the President said in his remarks. Today's speech is one in a series of speeches that the President continues to make about the war on terrorism. It's important to understand the nature of the enemy that we face. This is a determined and lethal enemy with a clear strategy. The President outlined that strategy in his remarks. He quoted some of the leaders of this radical ideology that they seek to spread. And he laid out very clearly what their strategy is. I think you can go and look at some of the propaganda and comments that terrorists have made, and it clearly shows what their strategy and what their goals and what their beliefs are.

Q: Does he really think they could take over countries like Italy, Spain, Austria, France?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an enemy that is patient, it is determined, and it is lethal. It is a enemy that is determined to spread a hateful ideology. And what they first want to do is try to establish a safe haven. We took away a safe haven from them when we went into Afghanistan and liberated the people of Afghanistan. They want to establish a country that could be a safe haven from which they could plan and plot their attacks and be able to topple non-radical Muslim governments in the Middle East, and then carry out attacks against the civilized world. That's why the President made the decision after September 11th that we were going to take the fight to the enemy, that the way to defeat this enemy is to take the fight to them and to spread freedom and democracy to defeat their hateful, murderous ideology.

Q: But again, does he really believe that they could take over western countries like Spain and France?

McCLELLAN: That's what their strategy -- go back and look at what the President said in his remarks, because he clearly spelled out what their strategy is. I'm not sure that he characterized it the same way as you just did.

Q: Does he think that's realistic?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look at his remarks. They very much have a strategy --

Q: He warned of a radical Islamic empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- much like the strategy of communism to dominate and intimidate the world.

Q: Scott, what were the three targets of the attacks inside the United States that the President said were thwarted today?

MR. McCLELLAN: He cited a couple of specific examples of what he was talking about in his remarks. In terms of other examples, some of that information is still classified information, and if we can make more information available publicly, we will.

Q: But can you say whether it was infrastructure, or whether it was oil refineries, or what type of target?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just cited two examples of what he's referring to in his remarks that are publicly known, and if there's additional information we'll be glad to get that to you.

Q: Just one last thing on this. He said the United States and its partners on the 10 plots that were thwarted. What were the other countries involved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to talk about some classified information. Some of this information is publicly known. I cited two examples. I think there's probably some additional information that is already publicly known. We work very closely with partners around the world to dismantle terrorist networks and disrupt plots from happening in the first place. We stay in close contact with governments around the world that are committed to waging and winning this global war on terrorism. And some of that information -- we'll be glad to point out to you some more information that is public.

Q: Scott, more on the speech. First, on that issue, obviously, after the "16 words incident" sometime ago, we are more interested than usual in having -- seeing the footnotes that go with the speech. So just as a matter of maintaining credibility, it would be good if we could get at least outlines of the brief --

MR. McCLELLAN: I just pointed out some that are public, David, as a matter of record.

Q: Of those -- you pointed out two.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's unfortunate that you make such a comparison, so --

Q: Of the two that you pointed out, one was Padilla and the other was the New York bridge. Were you considering those to be two of the three incidents within the U.S. that he was referring to?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were incidents within the United States.

Q: Okay, so those count as two of the three. So there's only one left that you have not described that he was referring to when he said, "breaking up three incidents in the U.S."

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's very good deduction on your part.

Q: Making sure we all understand what it is that we've got. So you've got one incident that you're saying is remaining classified, you cannot describe, within the U.S.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. I said, those are two examples right off the top of my head of examples that it would be referring to in his remarks.
Now, in terms of the rest of the information, some of that information, for very important reasons, remains classified, because it goes to sources and methods and things of that nature as we continue to wage this war on terrorism. Now, we want to be able to provide you with as much as is available publicly, or that we can make available publicly, and we'll work to do that.

Q: If you could just check later, just to make sure that within the three that he described within the U.S., what you folks had in mind was that two of them were Padilla and the bridge case.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just indicated that those were two within the U.S. *

Q: Secondly, in references to Syria and Iran, you have talked before about Syria and expressed a lot of concern about their support. But in the Iranian case, if I understood the administration's position correctly, we had not before heard the President himself describe Iran as an ally of convenience with al Qaeda forces, many of whom are not, obviously, Shiite forces.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, Iran has been a long-time state supporter of terrorism.

Q: Right. Ally of convenience would seem to match up with al Qaeda in this case, unless I heard him wrong.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we know that they have a history of supporting terrorism, and I'll go back and look at that specifically if you want additional information.

Q: Scott, the President had mentioned before about fanatics in history -- Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot -- that "consume whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened conscience, must be taken very seriously. Stop them before their crimes can multiply." Where -- what is the thinking of the administration in terms of Osama bin Laden's capabilities or power to incite or inspire others --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as he pointed out in the remarks, it is diminished. The terrorists are wounded, but they are still capable of carrying out attacks. And Osama bin Laden is someone that we have on the run. He is someone that we will bring to justice. We have, as the President pointed out in his remarks, dismantled much of his senior leadership. Many of his senior leaders have been brought to justice. There are others that we continue to pursue. And we are making some important progress. But this is going to be a long and difficult struggle, and the President emphasized that in his remarks today.

Q: And in terms of the priorities in the war on terror, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, where does that fall?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a priority. We continue to pursue him, to bring him to justice for the crimes he has committed against humanity.
Go ahead.

Q: Scott, when you talk about Syria and Iran and that the U.S. is, if anything, toughening our policy towards Iran particularly, what evidence has there been that the toughening of policies to date has had any effect on their alliance of convenience or support of terrorism? And what more should or can be done? It doesn't look like anything is -- it looks as though things are getting worse, now, four years after 9/11.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why the President pointed out in his remarks it's important to hold regimes like this accountable for their behavior and for their actions. And that's --
Q: Who's going to hold them accountable then?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that's why we work very closely with the international community to address these matters and address these concerns that we have. We have the Europeans working very closely with us to move forward on reaching an agreement with Iran to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
You saw some of the comments made by the President of the regime in -- at the United Nations, and it only increases the concerns of the international community. There is growing concern when it comes to Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

Q: So there's a growing concern, but is there any evidence that that concern has led to any diminishment of their activities that are troubling you more today than they were four years ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: They continue to be a state sponsor of terrorism, they continue to move in the wrong direction. They are out of step with the rest of the Middle East. They need to stop their support of terrorism; they need to change their behavior; they need to give their people greater freedom. Our policy on Iran is very well-known.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:43 AM | Comments (0)

Mr. Bush Uses a Verse From the Qur'an

During an October 6, 2005 address at a National Endowment for Democracy event at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C, President George W. Bush said:

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Mr. Bush, the verse applies to all, including you, who kill or order the killing of the innocent. Our nation and Al-Qaida both have killed the innocent in Iraq.

As for the Imam cited, I wonder if he's one of those the CIA boasts it trained and hired in an attempt to change the face of Islam.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:55 AM | Comments (0)

October 03, 2005

The Turkish European Republic

"As the clock ran down on the deadline to begin Turkey's membership talks with the European Union, two inescapable questions confronted foreign ministers scrambling for a deal," according to Daniel Dombey of The Financial Times.

Mr. Dombey said, "The doubts will nag at both sides for years to come: does the EU truly want Turkey; and is Turkey convinced that the whole EU negotiation process, with the associated reforms and sacrifices, is worth it?"

Great questions. It's my opinion that the EU does not truly want Turkey. If Turkey had a European character I'd say yes. But I suspect--I have no proof--that many of Europe's elites are wrestling with the question of whether Turkey's huge population will overwhelm Europeans. Especially since Europe's birth rate is reportedly declining. And with Muslims flowing into Europe from former European colonies in Africa, the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East, Europe won't be Europe in about 50 years.

For more of Mr. Dombey's analysis, please see "Doubts nag at both Brussels and Ankara."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:08 PM | Comments (0)

September 29, 2005

Scholars Continue to Respond to 'Don't Push Syria Away'

Scholars are continuing to critique an Op-Ed piece by Fulbright Scholar Joshua Landis that appeared in the September 17, 2005 edition of The New York Times. It was headlined "Don't Push Syria Away."

Mr. Landis reported in a September 29, 2005 post at his blog, Syria Comment.Com, that "Robert Rabil, director of graduate studies at Florida Atlantic University, who has written much of the most intelligent and interesting analysis on Lebanon and Syria for the influential think tank, the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, has commented on my op-ed with his own article in the "Daily Star."

Here's the article. Also see "As'ad: Landis 'Misses the Point, Unsurprisingly...'

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:43 AM | Comments (0)

Will the Democratic Party Listen to the American Street on Iraq War?

In an article at Salon.Com headlined "The "American street" speaks: Will the Democratic Party listen? Professor Juan Cole, the proprietor of Informed Comment wrote:

As more and more Americans turn against Bush's Iraq war, Democratic politicians remain silent. Their play-it-safe strategy isn't just cowardly, it also won't work.

I agree. If the Democrats don't act now, they lose a grand opportunity to prevent more Americans from dying in a lost cause. In addition, withdrawing from Iraq will save billions of dollars that can be used to rebuild the U.S. Gulf Coast, that was devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)

The British EU Presidency: Is it Failing?

Richard North at EU Referendum notes that, "Quentin Peel in the Financial Times today laments the failure of the British EU presidency and then expands his cri de coeur to address the more general malaise of the EU. The trouble is, he writes, that there is a failure to debate the issues of Europe at a national level," Mr. North wrote. For more, please see "A dreadful malaise."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:30 AM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2005

Helena Cobban Looks at 'Iraq: The Kosovo Analogy'

Helena Cobban at the informative Just World News takes a look at "Iraq: the Kosovo Analogy." I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:41 AM | Comments (0)

September 23, 2005

Juan Cole's Analysis of Sistani's 'Support' for Iraqi Consitution

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment offered an opinion why "Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called Thursday [September 22, 2005] for Iraqis to vote "yes" on the new Iraqi constitution in the referendum on October 15, according to Reuters." Mr. Cole wrote September 23, 2005:

(The announcement does not yet appear at sistani.org). For him, the key paragraph is 2A, which insists that no law can be passed by the civil legislature that contravenes "the established laws of Islam." The constitution also foresees at least some clerics being appointed as civil judges and justices of the supreme court. He was less enthusiastic about the document's vision of a loose federalism that would allow provinces to form confederacies on ethnic grounds and keep some oil income at home rather than sending it to the central government.

"But," Mr. Cole added, "he seems to have been won over by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which sees benefits for the Shiites of the south in a loose federalism."

For more, please see "Sistani urges Support for Constitution And for Iran."

By the way, although Professor Cole is widely criticized in some circles in the U.S. because his views don't conform to Bush Administration's vision for Iraq and the Middle East, I regard him as one of the best informed commentators on the subject. The fact that he speaks and reads Arabic and has lived in the Middle East is a big plus in his favor.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2005

Does Katrina Provide Opportunity for the Caribbean?

Former Caribbean Diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders, a business executive who is considered an authority on "small states in the global community," noted in a September 20, 2005 article in Caribbean Net News that:

No Head of Government in the Caribbean could make the declaration that President Bush did. Caribbean leaders would know that their governments simply do not have the resources to rebuild their countries in this way.

What is more, they would not have access to outside resources for grants or borrowing that would permit them to rebuild quickly.
And, in a nutshell, that is the problem that Caribbean countries have been facing since the 1990s when Hurricanes have plagued the region in higher numbers and greater intensity.

But, if he sticks to his word, Mr Bush will have rebuilt the Gulf States in short order, underscoring the huge difference between developed countries like the US and small states in the Caribbean. With the best will in the world, Caribbean countries could never rebuild their countries to recover what they have lost. Mr. Sanders, author of "Crumbled Small," which contends that, "The Commonwealth Caribbean in World Politics reflects both the small size of the independent states that comprises the Commonwealth Caribbean, and the fact that it is only crumbs from the table of the rich and powerful nations in the world economy that fall to this Region," noted that:

Over the years between 1995 and 2004, hurricane damage in the Caribbean has run into billions of dollars, making the region poorer, setting back the economies of these countries and creating other untold problems such as migration of badly-needed trained workers who lost employment, and relocation of some companies.

For more of Mr. Sander's analysis, see "Katrina provides opportunity for the Caribbean."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:26 AM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2005

Some World Opinion on the U.S. Evacuation of New Orleans

As the U.S. Department of State notes on its Press and Public Affairs web page, "each business day," State's "Office of Research produces an Issue Focus of foreign media commentary on a major foreign policy issue or related event." An issue that has gotten considerable attention in the international press is the Bush Administration's slow response in evacuating New Orleans in the aftermath of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

The views are definitely worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2005

Dr. Demarche: 'No Evidence of Racism' in Response to New Orleans

On September 12, 2005, Dr. Demarche at The Daily Demarche noted that,

"Slate.com today ran a piece by Richard Haass entitled "Storm Warning: How the Flood Compromises U.S. Foreign Policy." Haass is an excellent source for just such a piece- he is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State. He can be presumed to know what he is talking about.It is unfortunate, then, to see a piece from him that is clearly produced to garner media attention, and to reinforce the ideas it pretends to debunk.

Dr. Demarche said, "This line alone smacks of hypocrisy: The dominant overseas reaction has been sympathy mixed with shock and horror at what was seen by many as evidence of racism and a reminder of the extreme poverty in which many Americans live."

Read why he takes issue with Haass' analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:56 AM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2005

Setting the Record Straight on Governor Blanco and Katrina

The Belgravia Dispatch has an interesting debate on proprietor Gregory Djerejian's post headlined "More Thoughts On Katrina." In it, he claimed that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco "was simply too slow to declare a national emergency and dithered underwhelmingly in terms of attempting to secure more help for her state" as Hurricane Katrina approached.

Mr. Djerejian was wrong. She did declare a state of emergency in a timely manner.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:24 PM | Comments (0)

Comments on Drezner's 'Post-Katrina American Foreign Policy

On September 4, 2005, blogger and University of Chicago Assistant Political Science Professor Daniel W. Drezner discussed "Post-Katrina American foreign policy." The post produced thought-provoking comments from some of his readers. They are worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:05 PM | Comments (0)

Foreign Notes Heard Conciliatory Note From Tymoshenko

Attorney Scott Clark, an American "consultant working for UkraineConsult.com in Kiev," and proprietor of Foreign Notes, offers interesting news and views on the Tymoshenko/Yushchenko political spat in the Ukraine.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)

Neeka's Backlog and Tymoshenko's Press Conference

Veronica Khokhlova at the always informative Neeka's Backlog has commented on former Ukranian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's September 9, 2005 press conference, at which she announced her opposition to President Viktor Yushchenko. He fired her on September 8, 2005.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:46 PM | Comments (0)

Orange Ukraine Examines Yushchenko government's Failure

Dan McMinn at the Orange Ukraine blog has great commentary on the "massive failure of the Yushchenko government."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)

Some Ukranian Press Opinion on Tymoshenko's Dismissal

BBC Monitoring sampled Ukranian press opinion on Ukranian President Viktor Yushchenko's September 8, 2005 dismissal of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her government.

As might be expected in Ukraine's fairly free press, views vary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:08 PM | Comments (0)

Is the Orange Revolution in Turmoil?

Steven Eke, a BBC News analyst, thinks Ukranian President Viktor Yushchenko "is faced with a task considerably tougher than just putting together a new government. He needs to reinvigorate the whole Orange Revolution project, and the people charged with making it a reality," he opined in a September 8, 2005 analysis.

See "Orange Revolution in turmoil" for more of Eke's view on the Yushchenko government turmoil.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2005

The Impact Of Farm Subsidies On Third World Farmers

Godfrey Eneas, writing in the September 7, 2005 edition of The Bahama Journal, said "There is a great emphasis on improving competitiveness in Developing Countries; but the reality of the situation is that subsidies to European, American and Canadian farmers are negatively impacting Third World farmers in the global market."

"Developing countries cannot afford subsidies for their farmers like the rich economies of the Developed Countries," he concludes. Here's his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 04, 2005

Never Again Can Americans Ridicule Chaotic Relief Efforts Abroad

After noting that "America's government has failed its people," The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon,USA, said:

But never again can Americans shake their heads at images of chaotic relief efforts in other countries: people left to die for want of food, water or basic medicine. Police officers deserting their posts as a city collapses into anarchy. Politicians issuing platitudes while the situation worsens by the hour. Bodies piling up on the streets.

How can such things happen? Americans now know for themselves.

Those actions begin with the hubris of federal, state and local governments who think they can outwit nature. Canals built to help the oil industry boosted the Gulf Coast economy but left residents vulnerable. So did the loss of wetlands and barrier islands.The publication also noted in its September 4, 2005 editorial that,

Emergency-response agencies and journalistic investigations persistently warned that the existing levees couldn't protect New Orleans, which sits below sea level. Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- which botched its initial response to Hurricane Katrina -- said catastrophic flooding in New Orleans was among the most likely disasters to befall the United States.

"Congress and the Bush administration never found the money to shore up New Orleans' levee system and other protections, despite urgent requests from the Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana's politicians," the publication added.

For more see, "Government fails Katrina victims, ducks blame."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)

September 03, 2005

Weekend Australian's Insightful Look at 'An American Ccatastrophe'

Geoff Elliott, The Weekend Australian's Washington correspondent, published a thought-provoking and insightful analysis of the race and class issues exposed by the Bush Administration's lack of immediate response to the refugee problem caused when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States on August 29, 2005.

See "An American catastrophe" for Elliot's biting critique.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

August 26, 2005

Unintended Consequences in Iraq

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden told readers of the August 26, 2005 edition of The Australian that, "The Bush administration's Iraq policy has led to a disaster." He added:

Far from becoming a secular, liberal, democratic state, Iraq will almost certainly turn into a narrow, stifling Shia theocracy. It will be characterized by a harsh intolerance of nonconformity, by discrimination against other religions, sects and minorities, and by the repression of women.Moreover, it appears increasingly likely that Iran, not the US, will be the master external draftsman of Iraq's future. At least that seems to be what Tehran expects. Following Iraq's elections in January, a regional head of Iran's intelligence service applauded the result: "The people we [Iran] supported are in power." Talk about unintended consequences.

Mr. Hayden said, "There is general agreement that the US needs an exit policy. But it is difficult to conceive of one that is practical and will at the same time save face for Washington." Read the entire column here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:46 AM | Comments (0)

Amir Taheri: Iraq Taking a Giant Step Away From Tyranny

Amir Taheri, a journalist and author of books on the Middle East and Islam, contends in an article in the August 26, 2005 issue of The Australian that:

For the next few weeks all eyes will be on the Iraqi National Assembly as it debates the draft of the country's new constitution. Provided the assembly does not throw it out, the proposed text would be submitted to a popular referendum on October 15. This is why Iraqis from all ethnic and religious backgrounds are queuing up to register to vote. They understand the stakes involved.

He said, "Even before its publication, the text had been attacked by those who had opposed the liberation of Iraq in the first place. The main attacks have focused on two issues," he added." Read about those issues here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:38 AM | Comments (0)

The U.S. is Finally Having its Great Debate Over the Iraq War

The Washington Post's David Ignatius notes in an August 26, 2005 column that,

America is finally having its great debate over the Iraq war.

In that debate," he said, "it's worth listening to a young Iraqi Shiite cleric named Ammar Hakim. He speaks for the people who arguably have gained the most from America's troubled mission in Iraq and, to a surprising extent, still believe in it."

Interestingly, this debate is taking place, in part, because the formidable Bush Administration propaganda machine has been unable to thwart it or send it in a direction that takes the focus off the human and economic toll the war is taking on the U.S.

For more, see "Playing The Shiite Card."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:13 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2005

What Does 'Stay the Course' Mean?

Andrew Greeley, the prominent Catholic priest, sociologist, and veteran columnist, stated in his August 19, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times column:

Every time our smirking, swaggering, stubborn, dishonest president promises "to stay the course" in Iraq I feel sick, especially when, dressed in a sport shirt and standing comfortably under the blue Texas sky, he comments on the deaths in Iraq. Young men and women are dying, being maimed, suffering psychological trauma which will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

"All the president can do is mouth cliches," Mr. Greeley wrote in his most biting criticism of the president to date.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:48 AM | Comments (0)

Arab News: Israel Did the Palestinians No Favor in Gaza

Arab News told its readers in an August 22, 2005 editorial:

The settlers have lost. Their dreams are over. The Jewish soldiers did not refuse to obey orders; the Israeli people did not rise up; the demonstrations ultimately failed to sway the government and the majority of Israelis remained firm supporters of the decision to withdraw from Gaza. Most of the 21 settlements are now virtually deserted. The orderly, smooth and quick disengagement belies the scenes of wailing and defiance by some settlers that TV and the sensation-seeking media like to zoom in on. The settlers should be so lucky, given the constraints shown to them by their troops and with up to $500,000 in their pockets as compensation. There might have been emotional scenes of settlers leaving their homes nothing of course compared to Palestinians when their homes are destroyed by Israeli bulldozers but they are leaving not their land but someone else's. They are not doing the Palestinians a favor,

Arab news added:

Freeing just five percent of occupied land and involving just 21 of 150 illegal settlements, the Gaza withdrawal is not a marvel or a miracle or a painful concession as the Israeli government and settlers would like for the world to believe. Because Gaza is so unsafe, so barren, so poor, and of no strategic benefit not to mention that its huge Palestinian population threatens to tip the Jewish demographic scale in Israel its loss is of no consequence to the Israelis or to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who ensured that the price he had to pay was as low as possible.

The publication, which bills itself as "The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily," noted that Gaza still "remains in Israeli hands. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:32 AM | Comments (0)

Former Ontario Premier Remembers Lakshman Kadirgamar

In an August 16, 2005 article in the Globe and Mail of Canada headlined "I Remember," former Ontario Premier Robert Keith "Bob Rae" said of Sri Lankan foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, who was assassinated on August 12, 2005:

He talked often of his possible assassination. "I could be shot dead in my swimming pool," he once said. A leading Tamil lawyer and an Oxford graduate, he knew that he was a marked man, and that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) never hesitated to call him a traitor to their cause.

Mr. Rae said Mr. Kadirgamar "wanted peace, but not at any cost. He could not accept that the LTTE had a lock on representing the Tamil community," Mr. Rae wrote. "He felt that many Western governments were simply too slow to understand the real goals and objectives of the LTTE. He was prepared to accept a federal Sri Lanka, but not, as he put it, "a fascist, racist state in the heart of our country."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:36 AM | Comments (0)

Russia, China: 'Brothers In Arms Again?'

In the August 18, 2005 edition of PacNet Newsletter, the "weekly publication generated from a network of policy research institutes by Pacific Forum CSIS," Elizabeth Wishnick, assistant professor of political science at Montclair State University and a research associate at Columbia University's Weatherhead East Asian Institute, notes that:

Originally Russia proposed holding the exercise [known as Peace Mission 2005] in Xinjiang, due to its proximity to the Russian air base in Kyrgyzstan. Instead, the PRC [Peoples Republic of China] suggested Zhejiang province, across from Taiwan. When the Russian side rejected that location as too provocative, the two countries agreed to hold the exercise in Shandong province.

Ms. Wishnick said, "Peace Mission 2005 follows on previous SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] counterterrorism exercises in Kyrgyzstan in 2002 and in Kazakhstan and China in 2003, but is distinctive in its composition and unexpected location. Peace Mission 2005 posits a hypothetical ethnic conflict breaking out in a third country, which appeals to its neighbors and the UN for help," she wrote. "Given China's opposition to participating in most international interventions, this scenario is puzzling enough, but the details of the exercises raise further questions."

For more, see "Brothers in arms again? Assessing the Sino-Russian military exercises."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:04 AM | Comments (0)

'Peace Mission 2005': An Analysis

Back on August 18, 2005, Sergei Karamayev recalled at MosNews.com that"

"Apart from the anti-terrorist military exercises in Kazakhstan in the fall of 2003, the Peace Mission 2005 [currently underway between Russia and China] is the first mutual operation involving the defense ministries of two of the Pacific regions largest countries since the Korean War in the 1950s. Then, Soviet and Chinese pilots fought against U.S. aviation side by side. But then the relations between our two counties suddenly cooled, and this cooling took on forms of escalation, as in, for example, the battles over the Damansky island in 1968.

"Only after perestroika," Mr. Karamayev wrote, "the breakup of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 1996 was military cooperation between China and Russia restored. And the current military training is testimony to that," he aded.

For more of this interesting analysis, see "China, Russia to Play Peace Mission 2005."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:20 AM | Comments (0)

August 21, 2005

Tim Hanes: 'Sir Ian, You Must Go Now'

Tim Hames at The Times Onlline of London says it's time for Sir Ian Blair to go because "The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's conduct in the de Menezes case does not inspire confidence." Mr. Blair has the public support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary Charles Clarke. The latter prompted Mr. Hames to write:

A diplomat, it has been said, is an honourable man sent abroad to lie for his country. A Home Secretary, it seems, is a decent soul sent out in front of the media to be less than frank to his country. Referring to the appalling death of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Keystone Kops performance reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and then subsequently leaked, Charles Clarke insisted yesterday: I am very happy with the conduct, not only of Sir Ian Blair, but the whole Metropolitan Police in relation to this inquiry.

"With due respect to the Home Secretary, who has dealt well with the London bombings and events since, that statement cannot possibly be a remotely accurate reflection of his real feelings," Mr. Hames added. "He must be absolutely livid and he is entitled to be." Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

Captain Ed: 'Rich 'Swiftboats' Himself Into Irrelevancy'

Captain Ed over at the always interesting Captain's Quarters doesn't like New York Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich's August 21, 2005 column headlined "The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan." Says The Captain:

Rarely does a columnist for a national news outlet publish a piece as intellectually bankrupt as Frank Rich's entry today in the New York Times. The only item in the column that has full engagement with the truth is this single, lonely statement:

Nicholas D. Kristof and David Brooks are on vacation.

Otherwise, Rich engages in transparent sophistry that must be fisked to be believed.I'm think a columnist of Mr. Rich's stature adds balance to what has essentially been a lecture from the conservative punditocracy on the merits of the Iraq war and President Bush's democracy crusade in Iraq and the Middle East. Unlike Captain Ed, I don't think Mr. Rich is making himself irrelevant. In fact, I think he's more relevant today than he was when he was a theater critic. He is one of a handful of Mainstream Media (MSM) voices with the courage to say what's on his mind about the war without fear of being ostracized or blog swarmed for his views.

For more of The Captain's thoughts, see "Rich 'Swiftboats' Himself Into Irrelevancy."

By way, I enjoy reading Captain Ed's opinions although I disagree with them more than I agree.

Note: This item is cross-posted at The National Political Observer and The Opinion Gazette.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:41 PM | Comments (0)

Frank Rich on the 'Swift Boating' of Cindy Sheehan

New York Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich paints a vivid picture of President Bush that his media handlers and supporters won't like. It's called:"The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan." Here's part of the portrait:

Cindy Sheehan couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

Mr. Rich said, "When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began."

Mr. Rich's article is worth reading whether you are pro or anti-war.

By the way, the verb "Swift Boating" comes from an effort during the 2004 presidential campaign of some Swift Boat veterans of the Vietnam war to discredit Democratic presidential contender John Kerry's role in the war. Mr. Kerry commanded a Swift Boat

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:21 AM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI's Address to Muslims at World Youth Day

Here is the Zenit News Agency's translation of Pope Benedict XVI's August 20, 2005 address to representatives of some Muslim communities attending World Youth day in Cologne, Germany. To read Benedict XVI's speech, see "Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue ... a Vital Necessity."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:53 PM | Comments (0)

Global Opinion and Analysis of Iraq's Constitution Drafting

If you want to know what editorial writers and journalist from 18 countries think about Iraq's effort to agree on a constitution, see "Iraq constitution: 'Work in Progress' or 'Blueprint for Success'?" Some 57 reports on the subject were collected by the U.S. State Department from July 29 - August 16, 2005.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:00 PM | Comments (0)

Global Opinion and Analysis of Israel's Gaza Withdrawal

Each day, the Media Reaction Branch (MRB) of the U.S. Department of State selects foreign press commentary in an attempt "to provide a representative picture of local editorial opinion" on global issues for U.S. policy makers and analysts. These reports summarize and interpret "foreign editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government," according MRB.

Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza is currently in the news, I thought Diplomatic Times Review readers around the world would be interested in the State Department's selection of 104 reports from 34 countries that commented on the eviction of Jewish settlers from the Occupied Palestinian territory.

The reports cover the period July 28, 2005 to August 16, 2005. 'See "The Middle East: Good-bye to Gaza" to read them. It's worth your time.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:39 PM | Comments (0)

Bush Plans to Visit War Supporters in the Western U.S.

It is obvious that the political impact of the growing anti-war movement in the United States, symbolized by Gold Star Families and Cindy Sheehan, is on U.S. President George W. Bush's mind, and the minds of his image shapers. To counter the international focus on Ms. Sheehan and the antiwar movement's challenge of his Iraq policies, Mr. Bush will hit the road next week in search of friendly audiences. He plans to fly thousands of miles to meet with friendly crowds in Idaho; crowds he knows support his wars. For some reason, he seems to fear exchanging thoughts and ideas with U.S. citizens camped out near his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Mr. Bush announced his intention to visit citizens in Idaho during his August 20, 2005 radio address. He said:

During the coming weeks, I will meet with some of the brave men and women who have been on the front lines in the war on terror. Next week in Idaho, I will visit with some of the fine citizen soldiers of the Idaho National Guard. I will also see the men and women of the Mountain Home Air Force Base who played a leading role in the air campaign in Afghanistan after the September the 11th attacks. I will thank all of them for their service in the war on terror and I will thank the families who make their essential work possible.

He also said:

Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy. They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail. Next week, in Utah, I will also address the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention and thank the proud veterans who have given today's troops such a noble example of devotion and courage. At the end of the month, I will join our veterans and current service members in San Diego to commemorate the 60th anniversary of V-J Day, the day that ended World War II, the bloodiest conflict in human history

Mr. Bush said, "In this war, our nation depends on the courage of those who wear the uniform." But no matter what he says, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, I predict that the it won't. On the other hand, I understand that Mr. Bush has to reinforce his message among a public that is becoming increasingly skeptical about the Iraq war, with each death of a U.S. soldier. Note: This article is cross-posted at The National Political Observer.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:39 PM | Comments (0)

Bush v. Rumsfeld Leads to Rumsfeld v. Kristol

Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence Di Rita stands up for his boss, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the August 29, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard. Mr. Rumsfeld is frequently attacked in print by Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol. The last time was in a piece headlined Bush v. Rumsfeld."( Aug. 15 / Aug. 22, 2005 issue),

The Pentagon struck back in the pages of The Standard. In an article headlined Rumsfeld v. Kristol, Mr. Di Rita noted that,

In his recent editorial ("Bush v. Rumsfeld," Aug. 15 / Aug. 22), William Kristol thinks that he senses the "inescapable whiff of weakness and defeatism" in the leadership of the Pentagon. This is nonsense.

"Kristol thinks that talking about a "struggle against violent extremism" is a step down from the "war on terror." They are one and the same. The president constantly reminds us that this is a new kind of war.

The family feud between Neo-cons and empire managers continues.

Note: This item is cross-posted at The Opinion Gazette.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)

Deepak Chopra on 'War Deaths in Iraq'

Deepak Chopra, writing in the August 19, 2005 edition of The Huffington Post, said, "History will not deal kindly" with the March 20, 2003 U.S. and British invasion of Iraq in "in terms of the "acceptable" mass slaughter that has gone on" during and since the invasion.

I agree. Apparently many of his readers do not. But that's ok. That's what freedom if about.

This item is cross-posted at The Opinion Gazette.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:58 AM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2005

Gresh: Sanctions on Iraq Greatest U.N. Scandal of All

While commenting on the U.N. oil-for-food bribery scandal in an August 19, 2005 article, Alain Gresh of The Guardian of London noted that "no committee of inquiry has been set up to investigate the most glaring scandal of all: the imposition of sanctions on Iraq in August 1990 and above all their maintenance after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

"These have had devastating consequences on the country and will be a burden on it for a very long time to come," he wrote, adding:. "While the media frequently drew attention to Iraq's difficulties in obtaining food and medical supplies - even after the start of the oil-for-food program in 1996 - they neglected the effect sanctions had on Iraqi society." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:35 AM | Comments (0)

Bush May Soon Face a 'Vietnam-style Tipping Point' on Iraq.

Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius thinks "President Bush is saying the right thing about Iraq, which is that there is no easy fix for a war that his defense secretary correctly termed "a long, hard slog." But Bush is conveying this message in a detached way that upsets and angers growing numbers of Americans," he opined on August 18, 2005. "The evaporation of political support at home is palpable. If the administration can't explain its war aims better, it may soon face a Vietnam-style tipping point." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:15 AM | Comments (0)

August 18, 2005

What Next After Israel's Gaza Withdrawal?

"The withdrawal of Israeli troops and the evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza, after 38 years of occupation, is the most recent proof of the limits of military power, even when that power is overwhelming," Daoud Kuttab, Director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, opines in an article in the August 19, 2005 edition of Daily Times of Pakistan.

"Now is the time to take stock of the lessons learned from the years of occupation and resistance in order to understand what Israelis and Palestinians should do next," he advised. Here's the entire column.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)

What's Behind Sharon's Gaza Eviction Policy?

Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, who is often as hard on Israelis as she is Palestinians, contends that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza eviction policy is designed to help him maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. She recalls an article Haaretz Diplomatic Editor Aluf Benn wrote about the policy. She wrote:

Benn recalled how, to a Jewish audience in Paris recently, the prime minister explained further: "The future of the Jewish people depends on the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. In this spirit we initiated the disengagement plan. That would secure the Jewish majority in the land of Israel."

Ms. Geyer said, "The implications for the greater Middle East remain to be seen. But there is more and more evidence that with the relocation from Gaza, Sharon really means to batten down around historic Israel and let the Arabs go their own maddened ways."

See "Gaza Plan Will help Sharon Maintain Jewish Majority in Israel." to read the entire article.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:58 PM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2005

When the Establishment Lies, Trust Dies

The Blogosphere is buzzing over what the British press is calling a "leaked" Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report that seems to offer clear and convincing evidence, if not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brazilian Electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was executed on July 22, 2005. According to the Associated Press, he "was shot seven times in the head" by a policeman involved in the investigation of the failed, July 21, 2005, bombing of a subway train and a bus London.

When this item was posted on August 17, 2005, Technorati, which boasts that it is tracking 15 million sites and 1.4 billion links, had 7,383 posts about the de Menezes execution. Based on the posts I've read at Technorati, London's Metropolitan Police is not doing too well in the public relations department. As the Times Online notes in an August 18, 2005 editorial:

At the time of the shooting, Scotland Yard said that Mr de Menezes clothing and his behaviour at the [Stockwell] station were suspicious. This claim was buttressed by witnesses who claimed that he was wearing a bulky jacket on a hot day and that he leapt over the ticket barrier at Stockwell station.

Now, it turns out that he was wearing only a light denim jacket at the time of his death: perfectly appropriate garb for the time of year. Nor was he carrying a bag or rucksack. There is apparently CCTV footage that shows him walking normally into the station, picking up a free newspaper and using his Oyster card to pass through the barrier. He allegedly began to run only when he saw a train pulling into the station, after which he boarded it and sat down in an ordinary fashion.

After I'd read similar accounts in about a dozen British publications, I found myself being thankful that some one at London' Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was honorable enough to leak their findings to ITV News, to prevent a coverup and someone getting away with murder. I wish people in the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the White House had the courage to leak documents about the lies, policy disputes and coverups surrounding the decisions to invade and occupy Iraq and Al-Qaida's September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. On that the issue of leaking for the public good, the British have shown for more courage to challenge the propaganda and coverups than have we Americans.

On the other hand, if documents were leaked in the U.S., the question is: would the owners of American media conglomerates allow their editors to publish articles based on the documents?

Finally, as I checked the Blogosphere to see how bloggers took the latest de Menezes news, I came across a post at A North American Patriot headlined "I owe Jean Charles de Menezes an apology." The writer, who describes herself as "A Canadian conservative atheist with a passion for justice," wrote, in part:

News reports are now indicating, that the stories being told, about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, were greatly exaggerated, or worse, patently false.

I have rarely been one to refuse to admit, when I've been wrong, so I am obliged to do so, now.

In a previous post, I made reference to these false reports, and came to the conclusion that his death was justified, under the circumstances. I will say now, that if these new reports are true, then there was absolutely no justification, for the deadly force, used against him.

Detailed in the reports, is a refutation of the original claim, that he ran from police, when confronted -

They now suggest the Brazilian had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot.

"I can certainly understand the tenterhooks, on which the British police had been hung, following the bombings, in London, but this kind of action, will only serve to boost the opposition, to any manner of policing the threat," the writer added.

Let's see if the British police will apologize for seeming engaging in a coverup of an execution.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:20 PM | Comments (0)

August 16, 2005

Reuters: New Poll Reflects Growing U.S. Worry Over Iraq

A new poll, "to be published in next month's edition of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, found nearly six in 10 Americans were worried about the outcome of the war in Iraq," according to Reuters AlertNet. See "How Americans View U.S. Foreign Policy."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:25 PM | Comments (0)

Jermaine Lindsay and the Debate on 'Race, Islam and Terrorism'

Robert Beckford, a lecturer in African diasporan religions and cultures at the University of Birmingham in England, reveals in an August 16, 2005 commentary in The Guardian of London:

The Jamaican origins of Jermaine Lindsay, one of the July 7 suicide bombers, has prompted some to ask why a disproportionate number of black males are attracted to extremism. Lindsay, 19, had spent the vast proportion of his life in England, which made tenuous the tabloid obsession with his place of birth. Intriguingly there was less of a clamour over the ethnicity of Richard Reid, the notorious "shoe bomber", who had a white mother and a black father. In the case of David Copeland, the white, racist, homophobic nail-bomber, there was no analysis of a potential relationship between ethnicity, extremism and terror

"Black men converting to Islam should be placed within the religious context of their communities, where religion still matters," Mr. Beckford added. "African-Caribbean men and women continue to turn out in large numbers for religious activities. But Islam is able to do what the black church cannot - attract black men."

I highly recommend Mr. Beckford's article, which is headlined "Race, Islam and terrorism." He continues a discussion begun "As long ago as 1888, [when] the Caribbean educator Edward Wilmot Blyden argued that Islam was more respectful of black culture and easier to translate into Caribbean culture than Christianity." See Blyden's "Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

Frank Rich Says Bush Doesn't Know the Iraq War is Over

New York Times columnist Frank Rich published a biting column in the August 14, 2005, issue of his paper headlined "Someone tell the president the war is over."

Mr. Rich, whose article has generated considerable debate in the blogosphere, attempts to show that the political-military-media-academic machine that constructed, and sold, the rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the American people is bankrupt, and has left President George W. Bush still believing "we will stay the course" in Iraq.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

August 15, 2005

Can a U.S.-Brokered Constitution Bring Unity to Iraqis?

Dexter Filkins, one of The New York Times' Baghdad correspondents, stated in a news analysis in the August 14, 2005 edition of The Times:

Zalmay Khalilzad, the new U.S. ambassador here, has publicly prodded the Iraqis to finish the constitution by tomorrow [August 15, 2005], the date they set for themselves. On several occasions Khalilzad has described the constitution as a national compact, a document symbolizing the consensus of the nation.

"And there's the rub," the correspondent added. "When the Americans smashed Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, what lay revealed was a country with no agreement on the most basic questions of national identity. The Sunnis, a minority in charge here for five centuries, have not, for the most part, accepted that they will no longer control the country. The Shiites, the long-suppressed majority, want to set up a theocracy. The Kurds don't want to be part of Iraq at all. There is only so much that language can do to paper over such differences."

This reminds me of what happened in Yugoslavia in the decade-and-a-half following President Josip Broz Tito's May 4, 1980 death.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:18 PM | Comments (0)

The Constitutional Disintegration of Iraqi

Ehsan Ahrari at Asia Times Online contends that, "The new Iraqi constitution risks beginning an era of the virtual carving up of Iraq. The Kurds and the Shi'ites are operating on the basis of a zero-sum game, whereby any one group's gains would approximately equal another group's losses," he wrote in an August 14, 2005 article, adding:

The Kurds are determined to get the autonomous oil-rich northern section. Not to be outmaneuvered by the Kurds, the Shi'ites want an autonomous southern portion. That would leave the Sunnis with the impoverished central section. They are watching, in horror, a process that might be the beginning of the end of a unified Iraq that was created between 1921 and 1932.

Mr. Ahrari said, "With all its intentions of democratizing and stabilizing the "new Iraq", the Bush administration may be presiding over the process of the disintegration of Iraq." Here's more of Mr. Ahrari's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:48 PM | Comments (0)

Bush: 'I Applaud the Heroic Efforts of Iraqi Negotiators'

The Iraqi Parliament's 'postponement of the delivery of a constitution "until August 22 is a blow to Washington, which had pushed hard for an agreement to be struck, to keep the political process on track," contends Times Online correspondents Catherine Philp in Baghdad and Bronwen Maddox.

I thinks President George W. Bush's statement on Iraq's Draft Constitution is rather placid in tone and does not hint at disappointment. For example, he said,

Iraqi leaders have announced that they have made substantial progress toward a draft constitution. They have indicated that their deliberations will continue beyond today to refine the text and build an enduring consensus. I applaud the heroic efforts of Iraqi negotiators and appreciate their work to resolve remaining issues through continued negotiation and dialogue.

Mr. Bush said, "Their efforts are a tribute to democracy and an example that difficult problems can be solved peacefully through debate, negotiation, and compromise. We wish the Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people well as the negotiators complete the constitutional drafting process."

Interestingly, Mr. Bush's announcement makes it seem as if the U.S. occupation force and the U.S. Embassy in Iraq have no hand in drafting the constitution, which they knew would not be ready at the end of the day on August 15, 2005.

Here is the Times Online analysis..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:27 PM | Comments (0)

Is Iraq a Litmus Test for Democratic Success in the Middle East

Times Online Guest contributor Amir Taheri, an Arab News correspondent, said in an August 16, 2005 commentary that:

The Iraqi constitutional debate has, thanks to the modern media, over-spilt into the whole of the Middle East and familiarized millions of people with terms and concepts regarded as taboo until the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. People are now talking about human rights, democracy, multiparty politics, federalism, gender equality, the place of faith in society, consensus, governmental accountability and, of course, parliaments and elections.

He said, "New words have been invented to express concepts excluded from the Arab political lexicon by the despots." Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:01 PM | Comments (0)

The 'Gaza Withdrawal and Prospects for a Future Palestine'

Justin Delabar at Digital Dissent has a very informative analysis of "The Gaza Withdrawal and Prospects for a Future Palestine."

By the way, Mr. Delabar is "a senior student of Political Science and History, with an emphasis in International Relations, at the University of Central Florida in Orlando." He's good. I recommend his blog for regular reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:00 AM | Comments (0)

Does President Bush Lack the Courage to Confront Cindy Sheehan?

Jason Miller, a 38 year old activist writer, argues in commentary at Tom Paine's Corner that:

America's "strong and resolute" Commander in Chief is safely enjoying a five week vacation on his Texas ranch. Yes, that would be the ranch he owns by virtue of that silver spoon that was dangling out of his mouth as he passed down the birth canal. Following his example from Vietnam, his daughters remain stateside as Bush pontificates the nobility of the cause for which 2,000 Americans have died in Iraq. Despite his unflinching conviction, Mr. Bush lacks the courage to confront Cindy Sheehan and explain to her why her son really died.

Mr. Miller said, "Ultimately George Bush bears the responsibility for the death of Casey Sheehan, yet he refuses to take a few minutes of his precious "R&R" to impart his wisdom to Cindy about the noble reasons for which he is putting our troops in harm's way. He owes her and the rest of America an answer, but this Evangelical crusader cannot summon the mettle to meet with her on his own doorstep. Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:14 AM | Comments (0)

Red State.Org: 'Are We Losing the War' in Iraq?

Red State.Org, a prominent "Republican community weblog" in the United States, wants to know: "Are we losing the war" in Iraq?

Yes, we are. However, our illustrious leaders and some pundits don't want to admit it. In fact, to win in Iraq, the country will have to be totally destroyed. If that's done, the U.S. becomes the pariah of the world, not just in the Muslim Ummah.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:59 AM | Comments (0)

'Discontent Over Iraq War Now at Bush's Doorstep

"Cindy Sheehan has succeeded where many politicians have failed," contends Ronnie Agnew, Executive Editor of the Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi, USA.

"She's put a face on the war in Iraq. A mother's face. A face that grieves for a casualty of war her 24-year-old son."

Not only that, she is the powerful symbol that the anti-war movement in the U.S. has been waiting for. She's white, middle-aged, determined and comes across well on television.

Here's more of Mr. Agnew's poignant column.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:40 AM | Comments (0)

Columnist: 'Is Bush Losing the Iraq War Before Our Very Eyes?'

Chad Selweski, columnist for the Macomb Daily of Mount. Clemens, Michigan in the United States opined in an August 14, 2005 column that, "Some years from now, political analysts may look back on this time, when the president [of the United States] was in the midst of a 5-week vacation in the summer of 2005, and say: That's when George Bush lost the war in Iraq." Here's the entire column.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:28 AM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2005

Will Sri Lanka Ceasefire Survive Kadirgamar’s Assassination?

"The murder of Sri Lanka's foreign minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar, is a reminder that the island nation is yet to emerge from the spiral of violence that had it in its grip, these past two decades and more," The Indian Express opines in its April 15, 2005 edition.

The publication said, "The pause in hostilities that came in the wake of the peace process had always appeared a tentative one, more so since April 2003 when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) indicated that it had temporarily suspended participation in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government. But Kadirgarmar's assassination is clearly the most serious threat to the ceasefire thus far." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:13 PM | Comments (0)

Should America Ditch Its Tyrant Friends?

T.K. Vogel and Eric A. Witte, described by the International Herald Tribune (IHT) as "senior fellows of the Democratization Policy Council, a trans-Atlantic initiative for accountability in democracy promotion," thinks "America should ditch its tyrant friends." Should it?

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:29 PM | Comments (0)

August 13, 2005

Where is Ala' At-Tamimi?

As'ad at The Angry Arab News Service has a chiding post on Ala' At-Tamimi, "one of the Iraqis who was living abroad and was installed as mayor of Baghdad by Paul Bremer, and who was profiled by the New York Times too."

"This Tamimi was recently ousted by angry armed Iraqis loyal to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq," he noted.

As'ad used the occassion to chide "right-wing propagandist Christopher Hitchens," who "bragged about the case of `Ala' At-Tamimi" in a recent article.

Also see "Ousted Baghdad mayor says gun, not vote, rules Iraq.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:37 PM | Comments (0)

Fanning the Flames in Gaza

The Boston Globe, a prominent U.S. newspaper, editorialized on August 13, 2005 that:

Some Israelis protesting the planned pullout from Gaza settlements are using scare tactics that are too common in the Mideast. ''A Jew-free Gaza welcomes Al Qaeda," shouted one banner at a massive rally in Tel Aviv on Thursday [August 11, 2005].

The publication noted that, "Even some political leaders who should know better are fanning the flames." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)

Is Iraq's Constitution Writing Deadline a U.S. Political Issue?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment says "a perceptive reader" wrote him "to say that the short deadline for the parliamentary acceptance of the constitution" in Iraq " means that most members of parliament probably won't have time to read or study it carefully before the vote, and there will certainly be no proper debate on it.

"Is it right to expect parliament to approve a constitution it has barely read, which is highly controversial, without time for study and debate?" Mr. Cole asked in an August 13, 2005 post.

"Isn't that making parliament a mere rubber stamp? The deadline is a U.S. political issue, not an imperative of Iraqi politics,": he noted.

The parliament will be a rubber stamp with a short or long deadline for approving the constitution.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:22 PM | Comments (0)

No! Not you, Mr. Cuthbertson

Peter Cuthbertson at the highly regarded Conservative Commentary blog admits in an August 11, 2005 post, that, "Even those of us who were very supportive of the Iraq War have been a little sceptical of suggestions that the country is on course towards Western liberal democracy."

You should be sceptical, Mr. Cuthbertson. Democracy as you know it will never take root in Iraq. Read why he made the statement.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:53 PM | Comments (0)

Will Photos of Caskets of U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq Show Cost of War?

Former UPI White House Correspondent Helen Thomas, who now gets on the White House's nerves as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, wrote August 12, 2005, that,

The American people, sheltered for the last two years from some photos of the grim reality of the war in Iraq, are beginning to see more pictures of the kind that had previously been suppressed.

Ms. Thomas said "As the result of a freedom of information lawsuit," by former CNN broadcaster Ralph Begleiter, who is now a journalism professor at the University of Delaware, "the Pentagon has now agreed to release "as expeditiously as possible" some photographs of the caskets of American servicemen and women.

Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:38 PM | Comments (0)

Ken Bode: Signs of Anti-war Sentiments Grow Harder to Ignore

Former Washington Week in Review host Ken Bode, who is also a former senior political analyst for CNN, , noted in an August 12, 2005, opinion piece at IndyStar.com that military "recruiters are spending this critical summer canvassing rodeos, fairs, X Games, NASCAR races and rock concerts."

The Pulliam professor of journalism at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, added: "The Army recruiting chief for the Chicago area is Sgt. Major Ozell Johnson. He recently told the Lehrer Newshour that young men and women are persuadable:

However, when they get home and tell Mom and Dad, 'Hey this is something I want to do,' then that's where the resistance starts.

"Of course it does," Mr. Bode wrote. "War reverses the natural order of things and forces parents to bury their children. See "Signs of anti-war sentiments grow harder to ignore" for more of his from-the-heartland analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

August 12, 2005

George Bush and Cindy Sheehan

Helena Cobban at Just World News has an interesting commentary on U.S. President George W. Bush and grieving war protester Cindy Sheehan.

Ms. Sheehan is camped out near Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, and has demanded that he talk to her about the death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, including her son Casey.

So far, Mr. Bush has refused to see her although he did send aids to speak with her.

By the way, he said August 11, 2005 that he sympathizes with her because of the death of her son. In the same sentence, he said the U.S. must stay the course in Iraq.

Here's is a White House transcript of Mr. Bush's August 11, 2005 chat with the press.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:33 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2005

Howard Zinn: America, Like Iraq, is Occupied

Howard Zinn, professor emeritus of political science at Boston University in the United States, notes an opinion piece in the August 12, 2005, edition of Guardian Unlimited:

It has quickly become clear that Iraq is not a liberated country, but an occupied country. We became familiar with that term during the second world war. We talked of German-occupied France, German-occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, the Soviets, who occupied countries. The United States liberated them from occupation.

Now we are the occupiers. True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the US established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq.Mr. Zinn said, "But more ominous, perhaps, than the occupation of Iraq is the occupation of the US. I wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, and feel that we are an occupied country, that some alien group has taken over. I wake up thinking: the US is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water or the air, or what kind of world will be inherited by our children and grandchildren."

For more, see "It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:46 PM | Comments (0)

Shapiro: 'Why War in Iraq is Right for America'

Columnist Ben Shapiro at townhall.com made this observation in an August 10, 2005 article headlined: "Why war in Iraq is right for America":

No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world. Forwarding freedom is always important, but it is especially important where doing so ensures America's future security -- as in Iraq. Maintaining American empire will require Americans to recognize the dangers of impatient isolationism.

I wonder if he's going to volunteer to fight in Iraq.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:28 PM | Comments (0)

Rutledge: 'Is Iraq War Fueling the GCC's Economic Boom?

Emilie Rutledge, an economist currently based at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, contends in an August 10, 2005 article at Al-Jazeera,Net that,

Since the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, the price of oil has steadily climbed upwards. A barrel of oil today costs twice as much as it did on the eve of combat, back in March 2003.

"At the same time," Ms. Rutledge added, "all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia - have experienced levels of economic growth not witnessed since the 1970s.

For more, see "Is Iraq war fueling the GCC's economic boom?"

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

Who Will Be the Ultiminate Beneficiary of the Iraq War?

Robert S. McElvaine, Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and Chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, USA, predicts in an August 11, 2005 article in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that, the "Beneficiary of war in Iraq will really be Iran".

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:57 PM | Comments (0)

Salman Rushdie's Adds His Two Cents to Debate on Britsh Muslims

Salman Rushdie, a British-Indian author who had an Iranian bounty on his head for many years after he published The Satanic Verses, has an article in the August 11, 2005 edition of Times Online in which he says:

When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that our own children had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community's responsibility for outrages committed by its members.

Question: What would one expect Mr. Sacranie and other mainstream leaders to say, when they are under extreme pressure to support British foreign policy on Iraq? They want to remain in the UK. Besides, he's playing the role he's expected to play as "Sir Iqbal." You don't get knighted by advocating Jihad. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:09 AM | Comments (0)

August 08, 2005

Is Washington Ready to Stop Backing Musharraf?

Wajid Shamsul Hasan of London, a columnist for the Great Falls, Virginia-based South Asia Tribune, contends in an informative, August 8, 2005 article that there are "signs that Washington is ready to stop backing" Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, perhaps the Bush Administration's staunchest ally in its war on Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Here's more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:23 PM | Comments (0)

China, Japan Have More in Common Than They Realize

Syndicated columnist Tom Plate, a professor of Communication and Policy Studies at UCLA, who is widely published in Asia, said in an August 5, 2005 column in Asia Media that,

In two recent decisions involving the two major powers of East Asia, the United States revealed that it is still ungenerous about sharing power, even with a close ally like Japan, and that it is still so paranoid about China that it is willing to risk antagonizing it by acting as if it bore an infectious disease.

For more, see "China and Japan: More in common than they realize."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:20 AM | Comments (0)

August 07, 2005

Vand Zaandt: 'Loose Lips Aid Bombers'

MSNBC analyst and former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt stated in an August 6, 2005 article on the Microsoft/NBC owned cable network's website that,

The BBC revealed that NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly did not have the permission of the London Metropolitan Police (the Met) to talk about sensitive information to hundreds of people, and in reality the world, concerning the construction of the bombs used in the London attacks. At a briefing in New York City this week, Kelly described, in detail, how the bombs deployed by suicide bombers--ones that killed 52 and wounded hundreds--were easily constructed from common household items. He also provided information concerning the need to keep such devices in a stable condition.

Mr. Van Zandt said, "British law enforcement officials were angered by Kellys unauthorized disclosure of their investigation on the 7/7 London bombing and the 7/21 attempted bombing of trains and double decker-buses." Here's more of his commentary on the issue.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:35 PM | Comments (0)

The Sunday Times Reviews the 'Death of an Idealist'

The August 7, 2005 edition The Sunday Times Online has a fascinating review of the "Death of an idealist." It's a long piece on American freelance journalist Steven Vincent, who was found murdered August 3, 2005, in Basra, Iraq.

While Mr. Vincent is touted as a hero by Democracy fundamentalist who want to impose their values on Iraqis and Muslims all over the world, he comes across in The Sunday Times as a man with a death wish. His persistent criticism of Basra politics and cultural mores almost assuredly marked him for death. This was compounded by, and may have been the tipping point, the flouting of his relationship with "Nooriya Tuaiz, an unusual 31-year-old Iraqi woman who had become both his Basra interpreter and close friend," according to The Times.

There is a hint in the story that Nooriya may have been Mr. Vincent's lover although his widower, Lisa Ramaci of New York, doesn't think they were intimately involved.

Meanwhile, Nooriya is recuperating under armed guard in a Kuwaiti hospital. Ms. Ramaci wants her brought to the United States after she is released.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:17 PM | Comments (0)

Outlawing Hizb-ut-Tahrir Won't Stop It's Message

On August 5th, 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain and Al-Muhajiroun would be outlawed in the United Kingdom. Since then, much has been written, pro and con, about the banning, which is part of new security measures imposed in Britain since the July 7 and July 21, 2005 bombings in London by British Muslims, whose parents were born in former British and French colonies in Africa and Asia. Some were born there themselves.

One view I found particularly interesting is in the August 7, 2005 edition of for The Conservative Voice online. It is headlined "Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a Scary Group That Needed to be Outlawed," and was written by Texas Attorney and law instructor Joseph Gutheinz, Jr, who contends that:

Today, much of the threat to the West comes from the Moslem world, a world which increasingly is becoming global. That is not to say Moslems are inherently evil, of course their not, but within the Moslem world are many radical organizations which are actively at war with the West. One organization which offers an anti-West philosophy is Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Hizb-ut-Tahrir has advocated the overthrow of Moslems countries friendly to the West, and this organization supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. They were parties to the creation of PLO, and can be found throughout Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Mr. Gutheinz also said:

Of specific concern to the United States and Great Britain is that they have a major presence in Syria and Pakistan, a strategic ally. While no outsider knows exactly how many hard core members exists within Hizb-ut-Tahrir, it is estimated that they could have as many as 100,000 members, each working within three man cells to help conceal their identity.

If this issue concerned me, the way it does Mr. Blair and Mr. Gutheinz, I would be worried about people who are not organized. I suspect there are thousands of angry Muslims, perhaps millions, seething over the U.S. and Britain's arrogant, high profile roles in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stationing of U.S. forces in Muslim countries. The question is how long before a "lone actor," with ties to none of the known Mujahid groups, step onto the world's stage with a spectacular bombing or high profile assassination, to be followed by a succession of others. It's bound to happen.

As for stopping the message of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other Muslim groups that scare many in the west, it can't be stopped. There are millions of cassettes, videos and DVDs in circulation around the world that contain their messages. The lectures of some Muslim leaders are traded by Muslims the way some kids trade video games. Others are duplicated and distributed in communities and prisons. And with the Internet, speeches and articles are sent around the world in minutes, if not seconds. Others are posted online, for anyone to hear.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:17 PM | Comments (0)

'Britain is Right in Combating Extremist Threat'

The Daily Times of Pakistan said in an August 7, 2005 editorial that Leaving aside for a while the controversial aspects" of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "new laws, which have already invoked debate in Britain, it is important to see whether Mr Blair is essentially right in his statement" of August 5, 2005, outlining "new security measures" in the wake of the July 7, 2005 and July 21, 2005 bombings in London.

"All told," the publication added,

The answer to that can only be in the affirmative. Britain, as also other European countries, has been allowing émigrés from developing countries including Muslim states for a long time. Unlike the Middle Eastern Muslim states, Europe offers complete integration and legal rights to immigrants. Most families have stayed on and thousands more want to go to Europe for better work opportunities and upward social mobility. Neither of these is available in mother countries in most cases. Britain's outrage at the recent bombings is, therefore, understandable.

The Daily Times also said, "Mr Blair's emphasis on integration cannot be faulted. Anyone who wants to stay on as a British citizen must respect the duties that come with the rights of citizenship."

For more of the editorial, see "Britain is right in combating extremist threat."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:41 PM | Comments (0)

Why Weekly Standard Editor is on Donald Rumsfeld's Case

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, an influential, conservative publication that strongly supported, and still does, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, takes a shot at U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for proposing that the word "war" be dropped from the so-called "war on terror." Mr. Kristol wrote:

These advisers had been, as the New York Times reported, going out of their way to avoid "formulations using the word 'war.'" The great effort that we had all simplemindedly been calling a war was now dubbed by Rumsfeld the "global struggle against violent extremism." And the solution to this struggle was, according to Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking here as Rumsfeld's cat's-paw, "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."

"Now," Mr. Kristol added, "it is of course true enough that the "war on terror" isn't simply a military struggle. What war is? There is a critical political dimension to the war on terror--which the president, above all, has understood.That's why he has placed such emphasis on promoting liberal democracy. But there is also, to say the least, a critical military dimension to this struggle. And President Bush sensed that this Rumsfeldian change in nomenclature was an attempt to duck responsibility for that critical military dimension."

"The president would have none of it."

If things keep going the way they are in Iraq, and American mothers and fathers get tired of seeing their children dying in a war launched under false pretenses, it may not matter what the war is called. Mr. Bush may get carried along by events beyond his control and declare an end to to the debacle. I don't think the American people will tolerate too many more multiple losses of soldiers from the same battalion in one week.

For more of Mr. Kristol's argument, see "Bush v. Rumsfeld."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:26 AM | Comments (0)

August 06, 2005

Cook's Biographer Says He was One of the Greats, Out of Office

John Kampfner, editor of the New Statesman and Robin Cook's biographer, said "In government" the former British foreign secretary "struggled to meet his own and others expectations. Out of office he was truly one of the greats."

He said, Mr. Cook, "who died yesterday [August 6, 2005] , will most be remembered for his passionate but always practical opposition to Tony Blair's war in Iraq. Both in resigning on the eve of the invasion and in his conduct that followed he restored a sense of principle to a political world that had lost its moral compass."

I, too, admired Mr. Cook for resigning rather than going along with a war he did not think was justified. I thought former Secretary of State Colin Powell would follow his lead but it was not to be.

For more see, "Robin Cook was one of the greats out of office."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:51 PM | Comments (0)

Islam Online: 'Anti-terror Measures Split UK Press'

Islam Online opined August 6, 2005 that, " British media seemed split down the middle Saturday, August 6, [2005] on the new sweeping measures declared [August 5, 2005] by Prime Minister Tony Blair in the wake of the [July 7, 2005 and July 21, 2005] London bombings." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:39 AM | Comments (0)

Editor: 'Hizb ut-Tahrir Should be Marginalised But Not Banned'

Sunny Hundal, editor of Asians in Media, made this observation about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's August 5, 2005 announcement that Hizb ut-Tahrir of Britain was one of the groups he intends to proscribe:

This is so annoying - last week I was condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir, now I'm forced to defend them with the government ban. Today's announcement has exposed serious flaws in the way Labour deals with Muslim and non-Muslim groups.

"I am no fan of HT as it has always been clear on these pages," the editor added, "but there needs to be a sense of perspective and equal rights for everyone."

For the entire commentary, see "Hizb ut-Tahrir should be marginalized but not banned."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:13 AM | Comments (0)

August 04, 2005

Steve Vincent Stayed Too Long

Timothy M. Phelps, Washington Bureau Chief for Newsday of New York, USA, spent three weeks in Basra, Iraq, in July 2005. Basra is where American freelance journalist Steve Vincent was killed on August 2, 2005, after he published a critical article in the July 31, 2005 edition of The New York Times describing the political and social climate in Basra. Mr. Phelps describes the danger encountered by a foreigner who stays too long:

There are three levels of danger to a foreigner in Basra. The smallest threat there is the biggest one to people elsewhere in Iraq: the Sunni insurgency tied in with the former regime. Sunnis are a fearful - not feared - minority in Basra now, and their terrorist activities are limited.

A greater threat is from the criminal gangs that roam Basra almost unhindered, kidnapping Iraqis for ransom and hijacking their cars.

The greatest threat here for those with any political connections, past or present, are the religious militias that work for the political parties governing Basra - and Iraq - and overlap with the police force. They have undertaken a campaign of assassinations against former members of Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as intellectuals, secular politicians and women who work for the U.S. or British governments or companies.Vincent wrote about this - not just last weekend, but over several months - and stayed to face the consequences. For more of Mr. Phelps' analysis, see his August 3, 2005 article headlined "NYC journalist killed in Iraq: Newsday reporter recalls meeting with Steve Vincent in Iraq."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2005

Nick Clooney: 'I Think We've Just Heard an Iraqi Timetable'

Nick Clooney at The Cincinnati Post says, "Don't look now, but I think we have just heard an Iraqi "timetable." He makes pertinent observations on the question of withdrawal from Iraq, where over three dozen U.S. troops have died within the last 10 days, according to various reports.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:13 PM | Comments (0)

Tesfamichael: Just Help Africa Help Herself

Gebreselassie Yosief Tesfamichael, a former Eritrean finance minister now living in Washington, D.C., notes in an August 2, 2005 guest commentary in the Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire , that:

Since the 1950s, when most of Africa achieved independence, billions of dollars have been spent on aid and development. So why is the gap between the continent and the rest of the world widening instead of narrowing?

The problem is that the aid community has been determining how Africa should go about development. Thirty 30 African governments have produced national development programs from the same externally designed template: the World Bank/International Monetary Funds so-called poverty-reduction strategy papers. All are aimed at obtaining the most aid possible.
"We continue to ignore the stark lesson that externally imposed development models haven't gotten us far," Mr. Tesfamichael wrote. "The only way forward is for Africa to drive its own bus and for the driver and passengers to be in full agreement about where they're going. That said, we do need help filling up the tank."

See "In Africa, just help us to help ourselves" for more of his commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:48 AM | Comments (0)

Puzzling Over 'The Mystery of British Muslims'

Washington Post Columnist Anne Applebaum says in an August 3, 2005 column that, "Since the bombing attacks in London last month, a welter of columnists, writers, talking heads and ordinary people have puzzled over the mystery of British Muslims, one in four of whom recently told pollsters that they sympathize with the July 7 suicide bombers."

She added:

The idea that British Muslims, whose parents received asylum, found jobs, and made lives in Britain, could be so deeply affected by the "oppression" of Muslims in countries they have never visited seems incomprehensible. The notion that events in distant deserts should lead the middle-class inhabitants of London or Leeds to admire terrorists seems inexplicable. But why should this phenomenon be so incomprehensible or inexplicable, at least to Americans? We did, after all, once tolerate a similar phenomenon ourselves.I am talking about the sympathy for the Irish Republican Army that persisted for decades in some Irish American communities and is only now fading away

It's not really a mystery. Every Muslims, whether he or she voices it, generally has sympathy for Muslims under siege, wherever they are in the world. And whereas most would never pick up a gun or become suicide bombers, there is an admiration for those who strive to drive the U.S. and England out Iraq; the Russians out of Chechnya; the Israelis from Palestinian lands; the Chinese out of East Turkmenistan; the U.S. out of Afghanistan, etc.

For more of Ms. Applebaum's analysis, see "The Discreet Charm of the Terrorist Cause."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:36 AM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2005

Ramzy Baroud: 'Don't Blame the Mosque' for Terrorism

Veteran Arab American journalistRamzy Baroud,, who teaches Mass Communication at Curtin University of Technology in Australia, explains in an August 1, 2005 Khaleej Times Online article that:

Cultural and religious intolerance is certainly not unique to the Middle East, nor is terrorism itself. If madrassas supposedly elucidate the motives behind the militancy of Al Qaeda and the Taleban, what will one make of terrorism in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Spain (prior to the train bombing) and Northern Ireland? It is not as if the list ends there. To the contrary, it barely begins. The truth is that Middle East terrorism became a globalized phenomenon after many regions around the world that are neither Arab nor Muslim experienced their share of deadly terror.

It goes without saying that the rise of Al Qaeda and its support networks worldwide have not in any way contributed to the decline of terrorism elsewhere. In fact, many innocent people continue to fall victim to terrorism in many other regions and in large numbers.

Mr. Baroud said, "The quandary is that the victims are often not Westerners, thus their plight is either entirely neglected or hastily stated by the world media and then quickly forgotten."

See "Don't blame the mosque" for more of Mr. Baroud's analysis of certain western trends of thought on the causes of terrorism.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:37 AM | Comments (0)

August 01, 2005

Hamdani: Egypt is Where Islamic Revival, Radical Islam Started

Pakistan Tribune columnist Yasser Latif Hamdani argues in an August 1, 2005 news analysis that:

The rise of organizations like Hizbut Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom and elsewhere was viewed with alarm but no solid intellectual movement was organized within the Islamic sphere to counter them. Their connection to seminaries in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar was also to be expected. Most British Muslims happen to be of South Asian origin and we as Pakistanis had allowed the American sponsored Jehad against Godless Soviet Russia to flourish from our heartland. So London bombing and the connection to Pakistan was logical. However what was not logical was that the Egyptian government would turn around and blame the terror attacks on its soil on Pakistan as well.

He added: "It would therefore be worthwhile to dwell on the history of Islamic revival and radical Islamism in the Muslim world" because "Egypt is where it all started as early as 1928."

See "Egypt's homegrown terrorists" for more of Mr. Hamdani's insightful analysis

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)

The Resilient Saudi Dynasty

Michael Binyon at The Times Online contends that the "secretive, conservative and cautious" House of Saud "is one of the most resilient dynasties in the world." He added:

It has suffered numerous shocks that would have toppled less agile monarchies: the assassination of King Faisal in 1975, the occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by extremists in 1979, pitched battles with Iranian pilgrims, war with Iraq and a terrorist campaign by al-Qaeda that has brought the country to the brink of civil war. Yet its rulers have used appeasement, guile and brute force to thwart all enemies and remain, precariously, in power.

True, but important question are: How much longer will it work?

How much longer will the public tolerate rule by the House of Saud? If most Saudis continue to tolerate the dynasty, when will younger members of the House of Saud demand that the old guys step aside?

What happens if they do make such a demand? If the old guys step aside, will the young rulers do the bidding of the United States like the old guard?

I don't have the answers.

For more of Mr. Binyon's commentary, see "Riddles in the sand kingdom."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:13 PM | Comments (0)

Abdullah Unlikely to Change Saudi Arabia's Foreign Policy

"Saudi Arabia's new king, Abdullah, is unlikely to steer the worlds largest oil exporter away from its longtime alliances, despite his Arab nationalist views," reports the Reuters wire service.

Abdullah is no fool. He knows what the U.S. is likely to do if he does. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

Analysis: 'Things Are Not as Calm as They Seem in Saudi Arabia'

Patrick Bishop notes in an August 2, 2005 opinion piece at Opinion.Telegraph that "Things are not as calm as they seem in the sands of Saudi Arabia." He raises many interesting points, among them:

The West needs Saudi Arabia at least as much as Saudi Arabia needs the West. In the immediate term, the Saudi security authorities are a vital link in the anti-terrorist intelligence network. It is greatly to our advantage that Prince Turki al-Faisal, the outgoing ambassador to London, is on his way to Washington. As former chief of Saudi intelligence, Turki is credited with knowing more about al-Qa'eda than almost anyone outside its ranks. His arrival is expected to invigorate co-operation between Washington and Riyadh which has slackened as a result of America's Iraq preoccupation.

Mr. Bishop said, "In the long term, it is essential for us to retain the kingdom's goodwill as energy supplies become a pressing strategic issue, a source of increasing competition which some pessimists predict could lead to the next big international conflict."

Here is more of his thought-provoking analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:45 PM | Comments (0)

July 31, 2005

Is the U.S. Making a 'Strategic Adjustment' in its 'War on Terror'?

Belgravia Dispatch proprietor Gregory Djerejian's article "Strategic Adjustments" is a look at the Bush Administration's decision to adjust its rhetoric on the so-called "war on terror." It's pretty good and Mr. Djerejian makes an attempt to avoid sweeping generalizations about 'Islamist,' whatever that is. I've never seen the term in the Qur'an.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:52 PM | Comments (0)

Evidence of Iraq, London Bombings Link 'Keeps accumulating'

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note observes in a July 31, 2005 post that, "It's good news that British authorities apparently have nabbed the four men who launched the most recent (unsuccessful) bombings in London. But the threat of terrorism will go on," he added. "And security professionals, in contrast to politicians, acknowledge how the Iraq conflict is encouraging additional violent attacks. Evidence of the connection keeps accumulating."

I concur with Mr. Clemon's assessment.

For more, See "Doug Bandow: Time to Acknowledge Consequences of Iraq."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:35 PM | Comments (0)

Islam Karimov, Prepare For Your Downfall

Now that Uzbekistan has told the United States to leave Karshi-Kanabad (K2) Airbase within six months, look for the Bush Administration to emphasize Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov's brutal human rights record. Expect to see stories planted in the U.S. press about him.

I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. decides to press for an Investigation of the Andijan Massacre," that Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and Freedom House called for in a June 6, 2005 Joint letter to President Bush.

Also, don't be surprised if widespread demonstrations suddenly breakout similar to those that took place in Ukraine in 2004 and 2005. They will make the May 13, 2005 protests that broke out in Andijan over the Karimov Government's imprisonment of 23 Muslims pale in comparison. The Muslims, who had been protesting for four months, were accused, as are most Muslims who stand up against governments all over the world, of being "Islamist extremists " At Andijan, Mr. Karimov's soldiers fired on the protestors, killing at least nine. On July 12, 2005, the death toll was raised to 187.

As Human Rights Watch noted in a report titled Uzbekistan: Andijan Crisis Aftermath, "Uzbekistan has been an important ally for the United States in its global campaign against terrorism. The United States has a military base in southern Uzbekistan to support its operations in Afghanistan and has provided aid and training to the Uzbek military, as well as counterterrorism assistance. The State Department has acknowledged Uzbekistan's poor human rights record and pressed the Uzbek government to institute specific democratic and human rights reforms. But the U.S. government has not spoken with a single voice on this issue."

It will now that it must leave its base at Karshi-Kanabad

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:50 PM | Comments (0)

Journalist Sian Powell: 'Bin Laden Casts Wide Net in Indonesia'

Australian journalist Sian Powell contends in an August 1, 2005 analysis in The Australian that:

With a little more light shed on the mysterious maneuvering of the world's most wanted man, it now appears Osama bin Laden maintained direct links with Indonesian extremists even after the arrest of the Indonesian operative thought closest to him -- the one-time Jemaah Islamiah terrorist network operations chief, Hambali.Hambali was arrested in Thailand in 2003, swept up in a joint US-Thai operation. Now in US custody, he has disappeared from view, and experts speculate he may still be undergoing interrogation. If Rois's admissions are accurate, bin Laden has since switched his Indonesian contact point to the Malaysian master bombmaker Azahari bin Husin.

Ms. Powell added: "Inheriting Hambali's mantle, Azahari has eluded police since he was first suspected of creating the bombs that tore through Balinese nightclubs in 2002, killing 202 people, including 88 Australians. With his partner in crime, Noordin Mohammad Top, Azahari masterminded the blast at Jakarta's Marriott hotel in 2003, which killed 12, and last September's attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta."

See "Bin Laden casts wide net in Indonesia" for more. The article is worth reading not for the truth of it but for the speculation and possibilities it suggests.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)

July 30, 2005

'Al Qaeda, U.S. Oil Companies, and Central Asia'

Peter Dale Scott at Canada's Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) , has a provocative post on CRG's website headlined "Al Qaeda, U.S. Oil Companies, and Central Asia." It is an "excerpt of a forthcoming book entitled The Road to 9/11".

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Each Sweep In Pakistan Creates More Jihadis

Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's Pakistani bureau chief, reported July 30, 2005 that, "Different intelligence agencies" in Pakistan, "including the Intelligence Bureau and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have repeatedly reported to the top leadership" that sweeps of Pakistani Jihadis whenever there is an attack in a western capital "are futile exercises that force young men who might already have left the jihadi fold to return."

"Instead of keeping these men in the mainstream of society, repeated arrests drag them into militancy, or even a criminal life," Mr. Shahzad wrote. "

"However," he noted, "relentless foreign pressure, especially from the US, which counts Pakistan as an important ally in the "war on terror", leaves the Pakistani leadership with little choice. After July 7, President General Pervez Musharraf, who is also chief of army staff, sent a strong note to all intelligence outfits warning them against "deliberate negligence" in arresting jihadis."

See "Entangled in terror's net" for Mr. Shahzad's insightful analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

EITB 24: "Islamic Terrorism Vastly Greater Than IRA's'

EITB24.Com, the Basque news and Information Channel, observed July 30, 2005, in an unsigned article, that:

"Britain's decades-long struggle with the Irish Republican Army appears to be coming to a close as the country confronts the threat of Islamic terrorism on its home soil. Analysts say this month's London bombings almost certainly did not directly influence the IRA's dramatic announcement that it was ending its war against Britain. But the new reality of terror groups willing to carry out carnage on an indiscriminate scale may be causing Europe's paramilitary movements to change tack.

EITB24.Com said, "A key concern may be the urge for such groups to establish a moral distinction between themselves and the new breed of terrorists." the channel quoted Michael Swetnam of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies in the United States as saying:

Until 9/11 there was a great debate about freedom fighters and terrorism, but now there is a sharp division between the two," said "Now a terrorist is an evil person who kills people and using the tactics of terror is becoming very unpopular with the freedom fighters of the world.

I don't think Muslim fighters really care what "the freedom fighters of the world," whoever they are, think. If they did, they would never carry out attacks. Trend analysis suggests that the attacks with continue, regardless of what the IRA or others think, as long as the U.S. and her allies are perceived as occupying Muslim land, waging war on Muslims, controlling Muslim resources and propping up dictatorial leaders.

See "Islamic terrorism vastly greater than IRA's" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Has Violence (In Ireland) Been Laid To Rest At Last?'

Frank Millar, London Editor of the Irish Times says Sinn Fein leader "Gerry Adams is right about one thing, at least - history will not judge kindly anyone who plays politics with a real choice between peace and conflict on the island of Ireland."

"Yet," Mr. Millar said in an opinion piece reprinted in the July 30, 2005 edition of Scotmans.Com, "the Sinn Fein president might allow that the same holds true for him. In throwing out his challenge to the unionist leadership, Mr Adams can probably be confident that the Reverend Ian Paisley's first response to the IRA statement ending its armed struggle will not be his last. A huge responsibility rests upon the Democratic Unionist Party."

See "Has violence been laid to rest at last?" for more of Mr. Millar's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Our Rights Are The Wrong Target'

Kevin MacGuire, a columnist with Mirror.Co.Uk, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair "admitted he still felt the odd "liberal twitch" when preparing to curtail historic rights and give the boys in blue new powers to detain and monitor any of us."

"It's at crunch points like this that we need a full public debate to avoid the government acting in haste and repenting to our discomfort," Mr. MacGuire said in a July 27, 2005 column, adding: "Recent history is littered with warnings of how measures rushed through to clamp down on terrorism can backfire."

He said, "From Kenya in the 50s to Northern Ireland in the 70s, Premiers acting tough with the best of intentions fanned - rather than doused - the flames."

See "Our Rights Are The Wrong Target" for more of Mr. MaGuire's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

CJR Analyzes Reporting On 'Outsourcing Torture'

The July/August 2005 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), which bills itself as "America's premier media monitor," has an analysis of reporting on "extraordinary rendition," which, according to CJR,

refers to the policy by which the United States renders unto certain friendly countries (friendly, that is, to the practice of torture) suspected terrorists who would otherwise be protected by the laws of more civilized societies from such information-gathering techniques as having electrodes attached to their genitals or being bodily boiled.

See "State of the Art: Discovering the New Disappeared" for more of deputy executive editor Gloria Cooper's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 29, 2005

Slugger O'Toole Has Good IRA Coverage

The Irish blog Slugger O'Toole has interesting news and analysis on the Irish Republican Army's decision to disarm.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2005

Remember The Name Jean Charles de Menezes

The Chicago Sun-Times in a July 26, 2005 editorial asks us to, "Remember the name Jean Charles de Menezes, because his ghost might haunt us for years to come." Here's the editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

Justifying Blair's Iraq Policy

The Times Online of London's July 26, 2005 leader is headlined: "Iraq and terror: Cause and effect-- malevolent medievalism and modern technology." The editors try to justify the invasion of Iraq while acknowledging that Britain's role in Iraq may be linked to recent bombings in London.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Michael Sulick: Al Qaeda Answers CIA's Hiring Call

Michael Sulick, "a former CIA associate deputy director for operations and former CIA chief of counterintelligence," writes in a July 25, 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times that:

As many as 40 possible terrorists may have attempted to infiltrate U.S. intelligence agencies in recent months, CIA expert Barry Royden reported at a national counterintelligence conference in March.

"If that news isn't sufficiently terrifying," he wrote, "consider this chilling paradox: Though the agencies caught the potential spies at the job application stage, post-Sept. 11 pressures to quickly boost staffing make it increasingly likely that a terrorist could sneak into the intelligence community's ranks." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Robert Scheer: 'On China At Lleast, Nixon Was Right'

Journalist Robert Scheer, who is also a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, has a thought-provoking column in the July 26, 2005 edition of the Los Angeles Times headlined "On China at least, Nixon was right."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Australian Columnist: Ignoring Asia 'Unforgivable'

Columnist Greg Sheridan of The Australian thinks, "The Bush administration has delivered a serious diplomatic snub to Southeast Asia, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refusing to attend the ASEAN Regional Forum and related meetings in Laos this week."

"Instead," he said in a July 26, 2005 column, "she will send her deputy, Bob Zoellick. Rice's inexplicable and gauche decision is a serious setback to U.S. diplomacy in the region, at a time of heightened Chinese diplomatic activism in Southeast Asia," Mr. Sheridan wrote.

See "Ignoring Asia 'unforgivable'" for more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Family Ties and Politics' In The Philippines: An Analysis

Philippines Attorney Connie Veneracion, who writes an interesting blog called The Sassy Lawyer's Journal, has a revealing column in the Manila Standard Today headlined "Family ties and politics". It's a fascinating look at how political alliances are formed in the Philippines.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 24, 2005

Scott Horton Interviews Robert A. Pape

Scott Horton has a highly recommended article at Antiwar.com headlined "Poisonous Misinterpretations" He takes a look "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," an important book by University of Chicago associate professor of political science Robert A. Pape.

Mr. Pape's study of suicide terrorism caused him to conclude that "Foreign occupation," not religion, is the motivating factor behind suicide terrorism, whether in Sri Lanka or the Middle East.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Foreign Affairs Looks At 'Europe's Angry Muslims'

Foreign Affairs, in the summary of an article by Robert S. Leiken in the July/August2005 issue headlined "Europe's Angry Muslims," contends that,

Radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West. They are dangerous and committed -- and can enter the United States without a visa.

Observation: Some analyst just can't accept the fact that Muslims, including many who would never resort to violence, are angry about what the U.S. and her allies are doing in Iraq and other Muslim nations. They blame the anger on the failure to integrate. If most Muslims were so interested in social integration they wouldn't live in predominantly Muslim communities in the West.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

GeoPolitical Review: 'Zapatero Desperate to Reconcile With the U.S'

GeoPolitical Review, one of the best online journals of news and opinion on international affairs, thinks Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is "Desperate to Reconcile With the U.S."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Are Al Qaeda Leaders Directing Bombing Campaigns?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a perspective on Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock's quotes from "counter-terrorism experts who are beginning to wonder of Usama Bin Laden is ordering the terrorist attacks in places like Baghdad, London and Egypt."

"The consensus last spring was that al-Qaeda's command and control structure had been extensively disrupted by the war on terror," Mr. Cole noted. "The feeling was that al-Qaeda leaders in hiding could still incite and provide models, but could not just get up in the morning and order a hit." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Josh Landis: Will U.S. Carry Out Punitive Strikes Against Syria?

Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.Com asks: "Will America carry out punitive Strikes against Syria?" He offers an interesting perspective on the question.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'So Much Killing, So Much Hatred'

Helena Cobban at Just World News reflects on killing and hatred in a post headlined "Terrorism, and responses to it."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Provocative Question: ''Does The U.S. Need More Mercenaries?'

On July 22, 2005, University of Chicago assistant political science professor and blogger Daniel W. Drezner published a thought-provoking post headlined "Does the U.S. need more mercenaries?" I recommend it. You might be surprised what you will learn.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Eric Margolis: West's Policies Must Change

American-born Toronto Sun Columnist Eric Margolis, whose was in London when the July 7, 2005 bombs detonated, told his readers on July 24, 2005:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair keeps insisting the young British-Pakistani men who staged the July 7 bombings were motivated by a rabid, misguided view of Islam, and incited by fanatical imams preaching a cult of hatred against the West.

U.S. President George Bush and Australia's Prime Minister John Howard repeat a similar litany: Terrorism is caused by evil Muslims who hate the West because of its values, religion, freedoms and selfless efforts to bring the light of democracy and civilization to the benighted Islamic world."They insist attacks by Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with the West's military actions in the Muslim world, its efforts to control or plunder oil, or the corrupt, despotic regimes installed there by the U.S., Britain and France," he added. "It's all the fault of run-amok Islam and hate-mongers." Here's more of Mr. Margolis' analysis

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gilad Atzmon: 'Blair the Evil Ideologist'

Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born musician and writer living in London, stated in a July 22, 2005 article published at Arabic Media Internet Network, that:

London is under attack once again. Though on the surface it doesn't look like a catastrophic event the message is clear: we are very vulnerable. And yet, we seem to be very slow to learn our lesson. Although there are some indications that the majority of British public is seriously associating Blair's policies with the deterioration of their day-to-day security situation, until now, no substantial political call to oust Blair has been made.Blair is still running this country and as it is apparent, we are aiming towards a colossal disaster. Some hours ago an Asian man was shot five times down in the Tube by plainclothes police officers. We are moving rapidly towards a fragmented and segregated society in which Asian looking people seem to be under constant threat. In every speech Blair preaches at us to stop the evil ideology.

"Let me be clear about it," Mr. Atzmon said, "putting bombs in the tube is no doubt evil, but what is the ideology behind it? We are yet to learn who stands behind the different London bombings. Thus, we cant associate the different events with any ideology. If to be honest, the only clear and unmistakable evil ideology I can think of is the one practiced by Mr. Blair himself.

"Wasn't it Blair who voluntarily joined forces with Mr. Bush, starting a war without UN approval?"
"It is Blair and Bush the ones who turning our planet into a ticking bomb."

See "Blair the Evil Ideologist" for more of Mr. Atzmon's analysis

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Paradox of Teflon Tony

British columnist Andrew Rawnsley made the following observation in a July 24, 2005 article in The Observer of London:

Here is the paradox: they blame his war, but they rate him more. Pollsters are reporting that a majority of people think there is a connection between the war in Iraq and terror in London, however stridently and insistently Tony Blair and his ministers refuse to acknowledge a link.

"And yet the Prime Minister who took Britain into Iraq is also enjoying the best approval ratings he has had since before the war," Mr. Rawnsley noted. "They judge him to be good in a crisis even when they think he bears some responsibility for that crisis."

Maybe that's why his Don, U.S. President George W. Bush, liked him as a partner in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

See "Whatever you do, do mention the war" for more of Mr. Rawnsley's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Implications of Sharm el-Sheikh and London: An Analysis

Rami G. Khouri, staff writer at The Daily Star of Lebanon, said in a July 25, 2005 article that,

Coming on the heels of the two consecutive transit system attacks in London earlier this month, the deadly bombings in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on Saturday represent a particularly dangerous turn in a global terror scourge."

"Progress against the terrorists will require a qualitatively different, and more effective, political and police response to these latest attacks than has prevailed in recent years," he wrote, adding: "This is due to two reasons, related to Egypt itself and to the global pattern of terror attacks.See "Implications of Sharm el-Sheikh and London: U.S.-led global 'war on terror' may be creating more skilled enemies than it eliminates" for more of his interesting analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tim Hames: 'Oops, Sorry, Won't Do'

Tim Hames at The Times Online says in a July 25, 2005 column that, "The police [in London], according to a Sunday newspaper yesterday [July 24, 2005], fear a backlash in the Muslim community after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian electrician, at Stockwell Tube station on Friday [July 22, 2005]."

"What the police should fear is a backlash from the entire civilised community," Mr. Hames said. "Yet there is no evidence that either the politicians or the public will provide it. The theme has been that this was a tragic mistake, but one which was unavoidable, even inevitable, in the current climate."

For more, see "Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 23, 2005

Is al-Jihad al-Islami Behind Bombings In Egypt?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment places al-Jihad al-Islami "at the top" of the list of suspects responsible for the July 22, 2005 explosions in the Egyptian Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, that killed dozens. Mr. Cole wrote on July 23, 2005:

The al-Jihad al-Islami organization of Ayman al-Zawahir has for over two decades targeted Egypt's tourism industry with violent attacks. For al-Jihad al-Islami, this tactic has several benefits. Tourism is associated in the minds of many ordinary Egyptians with a libertine lifestyle offensive to the puritanism of Muslim piety. Then, Egypt depends heavily on tourism for foreign exchange, and it is an important part of the economy (worth nearly $3 billion a year in good years). Egypt's economy grew 5.3 percent in 2004, the best it has done in a long while (September 11 badly hurt Egypt's economy-- Ayman al-Zawahiri's little revenge on the homeland that exiled him).

Mr. Cole said, "Egypt depends more heavily than ever on services and remittances. Its petroleum exports are slipping. It only earned $1.5 billion in oil revenues last year despite the big bump in prices (it was over $3 billion in the mid-1990s)." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

With Debacle In Iraq, Will U.S. Attack Iran?

The always informative Deep Blade Journal has a highly recommended July 22, 2005 post headlined "Iran war plan? Alarming if true." The gist of the article is that

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

That quote is from an article by CIA veteran Philip Giraldi in the July 18, 2005 print issue of Pat Buchanan's American Conservative, notes Deep Blade Journal.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Daniel Schorr: Can Rove Trump Historic Trend?

Christian Science Monitor columnist and National Public Radio correspondent Daniel Schorr says "Loyalty to the president is a big deal in the White House, but loyalty can be a one-way street." He said in a July 22, 2005 column that:

History offers examples of intimate aides who serve "at the pleasure of the president" having to resign when the president has reasons for displeasure.

Mr. Schorr seems to be saying that if history is a guide, Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's "political brain" and deputy chief of staff, will be dumped by Mr. Bush if he perceives it's necessary to save his own reputation.

According to press reports, Mr. Rove is one of the Bush Administration officials that exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame as an undercover operative, to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for discrediting a Bush claim that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein sought uranium yellowcake from Niger for use in weapons of mass destruction.

See "Can Rove trump historic trend?" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Justin Raimondo On The Bolton-Plame Connection

Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com reminded his readers on July 22, 2005 that, "Would-be UN ambassador John Bolton's connection to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame was first broached in my July 15 column on Plame-gate. His article, "Rove-gate: Who Leaked to the Leakers? This isn't about Karl Rove" raises many important questions and makes interesting observations.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dilpazier Aslam: 'The Muslim Community Is No Monolithic Whole'

Dilpazier Aslam, the Guardian of London trainee journalist whose contract was terminated July 22, 2005 following the publication of an article headlined "We rock the boat: Today's Muslims aren't prepared to ignore injustice." He made this observation, which could just as well apply to many Muslims in the United States:

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

Which is why the young get angry with that breed of Muslim "community leader" who remains silent while anger is seething on the streets.
Earlier this year I attended a mosque in Leeds for Friday prayers. It was in the month of Ramadan, when Islamic fervour is at its most impassioned, yet in the sermon, to a crowd of hundreds - many of whom were from Iraq - Falluja was not referred to once; not even in the cupped-hands prayers after the sermon was over.
I prayed my Eid prayer in a mosque in Sheffield and, though most there were sickened and angry about events in Iraq, the imam chose not to mention Falluja either. We "youngsters" - some now in our 40s - had seen it before. This was deliberate silence, in case the boat rocked.Mr. Aslam said, "Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as "young", "underprivileged", "undereducated" and perhaps even "fringe". The don't-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn't mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more."

The Guardian claims it terminated Mr. Aslam's contract because he refused to give up him membership in Hizb Ut Tahrir (Party of Liberation). The venerable publication ackowledges that, "Subsequent to joining the Guardian, Aslam made no secret of his membership of this political party, drawing it to the attention of several colleagues and some senior editors."

See "Background: the Guardian and Dilpazier Aslam" for the Guardian's position in its own words, and the real reason Mr. Aslam was terminated.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Waltz Of The Media, Government, Police And Terrorist

Matthew Parris, a controversial, South Africa-born, Times of London columnist, contends in a July 23, 2005 column that,

There is an unwitting conspiracy between four separate powers to represent the worldwide al-Qaeda network as fiendishly clever, powerfully effective and deeply involved in the London bombings.

According to Mr. Parris, those powers are the media, government, intelligence services and, "Finally, of course, the terrorist himself." He said,

A reputation for fearsomeness and sophistication is nothing but a boon not only to his self-esteem, but also to his efforts to recruit others to his cause. Never think that speeches about the wickedness and cruelty of al-Qaeda do other than burnish the legend."From a certain point of view, the journalist, the politician, the police chief and the terrorist can be seen as locked in a macabre waltz of the mind, no less distorting for being unconscious.

"We should not to join that dance," Mr. Parris added. See "I name the four powers who are behind the al-Qaeda conspiracy" for more of his views.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

Abdullah Saeed: The Many Faces Of A Living Religion

Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman professor of Arab and Islamic studies and the director of the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam at the University of Melbourne in Australia, contends in a July 20, 2005 article in The Australian that:

For some commentators, Muslims living in the West cannot be loyal citizens of a Western nation-state because their loyalty is to Islam. They are seen as a type of fifth column that is quietly existing until the opportunity arises to challenge the system - even violently - and to change it.Similarly there are certain Muslims who argue that Islam and the West are on a collision course and there is no way that a coexistence is possible.

"I argue that Islam in the West, like Islam in the so-called Muslim world, is a diverse and complex phenomenon that defies the single conception of Islam so prevalent today," Mr. Saeed said in the article, which, according to The Australian, is "an edited version of a paper given at last week's international symposium, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

The article is definitely worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Professor Alon Ben-Meir: 'What The West Doesn't Get

Alon Ben-Meir, professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, stated in a July 21, 2005 United Press International "Outside View" commentary that:

The recent suicide bombings in London stunned not only the British but people in other European counties and elsewhere. I, for one, perhaps like many other observers who have followed how al-Qaida has evolved since its defeat in Afghanistan, was not in the least surprised. Among other important changes in al-Qaida since 9/11 is that its mode of operations has been decentralized, with a greater focus placed on recruiting Arabs and Muslims without criminal records who reside in the West.

"Certainly," he added, "the Iraq war and Britain's role in it have only intensified anti-British and anti-Western feelings among Arabs and Muslims. It was only a matter of time before the first suicide bombers would strike."

Here's more of Ben-Meir's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Political Conflict In Central And Eastern Europe

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. author of "After the Rain - How the West Lost the East," notes in a July 21, 2005 commentary in the Global Politician that,

Transition is a messy affair even in the best of times and the last decade of Central and Eastern European (CEE) history has been by far the worst in the last 50 or so years. Politics mirrored this age of mayhem and upheaval.

He said, "It unfolded along several axes of conflict." See "Taxonomy of Political Conflict In Central and Eastern Europe," to read his analysis of those "axes of conflict."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Muslims: Europe's Big Challenge

"Will Europe have a Muslim majority by the end of this century?" That question was asked by columnist Greg Sheridan in the July 21, 2005 edition of The Australian. See "Europe's big challenge" for his answer.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

Blair Wants To Change Muslims Instead Of His Iraq Policy

The World Peace Herald reported July 19, 2005 that, "Britain's Home Office (rather like the Department of Justice in the United States) is drafting a system of accreditation and qualification for would-be Muslim clerics (imams)."

"They will have to be fluent in English and pass a test in British civic knowledge, and new applicants are expected to undergo a new state-sponsored training course that will promote moderate Islam," the publication said, noting that, " An estimated 1,800 of Britain's 3,000 full-time Imams come from overseas, mainly from Pakistan, and many come with Saudi sponsorship and after some study in Saudi Arabia."

Instead of trying to change British Muslims, Mr. Blair should change his Iraq policy. Britain will be subject to attacks as long as British troops are part of the U.S. occupation force. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Herald Of Britian Analyzes 'The True Cost' Of War For Iraqis

The Herald of Britain said in a July 20, 2005 editorial that the "aims of the dossier" released July 19, 2005 by Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group on civilian deaths in Iraq "are to highlight the forgotten cost of the decision by the United States and Britain to go to war, and to give the world's political leaders a wake-up call about the needs of ordinary Iraqis in their plight. Its publication could not be more timely."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush probably would disagree.

See "The true cost for Iraqis" for more of the editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

U.S. Paper: The 'Leak Mess Is About Credibility On Iraq

The Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette today urged its readers to "Remember: This [Karl Rove] fracas isn't just about a leak. Its about the false claims that sucked America into the needless Iraq war." See "Leak mess: Iraq credibility issue" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Yoel Marcus: 'Get Down From The Rooftops'

Yoel Marcus at Haaretz.Com has an interesting analysis of the political and military situation in Gaza headlined "Get down from the rooftops."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who's To Blame For 'Deteriorating Situation In Gaza?'

Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, said in a July 19, 2005 editorial published in People's Daily Online that, "It seems that everything is getting mixed up-side-down in Gaza as people here are worried and anxious on what would happen just four weeks before the intended Israel withdrawal from settlements in Gaza and northern West Bank."

"Israel, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the radical Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) as well as Egypt and the United States are all involved in creating such a feeling among the Palestinians, observers here said," according to the news service. Here's the entire editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 17, 2005

Djerejian: 'This Is Just So Infuriating'

Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch has an interesting rant headlined "Of French Leaks and Home-Grown Terror." He criticizes Christophe Chaboud, France's new antiterrorism coordinator, for breaking ranks with Britain and the rest of Europe 48 hours after the July 7, 2005 attacks on London.

He accused Mr. Chaboud of leaking to LeMonde the "the nature of the explosives" allegedly used by the four attackers. He also accused him of bringing politics into the situation by stating that "The war in Iraq has revived the logic of total conflict against the west." This infuriated Britain and Mr. Djerejian.

While I think Mr.Chaboud's actions are insignificant, Mr. Djerejian thinks otherwise. Is he upset because Europeans are supposed to stick together against Muslims and they don't?. Anyway, I recommend his analysis of the issue, even if it is a bit emotional.

Also see French, British politics pervade bombing inquiry."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Violation of Iraq's Patrimony: An Analysis

Scholar Chalmers Johnson, whose new book "Nemesis: The Crisis of the American Republic" is due out in 2006, has a long essay at the History News Network on "Why History Will Judge Us Harshly for Our Violation's of Iraq's Patrimony." It was first published at TomDispatch.Com.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Terrorism And Risk Management

Brian Michael Jenkins, a "senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation," takes at look at "The Lessons of London" from a risk manager's perspective. It's worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Jihadists In Iraq: A 'Thinking' And 'Adaptive' Enemy

David Rieff, who covered the war in Iraq for The Guardian and is writing a book about Islam in Europe, opined in a July 16, 2005 column that,

On the battlefields of Iraq, American military officials now no longer deny the skill of the home-grown insurgents and foreign jihadists against whom they have been fighting since the fall of Saddam Hussein. In Pentagon language, US forces are fighting a "thinking" and "adapting" enemy.

He said, "The most important conclusion to draw from the July 7 terrorist bombings in London is that part of that enemy's "adaptation" is to continue the strikes against civilian targets in western capitals and western interests and tourist venues throughout the world that began with the attacks of September 11 2001 on New York and Washington, and have continued in such places as Bali, Istanbul, Madrid and now London."

See "Talking with the jihadists" for more of Mr. Rieff's insightful analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'War Crimes and The "Just War" Theory': An Analysis

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), has a thought-provoking article headlined "War Crimes and The "Just War" Theory" posted at GlobalResearch.ca.

I highly recommended it for it's discussion of what Mr. Chossudovsky describes as "a comprehensive record of US-UK war crimes in Iraq." This record, he said, was established by the "World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) through sessions held in Western Europe, Asia and the U.S.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Questions About 'The Barbaric And The Civilized'

After denouncing the July 7, 2005 attacks in London that resulted in 55 deaths, to date, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar of Malaysia, "a member of the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) which sat in Istanbul from 23 to 27 June 2005," asked in as July 18, 2005 Tehran Times.com article:

If it is barbaric to murder 52 civilians in London, is it civilized to kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq? For that is the number of civilians who have died in Iraq as a result of the Anglo-American occupation of that land since March 2003, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.

Among other questions, he asked: "Why is it that the barbaric deeds of those who claim to be civilized are not part of the popular consciousness?"

Great question.

See "The barbaric and the civilized" for more of Mr. Muzaffar's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rove's Leaks Were Designed to Protect Rationale For Iraq War

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan and the proprietor of Informed Comment, an authoritative blog on Iraq and the Middle East, reminds his readers why Karl Rove told Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper that Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, was a CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issues.

Bottom line: It was about keeping one of the rationales for invading Iraq intact. Namely that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had WMDs and sought to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. This article discredited that claim.

See Rove:It is all going to be Declassified."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)

Economically, The 21st Century May Belong To China

Tim Johnson of Knight-Ridder News Service says "If the 20th was the American century, the 21st may belong to China."

"Just five years into it, China has become the world's third-largest trader, one of its fastest-growing economies, a rising military power in northeast Asia and a global player extending its influence in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America," he wrote in a July 17, 2005 article. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:19 PM | Comments (0)

Raed: Attacks On Iraqi Civilians Are Unjustifed

Raed Jarrar of Raed in the Middle today put up a post on the killing of civilians in Iraq. It's headlined "Targeting Iraqi Civilians in Msayyab."

"It seems that it's unclear yet what caused the explosion at the gas station, but in case it was an arranged attack, it's a big cruel massacre," he wrote. "Such destructive attacks are only in the interest of Iraq's enemies who try to start internal ethnic clashes. I can't imagine any Iraqi, Arab or Muslim who is capable of attacking mosques and killing innocent civilians. Such an attack against Iraqi civilians is unjustified and should be condemned."

I unequivocally agree, Raed.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)

Chris Smith: Britain's Role In Iraq War 'Makes UK A Terror Target'

The Sunday Express of Britain reported July 17, 2005 that, "Labour former cabinet minister Chris Smith believes that Britain's participation in the Iraq war had made it more of a target for terrorists."

"But while Britain should change the flavour of its foreign policy, it was wrong to make a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks on London, he said," the Express reported in an unsigned article, adding: Mr Smith, who is set to take his seat in the House of Lords on Monday [July 18, 2005], told GMTV's The Sunday Programme:

I am almost certain that the fact that we enthusiastically supported George Bush in his engagement in Iraq, and we participated in it, probably makes us as a country more vulnerable than we might have been.
We'd have been vulnerable anyway. It probably makes us a bit more vulnerable.
It does not remove the blame that absolutely has to lie with the people who caused the bombing. The people responsible for the bombs were the bombers.

He also said, according to the Express:

If we position ourselves strongly on the side of justice and trying to work towards a solution in some of those great international issues, then I think, it changes the flavour of what we are doing internationally. "But what I wouldn't want to do is to make the explicit link [with Iraq] because I think it's not a terribly sensible way of trying to approach these things.

"I think he's back peddling. See "Iraq war 'makes UK a terror target'" for more details.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:20 AM | Comments (0)

July 16, 2005

Drezner: Is The War Against Al Qaeda Generating Results?

University of Chicago assistant political science professor Daniel Drezner, proprietor of Daniel W. Drezner said in July 15, 2005 post that, "Just about everyone is questioning the policy on Iraq. However, one of the key criticisms of the Iraq war is that it incubated a new generation of adherents to Al Qaeda. Is that really true? Are the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies "sound enough and solid enough to win in our arenas"?

Can anyone answer his questions?

For more, see"Is The War Against Al Qaeda Generating Results?.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)

Deep Blade Journal Analyzes U.S. 'Domination By Detention'

Eric Olson at the informative Deep Blade Journal has a penetrating analysis of the Bush Administration's assumption of the role of "arbiter of humanity." His analysis is based on the July 14, 2005 appearance of some current leaders of the US military's Judge Advocate General (JAG) services "before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee."

Mr. Olson noted that, "The Washington Post on Friday [July 15, 2005] had a Page A01 story on this hearing headlined ``Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations''. Mr. Olson wrote:

Okay, they fought some things -- often on the clearly valid basis that it is not a good idea to allow tortures be committed against enemies that we would not want used on our own troops. Note however, that the memos containing these discussions remain secret, including from members of Congress. But I watched a good chunk of this thing on C-SPAN 2. I was very troubled by what I heard. For the most part, the JAGs have accepted the notion that the President of the United States has the ``Commander-in-Chief'' authority to declare a whole new classification of persons detained in territory under US invasion called ``enemy combatant'', to declare on this personal authority that international law does not apply to this class, to then deport these persons to a facility half-way around the world (this act itself a grave breach of the intent of international law), and to declare by unsubstantiated fiat -- indeed what a reasonable person easily could find to be precisely the opposite -- what constitutes ``humane'' treatment of such detainees.

Mr. Olson said, "Terror War or not, it should be easy to see how a reasonable person could interpret such declarations as dictatorial, despotic policies."

For more, see "Domination by detention US declares itself arbiter of humanity." I highly recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:02 PM | Comments (0)

U.S. Mission Creep In Latin America

Tom Barry, policy director for the International Relations Center and the author of "numerous books about Latin America and the Caribbean," has a penetrating analysis at the Global Politician on U.S. policy in Latin America. It's headlined "Mission Creep in Latin America - U.S. Southern Command's New Security Strategy."

Mr. Barry's look at an area of the world that's largely of little consequence and importance in global politics is quite revealing

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

Difficulties In Iraq War Sparks Debate On U.S. Military Policy

Roman Kupchinsky at Radio Free Europe reports that, "Pentagon planners have begun reviewing one of the pillars of U.S. military strategy: Should the United States maintain its long-standing policy of being prepared to fight two wars concurrently while maintaining a sufficiently effective counterterrorism/homeland defense?"

"The debate comes as 138,000 U.S. combat troops are stationed in Iraq, fighting an asymmetrical war against Iraqi rebels at a cost of $5 billion per month," he noted. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:11 PM | Comments (0)

Are Hawks, Doves Given Equal Say In The Australian?

Tom Switzer of The Australian opined on July 16, 2005 that,

Given that I'm writing this article from inside the trenches of what Robert Manne calls "the aggressively pro-war editorial team at The Australian", it is worth noting that Manne and I agree about one thing: the Iraq war was unnecessary. After all, the threat that Saddam Hussein posed could have been contained, as indeed it had been since the 1991 Gulf War.

He added: "And although Iraq had been ruled by a brutal tyrant, the task of exporting democracy to an arbitrarily created state and ethnically and tribally fractured society was bound to be so messy and so dangerous that it was not worth so much blood and treasure."

Well put, sir. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

Why McDonnel Called For Britain's Withdrawal From Iraq

Ireland Online (IOL) reported July 16, 2005 that, John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said it was "intellectually unsustainable" for British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to say the Iraq war played no part in the July 7, 2005 bombings in London that caused 55 known deaths and wounded dozens more. He said, according to IOL: The Butler Inquiry had revealed security service warnings of an upsurge in terrorism if Britain joined the US invasion."

Mr. McDonnell also said:

Now is the time to prevent further violence by renouncing violent solutions ourselves. Our mission must be to prevent conflict, not provoke it. For as long as Britain remains in occupation in Iraq, the terrorist recruiters will have the argument they seek to attract more susceptible young recruits to their bomb teams.Britain must withdraw now. What message is sent to young people when two million march against a war, with those marches led by young Muslims actively participating in politics often for the first time, and yet they have their voices ignored?

"He said young Muslims across the world were being influenced by pictures of Allied bombing of Baghdad, abuse at Abu Graib jail and chained prisoners at Guantanamo Bay," IOL noted. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)

July 15, 2005

Daniel Schorr: Rove Leak Is Just Part Of Larger Scandal

Veteran journalist Daniel Schorr, senior news analyst at National Public Radio and a Christian Science Monitor columnist, said in his July 15, 2005 column: "Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war."

I agree. The reason the White House deliberately exposed Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush Administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a CIA operative, not the leak and journalists right to protect sources, is the pivotal issue.

Ms. Plame was considered "fair game" by Bush Administration operatives who wanted to punish Mr. Wilson for disputing in a July 6, 2003 article in The New York Times the Administration's false claim that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger, in an attempt to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction program.

See "Rove leak is just part of larger scandal" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:30 PM | Comments (0)

British Investigators Speculate About Where Probe Will Lead

The Guardian of London reports in a July 16, 2005 article that Metropolitan police chief constable, Sir Ian Blair, said "What we expect to find at some stage is that there is a clear al-Qaida link, a clear al-Qaida approach" in the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, in which 54 person died and hundreds were wounded.

Mr. Blair made the statement during a July 15, 2005 interview with the BBC, according to The Guardian. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:33 PM | Comments (0)

Are Muslims In U.S. Condemning Terrorism Loudly Enough?

Ray Hanania, an award-winning Palestinian-American journalist, author and Creators' Syndicate columnist who writes on the Middle East and other issues, notes in the July 16, 2005 issues of Arab News that, American Arab and Muslim groups quickly and sharply condemned the terrorist attacks in London last week."

"The attacks pushed the demarcation line on what is and isn't possible," he wrote. "Many observers, including Stephen Emerson, warned that it is a matter of when, not if, suicide bombers strike America again. Yet one week later, when a Palestinian suicide bomber struck a shopping mall in Netanya near Tel Aviv, nearly all the Arab and Muslim organizations were silent. The attack was blamed on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the sibling of Hamas."

Mr. Hanania, a former Chicago Sun-Times reporter, said, "These American organizations are playing a duplicitous and dangerous game. They are only saying enough to protect themselves against what they fear will be a repeat of the post-Sept. 11 backlash."

It's my opinion that Muslim and Arab organizations can let a Bush Administration speech writer write their condemnation of suicide bombings and it will still not be enough. Arabs and Muslims are the new niggers. The group gets blamed for what individuals do. On the contrary, Christians were not expected to apologize when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building on April 19, 1995 killing 167 men, women and children and wounding dozens more. If Muslims condemn terrorism on Saturday, why should they be expected to condemn it on Sunday, too?

See "Not Enough Being Done to Condemn Terrorism by Arab and Muslim Groups in US" for more of Mr. Hanania's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:21 PM | Comments (0)

Britain's 'Quick Results" In Bombing Investigation

Arab News, which bills itself as "The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily, opines in a June 16, 2005 editorial, that,

The speed of the British investigation into the four London suicide bombings only nine days ago has been quite startling. Despite the fact the forensic experts were having to deal with the gruesome remains of the killers and their victims deep in the capitals underground network, within five days they had established for certain the identities of at least two of the bombers, had raided six addresses in the counties of Yorkshire and Bedfordshire and discovered two cars used by the attackers. These raids yielded significant quantities of homemade explosives and it seems a great deal more evidence that was also acted upon rapidly. As a result of one lead, the Egyptian authorities yesterday arrested at the request of the British an Egyptian biochemist, Magdi Mahmoud Al-Nashar in Cairo. Nashar had left his home in Yorkshire shortly before the London attacks.

Arab News said, "With young men prepared to throw away their lives, the current high state of alert in Britain may be no deterrent. However for the men of evil behind them, the massive dragnet may be of more real concern."

I agree. However, if future bombers are highly skilled at staying below the radar, and are determined to hit their targets, the dragnets will be a nuisance not a deterrent. See "Quick results" for more of the Arab News editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:50 PM | Comments (0)

Juan Cole On 'The Ghost of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan'

In a July 15, 2005 post headlined "The Ghost of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan," Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment says John Aravosis at AmericaBlog brings up the awful possibility, based on an ABC report, that the Public Relations-hungry Bush administration may have interfered with a British and Pakistani investigation of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb London that ties into July 7.

"The question is whether Bush played politics with terror around the time of the Democratic National Convention in late July, 2004," Mr. Cole writes. "Jim Lobe reminded us at the time that '

The New Republic weekly quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying the White House had asked them to announce the arrest or killing of any "high-value [al-Qaeda] target" any time between July 26 and 28, the first three days of the Democratic Convention. At the time, former CIA officer Robert Baer said the announcement made "no sense." "To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this." '

Look for some conservative bloggers to attack Mr. Cole for speculating on whether the Bush Administration uses the so-called war on terror for political gain.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:53 AM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2005

Jonathan Freedland Analyzes 'The Attack From Within'

Jonathan Freedland of Mail & Guardian Online reported July 14, 2005 that, "Fiyaz Mughal, who runs the interfaith Diverse Trust [in England], told me an agenda is already forming for British Muslims." He added:

First item would be a stepping up of efforts to train British-born imams -- rather than relying on foreign leaders with an incendiary line in rhetoric. Next, moderates will demand that British Muslims report those they suspect of spreading jihadist fury. Mughal admits that literature glorifying 9/11 and the like is easily available in the British Muslim community; now, he predicts, those handing it out could find themselves turned in. Finally, he hopes for new Muslim engagement in the political process. Their demands will be clear, calling for a change in the foreign policy areas -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine -- that they believe have ignited the extremists in their midst.

Mr. Freedland said, "Of course, this burden cannot fall on Muslims alone. The realization that Britons are ready to bomb their fellow citizens is a challenge to the whole of our society." For more, see "The attack from within."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)

Some Britsh Authorities Know Why Men Set Off Bombs

Burhan Wazir, deputy features editor of The Times of London, said this in a July 14, 2005 article about the four men accused of detonating bombs in London July 7, 2005:

Of all the evidence that demonstrates the confusion of the four hopelessly stupid British men who took their own lives, as well as the lives of more than fifty Londoners last Thursday, that provided by Jodie Reynolds, from Leeds, a neighbour of one of the bombers, was the most compelling. The young man's favorite song, she said, had been Elvis Presley's version of the Eddy Arnold classic, Make the World Go Away.

"I just cant believe that young lad, with his whole life ahead of him, would carry a bomb on his back and get on a bus and blow himself up, said Ms Reynolds. What on earth would have made him do it?"A great question. However, British authorities already know the answer. It's in a leaked, April 6, 2004 document titled "Relations With The Muslim Community." See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4, which appeared in the July 10, 2005 edition of The Times in an article headlined "Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda's British recruits."

For more of Mr. Wazir's commentary see "A minority of extremists has been allowed to intimidate other Muslims."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:38 AM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2005

The Village Voice Reviews Messages From A Muslim E-mail List

George Smith has a very informative article in the July 12, 2005 issue of The Village Voice headlined "After the London Bombings: 'Our Dead Have Names Too': Messages from a Muslim e-mail list." I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:43 PM | Comments (0)

Many Britsh Muslims Came From Former British Colonies

Jocelyn Cesari, a "professor of Islamic Studies at Harvard University and a specialist on Muslim minorities in Europe and the U.S," notes, according to the Financial Times "that at least in parts of Europe like France and the UK, Muslim immigrant families came from countries that were under colonial rule, a troubled memory that has delayed integration into European societies. The colonial past is not erased from memory, she says," according to The Times.

See "Disaffected youths find identity in fundamentalism" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:32 PM | Comments (0)

Blair Wants To Mobilize 'Moderate And True Voice Of Islam'

"A week after four bombs killed at least 52 people on subway trains and a bus during London's rush hour, Britons are stunned that the presumed killers were British, born and bred," notes Matthew Schofield of Knight Ridder Newspapers. He wrote on July 13, 2005:

Anti-terrorism officials, who have always hoped that younger Muslims raised in Great Britain would reject radical teachings about Islamic holy war, worry about what the attacks mean about the future of security here.

"It's exactly what nobody wanted to hear in this case," said Paul Cornish, who heads the international security program for the British research center Chatham House. "These are normal people from normal lives who, as far as we know, woke up one morning and decided to blow up an underground train.

"That means not only that we didn't know about them, but that we couldn't have, at least before they acted. It means Londoners are going to have to get used to suicide bombings as a part of life."Mr. Schofield also noted that, "Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament on Wednesday [July 13, 2005] that police work alone couldn't solve the problem of homegrown terrorists. He said there was a need to "mobilize the moderate and true voice of Islam" if officials were ever to make real progress in overcoming radicalism."

The best way to diffuse radicalism is not to take part in military adventures in Muslim lands, and to withdraw from Iraq. Besides, it's naive to expect Muslims to passively sit back and let Western nations do whatever they want to Muslims. The new generation is not like the older generation whose leaders tremble when the West speaks.

For more of Mr. Schofield's analysis, see "Bombers were `normal' Britons; officials fear homegrown terrorism.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:49 PM | Comments (0)

When Ordinary Muslims Resort To Extreme Measures

Peter Wilson of The Australian captured what the West will face as more Muslims who would not ordinarily resort to extreme measures to make a political point do so in response to Britain and the United States' war in Iraq. A war that has caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims since the March 20, 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation that spawned a resistance that has killed Western occupiers and their collaborators and anyone else in the way. A war in which the U.S. does not do body counts of Iraqis killed.

In his July 14, 2005 article, Mr Wilson profiles Shehzad Tanweer, "the man that Britain hoped would never exist;" a man who resorted to extreme measures to make a political point.

"For the past week," he wrote, "security officials and the public have desperately wanted to find that the killers behind the [July 7, 2005] London bombings were foreigners, an imported malignancy that could eventually be rejected by the nation's immune system."

"But yesterday," he added, "in the grimy back streets of Leeds, they found that 22-year-old Tanweer was the man who blew up a train near Aldgate station while three of his friends set off other bombs.
Tanweer was no foreigner. He loved cricket. His hard-working family runs a fish and chip shop. He was born and raised in England. He lived just a kilometre from the Elland Road ground of his football team, Leeds United.

"He was as English as any young Muslim of Pakistani descent could possibly be. And worst of all, he managed to maintain the veneer of a moderate and reasonably devout British Muslim."

I can see someone eventually writing something similar about an American-born Muslim taking a similar action in response to U.S. policies in Iraq. It happened in England and it can happen in the U.S.

See "Anyone could be a terrorist" for more of Mr. Wilson's article.to

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:11 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2005

Would Withdrawal From Iraq Curb Terrorism?

Salim Lone, a former spokesman for the U.N. mission in Iraq, thinks," The Gleneagles summit's grand stage might well have shown up George Bush's hypocrisy in proclaiming an "ideology of compassion" over African poverty and global warming. Instead, the London bombings allowed the president and [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair to strut as anti-terror champions again, when in fact their policies continue to produce thousands of new terrorists," he wrote in the July 12, 2005 issue of Guardian Unlimited. Mr. Lone also said:

One hardly expected British and US officials to admit the Iraq-terror link. Blair and Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, denied this linkage by recalling that the 1998 east Africa US embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks took place before the 2003 Iraq war. But not one interviewer or reporter pointed out that both those attacks were preceded by another war against Iraq, following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

"Indeed," he added, "it was that war and the accompanying UN sanctions, plus the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, that ushered in our age of global terror with the attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993."

Mr. Lone also wrote: "You would think the pair of them [Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair] had never hurt a soul. There appeared to be no memory of the half a million Iraqi children killed by sanctions ruthlessly maintained by the US and UK. Indeed, this slaughter was defended as necessary to advance US interests by Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state. It was "worth it", she told CBS in 1996." For more of Mr. Lone's analysis, see "Withdrawal would curb terrorism."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:24 AM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2005

The Three-way Rivalry Between U.S., Pakistan And Afghanistan

Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia and Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asiastated in a July 8, 2005 article for the BBC News website that,

The shooting down by the Taleban of a Chinook transport helicopter packed with US Special Forces close to the border with Pakistan has once again raised the spectre of increased three way tensions between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States.

Mr. Rashid, who also writes for The Daily Telegraph of London, said, "The tug of war between their conflicting interests continues to hamper joint efforts to combat terrorism and provide a serious commitment to furthering nation and democracy building" in Afghanistan."

See "Rival aims hinder war on terror" for more of Mr. Rashid's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

What Is The Background Of British Jihadist?

"A significant number of Jihadist in Britain "come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood," says a 100-page dossier that grew out of a study of British Muslims ordered by British Prime Minister Tony Blair following the Madrid train bombing in 2004, according to July 10, 2005 issue of The Sunday Times of Britain. "These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction."

The Sunday Times said, "The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says:

It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived double standard in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

The perception is that passive oppression, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to active oppression. The analysis also says, "The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam."

For more, see "Leaked No 10 dossier reveals al-Qaeda's British recruits. The article contains links to the leaked document."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:08 PM | Comments (0)

Cafe Babel: Who Will Be Next?

"Everyone expected an attack on London and yet no one was able to prevent it," opines Eleonora Palermo at Cafe Babel. Are Italy and Denmark the only countries living in fear or does the spectre of terrorism loom over the rest of Europe too?"

See "Who Will Be Next?" for more of Ms. Palermo's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:46 PM | Comments (0)

CSM Sees A New Al Qaeda With Local Franchises

Peter Grier, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, reported July 11, 2004 that, "A decade ago Al Qaeda was an entrepreneurial jihadist start-up firm. Today it may have evolved into something bigger, and less tightly controlled: a worldwide franchiser of terrorist attacks." See "The new Al Qaeda: local franchises" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:22 PM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2005

Geopolitics in Central Asia Today: An Analysis

Professor Oliver Lee, who teaches Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China relations at the University of Hawaii, has an insightful article in the Journal of Turkish Weekly headlined "Geopolitics in Central Asia Today." His thesis is that, "Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S, has pursued a policy of penetrating the former Soviet republics in Central Asia as well as the Caucasus region, something that had been strategically out of the questions before that collapse."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)

A Neo-Con Laments As His Son Goes to War

Eliot A. Cohen, Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and one of the American neoconservatives anxious for war in Iraq, has a fascinating article in today's Washington Post headlined "A Hawk Questions Himself as His Son Goes to War." Mr. Cohen concludes his article by saying:

There is a lot of talk these days about shaky public support for the war. That is not really the issue. Nor should cheerleading, as opposed to truth-telling, be our leaders' chief concern. If we fail in Iraq -- and I don't think we will -- it won't be because the American people lack heart, but because leaders and institutions have failed. Rather than fretting about support at home, let them show themselves dedicated to waging and winning a strange kind of war and describing it as it is, candidly and in detail. Then the American people will give them all the support they need. The scholar in me is not surprised when our leaders blunder, although the pundit in me is dismayed when they do.

Mr. Cohen said, "What the father in me expects from our leaders is, simply, the truth -- an end to happy talk and denials of error, and a seriousness equal to that of the men and women our country sends into the fight."

Well, sir, I'm afraid you will be waiting a long time if you expect forthrightness from the Bush Administration. Secondly, you got your war and now your son will help fight it. So will my niece, who is scheduled to depart for Iraq in August.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

AINA: Iraq's Ethnic Factions Face Difficult Decisions

The Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) said, "It is hard to fathom how Iraqis can agree on the complex details of constitutional power-sharing by August 15 [2005]. Delays in forming the government and appointing the constitutional committee revealed the extent to which Iraqi politics is defined by regionalism and the degree of distrust between Iraqi groups," AINA said in a July 9, 2005 analysis, adding: "Given Iraq's history of confrontation, negotiations over the constitution are sure to sharpen differences."

For more of AINA's analysis, see "Iraq's Ethnic Factions Face Difficult Decisions About Their Future."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:41 PM | Comments (0)

Tony Blair's Blowback

Gary Younge of Guardian Unlimited, in an article in the July 11, 2005 issue that is sure to lead to attacks on him from both sides of the Atlantic, states that, British Prime Minister "Tony Blair is not responsible for the more than 50 dead and 700 injured on Thursday" [July 7, 2005] during four explosions in London. "In all likelihood, "jihadists" are.

But he is partly responsible for the 100,000 people who have been killed in Iraq. And even at this early stage there is a far clearer logic linking these two events than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.
It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn't gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, "I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow." True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.

Mr. Younge said, "Similarly, invading Iraq clearly made us a target. Did Downing Street really think it could declare a war on terror and that terror would not fight back?" he asked, adding: "That, in itself, is not a reason to withdraw troops if having them there is the right thing to do. But since it isn't and never was, it provides a compelling reason to change course before more people are killed here or there. So the prime minister got it partly right on Saturday when he said: "I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

For more of Mr. Younge's analysis, see "Blair's blowback."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:31 PM | Comments (0)

David Clark's Strategy For Containing Muslim Fighters

David Clark, a former adviser to Britain's Labour government, thinks "an effective strategy can be developed to counter Al-Qaida and other Muslim fighters, "but it means turning our attention away from the terrorists and on to the conditions that allow them to recruit and operate," according to an opinion piece in the July 10, 2005 edition of Khaleej Times Online, He added:

No sustained insurgency can exist in a vacuum. At a minimum, it requires communities where the environment is permissive enough for insurgents to blend in and organize without fear of betrayal. This does not mean that most members of those communities approve of what they are doing. It is enough that there should be a degree of alienation sufficient to create a presumption against cooperating with the authorities. We saw this in Northern Ireland.

From this point of view, it must be said that everything that has followed the fall of Kabul has been ruinous to the task of winning over moderate Muslim opinion and isolating the terrorists within their own communities. In Iraq we allowed America to rip up the rule book of counter-insurgency with a military adventure that was dishonestly conceived and incompetently executed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by US troops uninterested in distinguishing between combatant and noncombatant, or even counting the dead. Mr. Clark said, "The hostility engendered has been so extreme that Iraq may become a worse breeding ground for international terrorism than Afghanistan was."

See "Look for the causes" for more of Mr. Clark's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

The Palm Beach (Florida) Post On 'Winning The Other War'

"The Palm Beach (Florida) Post noted in a July 9, 2005 editorial that, "President Bush says he has a workable plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq so U.S. troops can come home. This would be a good time for his administration to review whether it has a workable plan to accomplish the same goals in Afghanistan," The Post said in the editorial headlined "Winning the 'other war'".

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)

Is al-Qaida On The Run Or On The Move?

"Is al-Qaida on the run - or on the move?" That question was asked July 10, 2005 by Jon Sawyer, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Washington Bureau Chief. See "Strength of al-Qaida is difficult to assess" for his answer.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)

France Momentarily Puts Aside Dispute With Britain Over Iraq War

Emma-Kate Symons of The Australian reported July 11, 2005 from Paris that, "Senior politicians and the national media in France have put aside disputes over the Iraq war and pledged unqualified support to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the wake of the London bomb attacks [on July 7, 2005], stating that Europe must not give in to the divisions that followed the terrorist atrocities in Madrid last year."

See "Al-Qa'ida must not divide Europe" for more of Ms. Symons' analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)

Frum: Americans Still Waiting For 'Victory in Iraq'

David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and co-author of "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" with Richard Perle, opined in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that:

The president is going to talk about Iraq again. He's going to have to. The problem is not that his speech June 28 failed to quell his critics: No speech could have done that. The problem is that his speech failed to reassure his worried supporters.

Mr. Frum said, "Those of us who support this president and this war do not need to be told how important it is to win. We get that. But that's precisely why we are worried because every day brings terrible news that makes us fear that the war is being lost." See "Americans still awaiting words on 'victory' in Iraq" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:49 PM | Comments (0)

Should U.S. Stay The Course In Iraq?

The Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger told its readers today that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "would be disastrous. As detailed in the front section of today's Perspective section," the paper said, "the repercussions of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq without planning and precaution would be disastrous not only for Iraq, but for the United States." Here's why.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)

Seattle Times' Analyzes Reactions To Its Iraq Editorials

Seattle Times Columnist James Vesely said in a July 10, 2005 column that, "Praise and condemnation poured like Seattle rain on Times editorial pages for our five-part editorial series "America in Iraq," on the conduct and aftermath of the Iraq war." He added:

In a divided nation, a blue state and a red-and-blue region, there is not going to be much accord on anything, let alone a foreign war.

Of the hundreds of e-mail responses, the tidal shift of attitudes toward the war was evident. It comes down to a matter of a belief system: Do you believe the Iraq war has strengthened or weakened the terrorist attacks on the West? On the war in Iraq, including the London bombings, the response for and against was about a draw, reflective of the country. Mr. Vesely said, "There are about as many people against the war as support it, and by logic, against and for the president who commands the war." Here's the entire column.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:52 PM | Comments (0)

Writer: Bush Is Going To Get Us All KIlled

Noble Johns at Black News Weekly.com offers a tough assessment of U.S. President George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism in a July 10, 2005 post. He said:

Stupid Bush's strategy in the war against terrorism is to take the fight to the Middle East and we wont have to fight them at home. Why, this is a strategy for disaster, and the dumbest military strategy since Hitler tried to fight a war on two fronts.On the contrary, by US going over there killing men, women and children in Iraq, the first thing the terrorists are thinking is Americans need to feel what we feel.

"That appears to me to be the most common sense response to our invasion of Iraq by the people of the Middle East," Mr. Johns said. "However, the strategy of stupid Bush will get US all killed in America, Just look at happened to London last week!" Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)

The Egyptian Media And The Killing Of Ehab El-Sherif

The Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger whose publication is worth reading, today published an interesting commentary on "how the Egyptian media dealt with the killing of our ambassador in Iraq," Ehab El-Sherif. The envoy was kidnapped on July 2, 2005 and later killed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:08 PM | Comments (0)

Is The U.S. Preparing For Regime Change In The Philippines?

In a July 6, 2005 "Speaking Freely" column published at Asia Times Online, Dr E San Juan, Jr, recent "Fulbright professor of American Studies at Leuven University, Belgium, and fellow of the Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University, according to the publication, said:

Incontrovertible signs from Washington and elsewhere indicate that the Bush administration and its reactionary cabal have already instructed their local agents in Manila to replace President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with one of the elite factions, together with a bloc of traditional military-business groups.

See "U.S. designs on the Philippines" for more of his analysis of the political upheaval underway in the Philippines, where calls for the president to resign are mounting daily.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)

Abid Ullah Jan: 'War on Islam Intensifies'

Abid Ullah Jan, author of "The End of Democracy and A war on Islam," has a worth-reading article at Al-Jazeerah.Info. Even if you don't agree with his analysis, and I don't expect you to, I recommend it for its alternative perspective on the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. It's headlined "War on Islam Intensifies."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:01 PM | Comments (0)

Richard North: 'Security Begins At Home'

Nile Gardiner and John C. Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation contend in the July 10, 2005 edition of The Business Online that "the Anglo-American alliance stands as the bulwark of western civilisation." Their thesis comes in the wake of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, in which more than 50 people were reportedly killed and hundreds wounded, allegedly by an Al-Qaeda affiliated group.

Gardiner and Hulsman's thesis does not sit well with the prolific Richard North of EU Referendum. Today he published an incisive critique of "Anglo-US alliance: bulwark of our western civilisation." See "Security begins at home" for his dissection of what he calls "a quite extraordinarily naïve and ill-informed op-ed in The Business today--a piece an otherwise sterling newspaper should be ashamed of."

Mr. North's contention is that "it is to the European Union rather than the US that the British government is looking" during the current crisis.

Finally, whether I agree with him or not, I always find Mr. North's commentary refreshing. That's why I highly recommend his critique of Gardiner and Hulsman's thesis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)

Did Iraqi Officials Reveal Too Much About Ehab El-Sherif?

In an interesting article on "the killing of Ehab El-Sherif, head of the Egyptian diplomatic mission in Baghdad, at the hands of Al-Qaeda in Iraq," Al-Ahram (The Pyramid) of Egypt made this revealing observation:

Following his arrival in Baghdad, Sherif attempted to maintain a low profile to better facilitate his mission of building bridges with all Iraqi groups. However, last month Iraq's Foreign Minister Houchiar Zibari and former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told reporters in Brussels and Cairo respectively that Sherif would be upgrading his diplomatic mission in Baghdad to the level of an embassy.

"Egyptian diplomatic sources at the time denied the intention of Cairo to pursue an upgrade," the English language weekly said in its July 7-13, 2005 issue. "Sherif, an ambassador by rank, was instructed that the status of his diplomatic representation in Iraq would remain unchanged."

Did Mr. Zibari and Mr. Allawi reveal too much? Just asking. See "Cairo mourns murdered diplomat" for more."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2005

Jihad Unspun's Analysis Of Al-Qaida In Europe Statement

Khadija Abdul Qahaar at Jihad Unspun said, "While Al-Qaida was quickly blamed for the attacks that killed at least 45 people and wounded another 300 when three bombs exploded on the London Underground train network and a fourth detonated on a double-decker bus during Thursday's [July 7, 2005] morning rush hour, there appears to be many holes in the so-called official statement released by the "Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe". She added:

The previously unknown group circulated a claim of responsibility shortly after this morning attacks, a copy of which was received by JUS however this statement has some glaring errors in it that indicated to us that this material did not likely come from Al-Qaida. JUS translates Al-Qaida statements daily in order to bring readers the other side of the war of terror and there are many problems with this so-called official statement. To begin with, Al-Qaida statements come first to Arabic press not from BBC and Reuters. This statement first appear in mainstream press and was subsequently picked up by Arab press, which breaks rank with ever other statement Al-Qaida has ever issued officially. This fact alone should make the validity of this statement suspect. Secondly, the Arabic grammar used in the so-called claim of responsibility is incorrect. Al-Qaida statements have a consistency in the Arabic language that is written in their Mother tongue. Maybe most importantly, is the incomplete and incorrect ayahs from the Quran used in this alleged statement.

The writer said, "While grammar could for arguments sake be overlook, incomplete and incorrect versus from the Quran is something the brothers of Tawheed or Holy Warriors who live and die by the word of Allah know intimately. In the ayahs quoted, they simply would not make these mistakes."

See "Who's Behind The Bombings In London Town?" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:54 PM | Comments (0)

Defending George Galloway

Rhetoric vs Reality in London, a July 8, 2005 post at the Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch, offers an interesting perspective on pro-war bloggers' attacks on British MP George Galloway for his anti-war stance. It was written by Sheldon Rampton, who calls their criticism "dishonest rhetoric, sprinkled with name-calling."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:05 PM | Comments (0)

River Bend: 'Now 9/11 Is Getting Old'

River Bend at Baghdad Burning, whose blog I was unable to access for the last seven days for some reason, critiqued U.S. President George W. Bush's June 28, 2005 speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. I found her opinion on this Bush statement: "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001"--particularly interesting.

"Do people really still believe this?" she asked in a July 1, 2005 post, adding

In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? Its difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn't know that sort of extremism. We didn't have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.

"Now 9/11 is getting old.," River Bend asserted. " Now, 100,000+ Iraqi lives and 1700+ American lives later, its becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?"

For more see "Unbelievable..."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:00 PM | Comments (0)

Sher Khan: 'Religion Has No Part In This'

Sher Khan, chair of the public affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, opined in a July 8, 2005 article in Guardian Unlimited of London:

There are people claiming responsibility for these [July 7, 2005 bombing] atrocities, calling on the "nation of Islam and the Arab nation to rejoice" as these acts are "retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan". These people give the lie to religion. Whatever people feel about the current UK foreign policy, this cannot be used as an excuse to murder innocent people going about their business.

"Islam does not sanction such murder," Sher Khan added. " Indeed, there is no one with a genuine belief in God who can have sympathy for such evil acts. The pursuit of justice cannot be used as an excuse for committing injustices against others. People who have lost their way in life have challenged our values. We must reply with a united voice."

For more, see "Religion has no part in this."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:28 PM | Comments (0)

Why is Djerejian Criticizing Alan Cowell?

Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch doesn't like New York Times correspondent Alan Cowell's July 8, 2005 article headlined "Blair's Rising Star Runs Into a Treacherous Future." Read his rant here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

'Al Qaeda's Latest Strategic Mistake'

Ahmed Al-Rabei at Asharq Alawsat newspaper in London said in a July 9, 2005 article:

The terrorist operation in London on Thursday [July 7, 2005] is the latest in a series of errors carried out by al Qaeda. It is an operation with no political aim. After all, Britain is not Spain and the government will not give in to the terrorists and withdraw its troops from Iraq . A look at the history of the closest US ally shows that the British government has always stood firm in the international arena. In fact, London's reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 increased the resolve of the US government to act swiftly.

For more, see "Al Qaeda's Latest Strategic Mistake."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:57 PM | Comments (0)

'Bad Terrorist' and 'Good Terrorist'

Writing in the Journal of Turkish Weekly, Ömer Yilmaz and Ihsan Bal notes that,

It was thirty years ago when the Afghan mujahids were the heroes of the Western countries due to their struggle against Soviet Russia. And the retreat of Soviets from Afghanistan was celebrated by these countries as the victory of democracy, liberty and freedom against Communism and coercion and etc. As the time past, these mujahids became terrorists: A terrorist, whom declared to be one of the most dangerous threats against the global security... A terrorist, who showed his bloody face clearly in New York, Istanbul, Bali, Madrid, Cairo and lastly in London... A organized crime organization all over the world to an extent that could never be achieved. And a terrorist, who was fed, trained and financed by the targets he hit...

The writers said, "Killing innocents either by cruise missiles or suicide bombs cannot be accepted and must be cursed."

For more, see "Al-Qaeda and PKK: "Bad Terrorist" and "Good Terrorist."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:48 PM | Comments (0)

Luttwak: Al-Qaeda Didn't Do It. Its Offspring Did

Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a July 9, 2005 article in the Toronto Globe and Mail that, while many Muslims in Britain and Europe are angry and "especially offended by the humiliating gap between Islam's promise of power and glory and the reality of weak Muslim states, two of which are now occupied by British and U.S. troops," very few "reach the stage of joining the extremist groups that speak of using violence, and only a handful actually act, as in Madrid last year and now in London." He added:

One reason for that is simply that it is not so easy to assemble and detonate bombs. True, instructions can be found on the Internet, but it is much easier to talk of bombs than to make them. Nor can prospective terrorists receive help from al-Qaeda, for the very good reason that al-Qaeda no longer exists as an organization -- and since it was only that, it no longer exists at all.

Mr. Luttwak said, Al-Qaeda's "surviving leaders from Osama bin Laden down have tried but failed to replace the training camps, logistics and command structure they lost in Afghanistan. All that remains is the brand name," he said, "which retains its appeal for angry Muslims everywhere largely because of the inexcusable failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, itself the result of the Central Intelligence Agency's incompetence."

For more, see "Al-Qaeda didn't do it. Its offspring did."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:31 PM | Comments (0)

Raimondo Analyzes AP Report On UK Bomb Warning

Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.Com has an interesting take on Associated Press writer Amy Teibel's June 7, 2005 report that, "British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's [July 7, 2005] explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said."

Mr. Raimondo's article, posted at AntiWar.Blog, is headlined "See No Evil: Spinning Netanyahu's London Terror Tip-off." Also see "London Terror Mystery What did Bibi know and when did he know it?"

By the way, I always find Mr. Raimondo's analysis of issues thought-provoking.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)

Israel Reportedly Warned UK About Possible Attacks

Stratfor Consulting Intelligence Agency (SCIA) reported July 7, 2005 that, "There has been massive confusion over a denial made by the Israelis that the Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks minutes before the first bomb went off July 7."

SCIA said, " Israel warned London of the attacks a couple of days ago, but British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. While Israel is keeping quiet for the time-being, British Prime Minister Tony Blair soon will be facing the heat for his failure to take action," SCIA said.

For more, see "Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

News Analysis: 'How To Stop Bin Laden...'

Milan Rai has an interesting news analysis in the July 8, 2005 edition of Voices in the Wilderness and Electronic Iraq headlined "How To Stop Bin Laden: The World Needs Justice, Not More Terror." For perspective, the writer relies heavily on the views of "Michael Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center's bin Laden task force (1996-1999)."

Mr. Scheuer, retired in November 2004 and is the author of Through Our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.

Finally, Mr. Rai's article is worth reading. However, I suspect individuals who only see the bombings and maimed and dead bodies will dismiss it as propaganda from a wide-yed radical..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:51 AM | Comments (0)

Is Africa A Victim Of Pity?

Dr. John Kabayo, coordinator of the Pan African Tsetse & Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign at the AU Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, states in a July 7, 2005 article in New Vision of Kampala, Uganda, that:

Africa has been like a patient, with different experts peering down her throat, offering to diagnose her condition and prescribe yet another cure. When, finally, over the years the patient does not seem to be getting any better, the experts have began to blame it on the inherent inability of the patient. Some critics view the continent as a victim of external forces, citing slavery, imperialism, exploitative trading practices, a distorted geopolitical world economy and, above all, the damage resulting from centuries of systematic exploitation of Africa's resources and unrelenting undermining of her self-confidence.

Dr. Kabayo said, "Others blame Africa's ecological conditions, its hot tropical climate and the diseases that thrive there, arguing that the natural forces of tropical ecology are against us and influence our development."

See "Africa: Victim of Pity?" for more of his commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:32 AM | Comments (0)

July 08, 2005

What Prompted The Bombs In London Yesterday?

Washingtonpost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley asked these questions in July 8, 2005 column:

"What prompted the bombs in London yesterday?"

"Did the war in Iraq fuel the attacks that killed at least 50 Londoners or was it Islamic fundamentalism?"

He said, "On the day after the worst attack since World War II," that fundamental question divides British commentators, even as the country's political leaders unanimously decry the attacks."

"The question matters," he added, "because the answer suggests how Britain and the West can most effectively respond to a deadly threat that traditional security forces were unable to prevent."

For more, see "Brits Debate Iraq Factor in Bombings."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)

Analysts: Al-Qaeda Remains Lethal Inspirational Force

Agence France Press correspondent Karl Malakunas, writing from Singapore, reported in a July 8, 2005 dispatch that, "Fuelled by the Iraq war, Al-Qaeda's ability to inspire and direct Islamic radicals around the world has grown over recent years despite its own organizational structure being diminished, analysts say.

"Although Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network has had many leaders captured or killed since carrying out the spectacular September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, it has succeeded in spawning countless copycat groups, they say," according to Mr. Malakunas.

He quotes Andrew Tan, a security analyst with Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, as saying, "The threat has morphed beyond Al-Qaeda itself. It has become a more generalized ideological threat with localized groups that have adopted the ideology as well as the operational methods of Al-Qaeda."

For more, see "Al-Qaeda remains lethal inspirational force."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:19 PM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2005

The Seattle Time's Five Editorials On 'America In Iraq'

The Seattle Times contends in the last of five consecutive editorials on "America in Iraq" that, "If the Bush administration refuses to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, then Congress should create a panel to investigate prison abuses there and elsewhere." See "Shackled by Gitmo" for more.

Here are the five editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:55 PM | Comments (0)

Opinion: 'Iraq, Bush and Humanity'

Nigerian Sabo Mustafa, writing in The Daily Trust of Abuja, the Nigerian political capital, told his readers,

The international community must confront the Iraq quagmire squarely, by working towards liberating it from the clutches of America and the resistant fighters. The UN or the Organization of Islamic Countries must take the lead in bringing peace to Iraq.

See "Iraq, Bush and Humanity" for the entire commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

Dr. Demarche's Open Letter To The G8

Dr. Demarche at The Daily Demarche published an Open Letter to the G8 on July 6, 2005, in which he told the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan Italy and the United States plus Russia:

As you come together at Gleneagles this week I hope there are a few things you will keep in mind.

First, please remember that those young men and women who are outside the site, and the embassies of your various nations, throwing rocks, destroying cars and clashing with police are simply misguided ideologues. They want what you want, and what I want- a better world. They are just a little confused about how to get there. You see, they have largely had the world handed to them- it would be their oyster were they not vegans. Their intentions are good- it is only that they have been misled by the Pide Piper of Aid- Bono, and his minions. Decades of aid have had no impact on poverty in Africa- but most of these kids do not have decades of experience. You have to admit the Live 8 packaging was slick, and the slogans are pretty good.

Second, please remember that no matter how ridiculous the messengers, the message is valid. Poverty in Africa can be made a thing of the past- and at least one man in Africa has a more or less clear view of what is needed. The man? Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi. Now that he is a more or less accepted world figure again (thank you, Bush Doctrine) we might want to listen to him. Read the entire letter here. I found it compelling.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:13 PM | Comments (0)

Helena Cobban's 'Thoughts Of London'

Helena Cobban at the always-interesting Just World News has "thoughts of London." About today's attacks, she wrote:

This seems like a ghastly, Qaeda-orchestrated replay of the March 2004 Madrid bombings. I imagine that all of London is as hurt and shattered as the Madrilenos were at that time. I just spoke with my sister Diana, who lives in far-west London. She and her family are ok, but she sounded very, very sobered by what was unfolding.

I have numerous other friends and family in London to worry about, too. My niece Rachel is an emergency-room doc at the Royal London Hospital near Liverpool St. Station, which has been taking in many of the casualties. All power to her life-saving elbow in these hours.

So Qaeda (or whichever other actually terrorist group) has been busy organizing all this-- not entirely unpredictable by the British authorities, on the day the G-8 summit opens in the UK?-- while the British and US governments have been expending truly massive amounts of blood, treasure, and national-level attention on pursuing their wholly unjustified war in Iraq?

Talk about a wholly unnecessary and diversionary expenditure of national energies. Ms. Cobban said, "If they had not launched the war against Iraq, but had instead invested one-fourth as much time and finances in a smart policy aimed at (1) doing the solid police work of tracking down and incapacitating the Qaeda leadership, and (2) denying that leadership an operating base by engaging politically with the legitimate demands of potential Qaeda condoners... If the Bush and Blair administrations had done that, Qaeda could have been wiped off the map as an operating force, quite possibly as long ago as late 2002, or 2003."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)

Juan Cole's Translation of Statement On London Bombings

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment offers his "translation of the statement posted at the website" of the group claiming credit for the July 7, 2005 bombings in London.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

Foreign Dispatches: What Now?

" What Now?"

That's the question asked by Abiola Lapite at Foreign Dispatches in a commentary on the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. Lapite said, "While many have wasted no time seizing upon today's attacks to fuel conspiracy theories and score cheap political points by assigning blame, I prefer to turn my energies to thinking about what the appropriate policy response to this outrage should be.

"Is there anything we can do to minimize this threat beyond staging a glorified police action, and is any such action worth taking in light of the likely costs?" he asks.

Does anyone have an answer for him?

By the way, Lapite raises interesting points in his commentary. I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:47 PM | Comments (0)

An Observation About Group Taking Credit For Bombings

University of Chicago Assistant Political Science Professor Daniel W. Drezner said, "The clumsy-sounding name (at least in English) of this group [taking responsibility for the July 7, 2005 bombings in London] makes me wonder if this is another of Al Qaeda's local subcontractees.

Mr. Drezner has links to interesting commentary on the attacks. Go on over to his blog and read them. When you are finished, come back here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)

Mannes: London Is Al Qaeda’s Spiritual Hub...'

Aaron Mannes, author of the TerrorBlog and of the book "Profiles in Terror" weighed in on the July 7, 2005 attacks in London with this observation at NRO (National Review Online):

With this morning's tragedy in London many experts have noted that if London, which has long faced the highly sophisticated terrorists of the IRA and numerous international terrorist organizations, can be struck by terror then every city is vulnerable.

He said, "While Britain's domestic intelligence and counterterror capabilities are highly professional and have disrupted numerous terrorist plots, there have also been glaring deficiencies in Britain's strategies against Islamist terror."

There are glaring defiencies in the strategy of every nation that has been hit by assymetrical warfare. That includes Israel. If it weren't so, attackers could not get through defenses unless someone let them through. Since attackers can get through, or are already on the inside, there must be defiencies. Such defiencies are inevitable given human nature. And since an attacker is bound to get through, at some point, the goal is to make it as difficult as possible in order to minimize the success rate.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:11 PM | Comments (0)

Djerejian: The London Attack Was Bound To Happen

Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch, who moved back to the U.S. from London in the Spring, said,

Such an attack [as the July 7, 2005 attack in London] was all but bound to happen, alas, despite the valiant efforts these past years of Scotland Yard/Metropolitan Police, as well as so many others in Britain's security and intelligence apparatus. London is simply too vast a metropolis, too tempting a target etc etc. Our thoughts are, of course, with the victims of these horrible attacks.

So are ours, Gregory.

See "London" for more of Mr. Djerejian's analysis and comments from his readers.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Davids Medienkritik: 'Death To The Terrorists'

Davids Medienkritik, which offers what it calls "politically incorrect observations on reporting in the German media," had this to say about the July 7, 2005 bombings in London:

We want to express our total support for all those affected by the cowardly terrorist attacks today in London, just one day after we felt such great joy over the Olympics. This disgusting act only increases our determination to support the fight on terror and to achieve victory against the terrorists on all fronts. The response to these attacks must not and can not be to ask ourselves "why they hate us" or to back down one millimeter. The hate of the terrorists for our civilization is much like the blind hate of the Nazis for the Jews. "There can be no negotiation or mercy for such terrorists.

Davids Medienkritik said, The only response is to go on the offensive and vigorously seek out and attack those who perpetrate such acts." See "Terror in London: Death To The Terrorists" for more.

Question: What if the attacks were not carried out by Islamic groups?

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The London Bombing And The 2012 Olympics

Petr Bokuvka , reporter and host of the radio program Slovakia Today, wrote on July 7, 2005 in The Daily Czech:

Right now nobody works in the English section of Slovak Radio, as everyone is glued to a row of TV sets, watching the news from London. Is there anyone who does not think the incidents are related to the 2012 Olympics vote results?

Is this a serious question or is it designed just to elicit comments?

The question is buried in an article headlined "Slovak MP's And Their Meaningless Fights."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Barcepundit Sends "Deepest Sympathies, Dear Londoners'

Franco Aleman at Barcepundit (English) sends "My deepest sympathies, dear Londoners" in the wake of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. He tells them to "never surrender. The Spanish version of Barcepundit has a longer message.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John At Inside Europe: Iberian Notes: 'Al Qaeda Must Be Destroyed'

John at Inside Europe: Iberian Notes, one of my favorite European blogs, offers a strong condemnation of the July 7, 2005 bombings in Britain. He wrote:

I suppose you know about the bombings in London. Of course this isn't the place to look for coverage. My heart goes out to the people of London. I hope not too many people were killed, but it looks bad. This is just like New York and Bali and Casablanca and Madrid. Al Qaeda are vicious killers and I hope this convinces some people that they are the enemy and have to be defeated. On all fronts. In Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and the West Bank and Pakistan and the Philippines and Saudi Arabia and the US and UK and Spain. Guantanamo a gulag? My ass. They haven't killed any of the prisoners there, and as far as I'm concerned that's about the kindest treatment those murderers deserve. Koran abuse? Don't make me sick. Remember when Bush said, "If you aren't with us, you're against us"? He was right.Tony Blair is showing leadership. He's the guy right now. Stand behind him. He and the British people deserve nothing less.

John concluded with: "Al Qaeda must be destroyed."

While John probably won't get much of an argument in the West against this conclusion, it's unlikely that Al-Qaeda will be destroyed anytime soon, if at all.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Horovitz: 'July 7, 2005 is Britain's September 11'

Jerusalem Post Columnist David Horovitz opined July 7, 2005 that, "Whoever turns out to have been responsible for today's terrorist assault on central London, and however grave the death toll ultimately proves, there is already no mistaking that July 7, 2005 is Britain's September 11."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 06, 2005

Parameters Looks At 'The Conduct of War'

Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly journal, takes a look at what its editor calls "the changing nature of war in the 21st century." The theme is "The Conduct of War"

While all the articles are interesting, The Diplomatic Times Review highly recommends Christopher M. Ford's "Speak No Evil: Targeting a Populations Neutrality to Defeat an Insurgency."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gregory Djerejian's Best Case Scenario On Iraq

Gregory Dejerejian at the highly recommended The Belgravia Dispatch offers what he calls "the best case scenario" that could lead to "Sunni nationalist extremists, Baathist restorationists, and assorted fundamentalists/jihadists" becoming "increasingly marginalized" in U.S. occupied Iraq. My opinion is that:

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq created the situation that resulted in the climate Mr. Dejerejian blames on the aforementioned elements, the best case scenario would be a U.S. withdrawal. And while a withdrawal won't totally solve Iraq's problems, at least it would give internal elements a better opportunity to solve their differences. Admittedly, this may result in more fighting--they are fighting each other anyway-- at least a powerful third party won't be directly involved. Under this circumstance, perhaps the non-Iraqi Muslim fighters could be persuaded or forced to leave.

The bottom line is that as long as the U.S. is in Iraq, foreign Muslims fighters will not leave. In fact, more will make their way to Iraq.

See "Some Good News..." for Mr. Dejerejian's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 05, 2005

The Seattle Times On 'The Shadowy War"

The Seattle Times, in the second of five editorials on the Iraq war, stated the obvious in its July 5, 2005 editorial.

"America is at war a couple of them, actually," the paper said. "There is the war in Iraq where about 135,000 U.S. troops are on the ground. And the war on terrorism, launched after the stunning 9/11 attacks that killed more than 3,000 people."

"The latter is clearly justified; the former, it has become clear, was not," the paper asserted. "Nevertheless, to even the most astute followers of U.S. policy and world events, the wars seem to blur together."

Until last week, when 16 soldiers died when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan, one could be forgiven if he or she thought Afghanistan had been pacified. Fifty-four soldiers have died in Afghanistan during the past six months, according to the Boston Globe.

Fifty-two died in Afghanistan "in all of last year, according to official statistics reviewed by the Globe."

See "Second of five parts: The shadowy war" for more of the Seattle Times editorial..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Influence Of The Iraq War On U.S. Society

Paris-based columnist William Pfaff concluded in July 4, 2005 column that, "The outcome of the Iraq war - whether American defeat or victory, or something in between - will have no decisive effect upon the cultural and religious phenomenon of fundamentalist revivalism and radicalism inside Islam. "The international political consequences will be limited," he argued. "The most important influence of the outcome, whatever it may be, will be upon American society. What that will be is very difficult to foresee. Its scale might be estimated by what the war on terror has already done to change America."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Can Bush Win Iraq War By Mobilizing His Political Base?

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post opined on July 5, 2005: "President Bush has shown that he can win an election by mobilizing his political base. But can he win a war that way? " See "Selling an unpopular war" for his views on the question.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Two Dimensions Of Iraq War Support In The U.S.

"George W. Bush has said there are two tracks in the war in Iraq -- a military track and a political track," notes Gallup News Service's Jeffrey M. Jones in a July 5, 2005 article.

Mr. Jones said, "Americans' views on the war likely have two components as well -- whether or not Americans support the initial decision to go to war in 2003, and whether or not they think the United States should continue its military efforts in Iraq."

"Indeed," he added, "a recent Gallup Poll asking Americans why they supported or opposed the war found the most common reasons given were agreement or disagreement with going to war in the first place and an assessment of the United States' progress (or lack thereof) in the war effort. An analysis of recent Gallup Poll data shows that most Americans are consistent in their views, holding pro- or anti-war opinions on both counts. But a sizable proportion shows evidence of mixed views on the war," Mr. Jones concluded.

See "Special Analysis: Americans Divide Into Four Groups on Iraq War."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Zogby: 'President George Bush Has A Problem'

James J. Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), opined in a July 5, 2005 article in The Jordan Times and MENA FM.com that,

President George Bush has a problem. This war was supposed to have gone so differently. By now it is clear that the infantile fantasy of its architects ("shock and awe", "a cake walk", "flowers at our feet", "six months and out" and "the spreading of democracy throughout the Middle East") did not pan out. Instead, US troops have been transformed into an occupation army fighting an enemy about whom we know too little, with stories and pictures of hideous terrorist attacks and growing tallies of war dead filling the daily press. As a result, strains are beginning to show. US public support for the war is waning, with Bush's job performance in the war effort now down to 40 per cent and a strong majority of 60 per cent saying that the war in Iraq wasn't worth fighting in the first place. More worrisome to the White House are signs that not only Democrats, but some prominent Republicans, are beginning to raise tough questions about the war and how it is being conducted.

Mr. Zogby said, "Add to this the embarrassment created last week by leading administration figures publicly contradicting each other and the military over assessments of how the war is going."

See "Bush fighting the Iraq war at home" for more of Mr. Zogby's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 03, 2005

Babs Ajayi's Open Letter To Sir Bob Geldof

In an open letter to Sir Bob Geldof dated July 1, 2005, Babs Ajayi of Nigeria World gave this advice to Mr. Geldof after praising his work on Africa:

Until so much is done to ensure that good governance and democracy is enshrined in Africa, the efforts being put into debt forgiveness will yield very little. The next battle after the G8 debt forgiveness fight should be how to block the steady flow of stolen cash from Africa from finding its way into the West and the Middle East. A major offensive against state-sponsored corruption and graft must also be high on the agenda. There are also multinational companies in Africa who are aiding and abetting corruption by the unethical way in which they do business. The big oil and gas multinationals from France, Italy, Holland and the United States have so much power and influence in deciding who rule most African nations. These companies corrupt the civil service and the armed forces of these nations and they use money to buy their way, to buy oil blocks, buy the rights to explore and exploit crude, diamond, copper, and gold mines. The multinationals encourage coup plots and fund it in Congo, Zaire and other parts of the Cooper Belt.

"However," Ajayi added, "with good governance and responsible/accountable democratic institutions most of the poor nations will be better positioned to build lasting and decent societies where people can build their lives and improve on their lots. The endless cycle of instability must be nipped in the bud if we do not want poverty to continue and the little funds available to African countries to go into weapons procurements and guerrilla wars."

See "An Open Letter to Sir Bob Geldof" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 30, 2005

Brzezinski Comments On President Bush's June 28 Fiction

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the U.S. national security adviser during the Carter Administration, compared President George W. Bush's July 28, 2005 address to the nation to "a novelist who wishes to inject verisimilitude into his fiction." Writing in the June 30, 2005 issue of The Financial Times of London, he said:

George W. Bush, US president, began his speech on Iraq with a reference to a historical fact all too tragically well known to his audience. The evocation of the monstrous crime of September 11 2001 served as his introduction to the spin that followed: that Iraq was complicit in 9/11 and thus, in effect, attacked the US; that the US had no choice but to defend itself against Iraq's aggression; and, finally, that if America does not fight terrorists in Iraq, they will swarm across the ocean to attack America.

Since fiction is not ruled by the same standards as history, Mr Bush was under no obligation to refer to his own earlier certitude about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (or, rather, to their embarrassing absence), or to the inept sequel of the initially successful US military campaign; or to the fact that the occupation of Iraq is turning it into a huge recruitment centre for terrorists. "Similarly," Mr.Brzezinski added, "there was no need to deal with the perplexing fact that the Iraqi insurgency does not appear to be in its last throes, or with the complex choices that the US now confronts."

Financial Times subscribers can read "Bush's hollow fiction of Iraq war" for more of Mr. Brzezinski's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 29, 2005

More Than Two Years Of War In Iraq With More To Come

David Paul Kuhn at Salon.Com observed that "There was little reference to the war's length, now at two years and three months," during President George W. Bush's June 28, 2005 address to the nation.

"Bush spoke respectfully of the more than 2,000 Iraqi security forces lost in the line of duty, though he did not mention by number the more than 1,700 American lives lost since the war's onset, nor the far greater tally of U.S. injuries and Iraqi civilian fatalities," Mr. Kuhn wrote in an article headlined "Mission continued."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is Bush Trying To Rebrand Iraq War?

In his analysis of U.S. President George W. Bush's June 28, 2005 address to Americans on the war in Iraq, Boston Globe staff writer Peter S. Canellos made this significant observation:

Iraq, the president insisted, has become the seminal fight of the post-September 11 world.

The president made it clear in his speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., that the United States is in Iraq to do more than help the Iraqi people set up a stable government -- it is there to confront foreign fighters who came to Iraq from ''Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and other nations." "There was no discussion, however, of how those fighters slipped through borders that US forces failed to secure, or any other flaws in postwar planning," Mr. Canellos wrote. "Bush's intention was to get ahead of public opinion, to leave his critics worrying over failures that are now little more than water under a bridge at the Tigris River."

That's the way I read it. Besides, I don't know what made Mr. Bush and his adviser think that Muslim fighters would not flock to Iraq after a Christian president of a predominantly white, Christian nation invaded and occupied a predominantly Muslim nation. Muslim fighters from outside Iraq will keep coming as long as the U.S. remains there.

See "Conflict recast as line in sand to terrorists" for more of Mr. Canellos' analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 28, 2005

Echoes of LBJ

Political pundit Walter Shapiro, in an analysis of President Bush's June 28, 2005 address at Fort Bragg, North Carolina ,for The Huffington Post, recalled that:

With Americans in turmoil over the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson framed his 1968 State of the Union Address around this rhetorical question, "Why, then, this restlessness?" Three months later, that same restlessness forced LBJ to abandon his dreams of another term in the White House.

There is no better gauge to the political realities behind a war-time >address than the rhetorical questions the president feels compelled to pose. When the Commander in Chief has to ask, "Is the sacrifice worth it?" you can intuit that the war has not been a glorious success. There was also the moment when George W. Bush admitted that some (excessively gung-ho) Americans inquire, "Why don't you send more troops?" Mr. Shapiro said, "Just hearing the president advance that question was another clue that the war was not going exactly as planned."

There's that reference to Vietnam. See "Rhetorical Verdict: A C-Minus Speech" for more of Mr. Shapiro's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Two Front War?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment reported June 28, 2005 that:

Tony Blair and the British military are caught between Iraq and a hard place. The Bush administration is putting enormous pressure on the British to send more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban are regrouping and launching an Iraq-style guerrilla war. So the British began making noises about reducing the number of their troops in southern Iraq (around 10,000) and shifting them to Afghanistan.

"But no," Mr. Cole added. "Bush recently told Blair that Iraq is on the brink of disaster, and that the British need to send more troops to that country, in addition to sending new units to fight the Taliban." See "A Two-Front War" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who Lost Iraq?

Andrew J. Bacevich, who teaches international relations at Boston University, asks in a June 28, 2005 article in The Washington Post: "Who "lost" Iraq?"

"With blame for the unhappy course of events since U.S. forces occupied Baghdad in April 2003 routinely heaped on civilian officials, the military itself has gotten a pass," he wrote. "In fact, senior U.S. commanders have botched the war. Acknowledging that fact is an essential first step toward improving the quality of U.S. generalship."

Mr. Bacevich said, "For this reason, reported plans to promote Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez deserve particular attention. According to media reports, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intends to nominate Sanchez for a fourth star. But the general does not merit promotion; he can best serve his country by retiring forthwith," the scholar said.

See "Command Responsibility" for more of Mr. Bacevich's analysis. It's worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 25, 2005

Iranian Elections: An Analysis

Iqbal Siddiqui, writing is the June 25, 2005 edition of Media Monitors Network, said:

For those willing to see it, there is an undeniable irony in the fact that, at a time when the US and other Western countries claim to be championing democracy in the Muslim world, the only country in the Middle East with a genuinely open, participatory and vibrant political system is the Islamic State of Iran, the country that the US regards as its main enemy in the world.

"Equally notable," the writer said, " is the fact that even as the West attacks Iran for being undemocratic, and represents itself as friend and ally of oppressed Iranians demanding democratic change in their country, senior figures in Iran respond by proclaiming that the Islamic State represents true democracy, and criticizing elections in the US and the UK as proving that there is not real democracy in the Western countries that hypocritically claim to be the founders and leaders of universal democratic values."

For more, see "Presidential polls in Islamic Iran: Elections without western-style democracy."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Events Challenge Cheney And Rice

In a June 23, 2005 commentary on Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes" and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's reason for her refusal to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood during her June 20, 2005 visit to Egypt, the "doctoral fellow" who edits The Fields Report said, "there's pragmatism; there's realipolitik; then there's just insulting our intelligence. Day is night. Up is down."

See "Two gems from the non-reality based world" for the entire Fields Report commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dr. Demarche: 'Us And Them, As Seen From Abroad

Dr. Demarche, one of the proprietors at The Daily Demarche, has a very enlightening article headlined "Us and them, as seen from abroad." It's about the "the differences between Americans and our neighbors across the pond, as seen from the point of view of an American living abroad." I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 24, 2005

The Belgravia Dispatch's 'Conscience Caucus'

Gregory Djerejian at The always interesting Belgravia Dispatch "is thinking of compiling a list of center-right folks who are seriously and honestly grappling with the full panoply of issues presented by the torture/abuse scandals of the past several years. These would not just be bloggers, but any commentators that, you know, don't breezily describe how rosy it all is in the "tropics. "I can think of Andrew Sullivan, Jon Henke, John Cole, and Tacitus right off the top of my head," he said.

"Who else?" he asks. "Both in the blogosphere and outside in academia, business, law, journalism? Thanks for your help."

While I rarely agree with Mr. Dejerejian's analysis on Iraq and the Middle East, I commend his efforts to engage in serious discussion about the U.S'. torture of Prisoners of War. By the way, I doubt Mr. Djerejian would agree with me that captured Al Qaeda fighters, Taliban fighters and Iraqi insurgents are POWs.

See "B.D.'s Conscience Caucus" for more details.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Drezner: 'Does China Contradict The Liberal Paradigm?'

Daniel W. Drezner, a University of Chicago assistant professor of political science, raises a question about China that's worth pondering. He asked in a June 23, 2005 post: "Does China contradict the liberal paradigm?"

Here's his answer. He raises many good points.I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Extraordinary Renditions' And The Egyptian Black Hole

Writing in the June 22, 2005 edition of IslamOnline.Net, Egyptian Freelance journalist Taqiyuddin Malik analyzed "Human Rights Watch's (HRW) explosive new report, appropriately titled "Black Hole: The Fate of Islamists Rendered to Egypt. "

"This report is about the rendition of scores of wanted persons to Egypt , renditions that are illegal because Egypt is known to be a country which practices torture routinely and systematically," he wrote, adding: "The 53-page document highlights the illegal practice of transporting detainees to countries where they will face torture; specifically in this case, Egypt."

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are reportedly some of Egypt's torture clients.

"The report is bound to further spotlight the current regime's human rights record, increasing pressure on a government already beleaguered by its citizen's increasingly strident calls for political change," he predicted.

Mr. Malik's analysis is timely in view of an Italian judge's issuance of arrest warrants on June 24, 2005 for 13 CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped an Egyptian Imam living in Italy and took him to Egypt where he was reportedly tortured. See "In the Spotlight: The Egyptian Black Hole." for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

Is U.S.-Style Liberty A Priority For Most Of The World?

Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Neil Steinberg offered an interesting view on "liberty" in his June 22, 2005 column. He wrote:

Is liberty really "the universal longing of every soul," as Condoleezza Rice told an audience in Egypt this week? Or is that belief merely our gosh-darn American presumption leading us astray again?

Because, frankly, when I look over the wide swoop of human history, I don't see much pining after liberty. I see a whole lot of "let's go kill those guys and take their stuff." I see quite a bit of "let's roll at the feet of that king." But not much "let's promote liberty so that each of us can breathe free.

Mr. Steinberg, perhaps the Sun-Times' most inflammatory columnist, also said: "Surveying our world today, people seem to leap to put on the chains of some religion or drug or cause. Even in America, the supposed land of liberty, a big chunk of the population is eager to yank the leash the moment somebody tries to use that liberty to do something they don't like." For more, see "Liberty seems pretty far down on world's to-do list."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 21, 2005

Robert Guest: 'Africa's Future Is In Africans' Hands'

"When Tony Blair and his pop-star friends say that we in the West can "Make Poverty History", they are setting us an impossible task," contends Robert Guest, who ended his tenure as The Economist's Africa editor in May 2005.

"I don't mean that Africa will never prosper - it will," added the author of The Shackled Continent: Africa's Past, Present and Future, in a June 20, 2005 article at Scotmans.Com. "But when it does, it will be through the efforts of Africans. Outsiders can help, but only at the margins. No region ever grew rich from handouts."

Correct. But the U.S. and some nations in Europe and have gotten rich from exploiting the African continent's human and natural resources. Now it's time for Africa to exploit the continent for its own benefit. Here's more of Mr. Guest's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Miami Herald: 'Seize The Moment To Turn Africa Around'

The Miami [Florida] Herald stated in a June 21, 2005 editorial that, "President Bush has championed the fight against AIDS in Africa and recently agreed to support a plan to cancel more than $40 billion in debt owed by desperately poor African countries."

"Those are good and laudable efforts, yet they are only a pittance compared to what is needed to break the cycle of extreme poverty and disease in Africa," the paper said. "The United States should do more, and it's in our own interest to do so."

For more, see "Seize the moment to turn Africa around."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is It Worth Investing In Africa?

Baltimore Sun.Com opined in a June 21, 2005 editorial that, "In many ways, Africa is still struggling to overcome the lingering effects of colonialism -- plundered resources, artificial boundaries, ethnic conflicts and corrupt dictatorships -- which feed the cycle of famine, poverty, disease and strife." I totally agree. See "Investing in Africa" for more of the editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Haaretz's Rubinstein: Abbas Needs Sharon's Help

Haaretz's Danny Rubinstein contends in a June 21, 2005 analysis that "The Palestinians are concerned that today's meeting between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will be a tense affair." See "Analysis / Abbas needs Sharon's help" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will Changing Political Personalities Help Lebanon?

Sam F. Ghattas, a Beirut-based correspondent for the Associated Press who has covered Lebanese and Arab affairs since 1982, quotes Lebanon's An Nahar newspaper as saying:

The same people and same mentality which administered Lebanon during the Syrian presence with all its negative aspects will remain (despite the oppositions majority in Parliament) unless there is a change, if not with the personalities ... at least with the mentality.

See "Newsview: Syria shadow hangs over Lebanon" for more of Mr. Ghattas' commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chibli Mallat: Real Renewal In Lebanon Means No Lahoud or Berri

In a June 21, 2005 commentary for The Daily Star of Lebanon, Chibli Mallat, a lawyer and European Union Jean Monnet law professor at Saint Joseph's University in Beirut, said the Lebanese "should now speak of an "indigenous-led" opposition, which includes those who opposed the Syrian presence "in the field," of which the two tragic icons are [former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik] Hariri and the recently assassinated journalist Samir Kassir (not to forget Marwan Hamadeh's dead driver, Ghazi Boukaroum, and those many other innocents killed in the Hariri assassination); and we should distinguish this opposition from the "exile-led" opposition, epitomized by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun.

"One can lament the split within the opposition (although thanks to Aoun's stand - some would say stubbornness - suspense was injected into the electoral process), but the remarkably non-violent revolution we have lived through can now be brought to fruition," he added.

Mr. Mallat said,"That is why there must today be two paramount objectives: the departure of President Emile Lahoud, so we can at last reconcile ourselves with our mistreated Constitution; and the election of a new speaker of Parliament in lieu of Nabih Berri, so that a fresh spirit can infuse legislative matters." See "Real Renewal Means No Lahoud Or Berri" for more of his commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2005

Is The Iraq War Worth The Price?

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted in his June 19, 2005 column for The Washington Post that:

Wars remain subjects of debate not just because their "necessity" is in doubt but also because their results are mixed. No war has produced unmitigated successes. The Civil War did not completely "free" African Americans, who remained oppressed for another century. World War I destroyed Europe, and helped pave the way for the rise of Hitler and the Soviet Union. World War II defeated Hitler but enslaved half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain and introduced the world to nuclear warfare. The Persian Gulf War drove Hussein out of Kuwait but helped produce the Osama bin Laden we know today. Add to that the millions of innocent lives lost, and the toll of these wars, generally regarded as "successful," is high. Does that mean those wars were not "worth it"?

He said, "Demanding unmixed results and guarantees against the unintended consequences of war is as unrealistic as demanding absolute confidence in the "necessity" of going to war in the first place. See "Whether This War Was Worth It: In Analyzing Iraq, Consider the Effects of Having Done Nothing" for more of Mr. Kagan's analysis..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kareem Kamel Looks At 'The Politics and Discourse of Humiliation'

Egyptian Scholar Kareem M. Kamel's article in the June 16, 2005 issue of Islam Online. Net headlined "The Politics and Discourse of Humiliation, which was republished in The Journal of Turkish Weekly" offers a thought-provoking analysis of what many Muslims, including many non-Arab American born ones, regard as a cultural war against Islam in conjunction with the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Kamel, a PhD candidate at the American University in London, and a teaching assistant to the Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo, says "more disturbing" than insults to Muslims by the likes of Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other evangelists and writers "is the prevalence of justifications for the US occupation of Muslim lands based on condescending, arrogant, and racist foundations; reformulations of the white mans burden thesis that seek to magnify the essential otherness and incurable deficiencies of the Orient vis-à-vis an enlightened, progressive West. Central to neo-conservative thinking in this regard is Raphael Patai's book entitled The Arab Mind (1973)." He notes that:

The Arab Mind was catapulted into the limelight when Seymour Hersh, investigating torture at Abu Ghraib, claimed that it was the bible of neocons on Arab behavior, (Hersh). Patai, a Hungarian-born Jew and an ardent Zionist, describes the Middle East as a monolithic cultural area, with no plurality of differences, and portrays Arabs as evasive, shifty, indifferent, deceptive, and careless individuals, who are exceptionally and intrinsically susceptible to humiliation and indignation. The same mind-set is apparent in a work by Douglas A. Kupersmith, published by the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, wherein it is argued that the Arab culture commonly exhibits a strong disdain for manual labor and to leave things undone until the last possible minute. Kupersmith enthusiastically cites Patai, arguing that the situation in the Arab world is one of a handful of nations paying cash for the best military hardware, while relying heavily on outside expertise to keep their modern forces operational (ONeil Ortiz). Thus, the US occupation of Muslim land is seen as essentially picking up where intrinsic Arab weakness left off. In other words, because Arabs are lazy and passive, it follows that all colonization of industry (or of nations themselves in the Middle East) are in fact provoked by those who cannot help themselves, (ONeil-Ortiz). Norvell B. De Atkine, Director of Middle East Studies at the JFK Special Warfare Center and Military School at Fort Bragg, and Patai's greatest champion, admits that "At the institution where I teach military affairs, the Arab Mind forms the basis of my cultural instruction. Over the past 12 years, I have also briefed hundreds of military teams being deployed to the Middle East. (ONeil-Ortiz).

Mr. Kamel pointed to Mr. De Atkine article in the Middle East Quarterly entitled Why Arabs Lose Wars, in which he attributes

Arab military defeats in the modern era not to contemporary political or military specificities, but to a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection and dissimulation in personal relationships... and the often-paranoid environment of Arab political culture, hinting at the possible role of Islam's inherent fatalism in encouraging a defeatist mentality among Arabs, (De Atkine).

"More seriously," Mr. Kamel wrote, "the Area Studies Branch of the World Religions and Cultures Department of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center distributes an Area Manual to soldiers and private personnel in various war theatres that is replete with ethnocentric and utterly flawed notions of presumed typical Arab behavior, (Working and Training Guidelines).

Again, the manual depicts Arabs as passive, fatalistic, indecisive, incompetent, tribal, primitive, and opportunistic. Even positive characteristics, such as Arab generosity, are portrayed, not as a humanitarian attribute, but rather the result of an innate desire to induce loyalty through indebtedness, and thus strengthening ones family and/or kin, (Working and Training Guidelines).

He said, "Given the dissemination of such essentialist and outright racist notions in the military, it is obvious why US military personnel in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, or Bagram Air Base would torture their Muslim captives by using specific methods designed to shame and humiliate, since the writings of Patai teach them that honor envelops the Arab ego like a coat of armor... the smallest chink can threaten to loosen all the loops and rings, (Wyatt-Brown)."

(Editor's Note: Links were added to this excerpt for quick reference for those who may not be familiar with the various institutions and individuals mentioned in Mr. Kamel's article.)

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hassan Jabareen: Ignoring The 'Other'

Hassan Jabareen, an attorney and the general director of Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and an adjunct lecturer in the faculties of law at the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University, wrote in the June 17, 2005 issue of Haaretz that:

Israeli lawyers took part in an international conference this year on human rights violations in the occupied territories. At the conference, the Israeli embassy distributed a paper with selected quotes from the decisions of the president of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak. The lawyers were taken aback. They had planned to use these very decisions to accentuate the great discrepancy between the rhetoric and the results. This is not an isolated case. Israel's defense before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva rests not on government resolutions, ministerial statements or Knesset legislation, but almost exclusively on the rhetoric of Aharon Barak. In effect, the political establishment has turned Justice Barak into Israel's public defender abroad.

He said, "the irony is that this rhetoric creates tension at home between Barak and the political establishment, which also consists of senior jurists from the academic world. Barak's book explores this tension and the issues at the core of the dispute between Barak and those who are at odds with his judicial approach." See "Ignoring The 'Other'" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sidel And Thier Take A Look at 'Fallout From The War on Terror'

Yale Global Online, the prestigious publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, published an important excerpt from More Secure, Less Free? Antiterrorism Policy and Civil Liberties After September 11 (University of Michigan Press, 2004), a book by Mark Sidel, professor of law at the University of Iowa 2004). It is part of the Yale Global Online's two-part series headlined "Fallout from the War on Terror," which suggests that the Bush Administration "Antiterrorism policy has taken its toll on foreign enrollment in U.S. universities." According to Mr. Sidel:

Washington's war on terror may be quietly taking a toll on unsuspecting quarters its universities. To understand the effects of anti-terror policies on the U.S. academic sector, it helps to spend time on university campuses in Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, or other countries. From Melbourne to Edinburgh, those institutions are now filled with foreign students, many of whom would have come to the US, had they not been deterred by restrictive visa policies.

Part II of the "Fallout from the War on Terror" is an article by J. Alexander Thier, a Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. He is also a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served as legal adviser to the Afghan Constitutional and Judicial Reform Commissions from 2002-2004, according to Yale Global Online.

Mr. Thier maintains that "a pattern of human rights violations and prisoner abuse risks hurting US credibility in the Muslim world." He argues:

The spasm of protest and violence that swept through the Islamic world from Afghanistan to Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and Indonesia in reaction to the Newsweek Quran abuse piece reveals something critical: the Muslim world is a powder-keg of anti-American sentiment. But rather than improve relations, the Bush administration continues to play with fire." Mr. Thier thinks, "the real "war on terror" is about culture, ideas, and perceptions as much as bombs and spies. While it is critical to fight the committed terrorists, abhorrent incidents of abuse by members of the US military play directly into the hands of the Islamic extremists who are competing for the hearts and minds of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Mr. Thier contends that, "the US only has so many chances to deliver its message, and in the information-poor and conspiracy-rich environments of the Middle East, actions speak much louder than rhetoric."

I highly recommend the scholars' articles. They add sober discourse in what is often a cacophony of rhetoric in the Blogosphere in the ongoing discussion on the so-called "War on Terror."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Another Analysis Of The Downing Street Memo

Marcel Votlucka of SB Independent, a publication of the Stony Brook University chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, offers a good analysis of the Downing Street Memo for students and faculty at the university. The writer noted in a June 18, 2005 post:

The document now known as the Downing Street memo is a summary of a meeting between Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, and senior Bush Administration officials. It dates from July 23, 2002, just as the Bush Administration was starting to make a case for invading Iraq but before it had officially declared its intention to do so. The memo was leaked to the Times of London, which published it on May 1, 2005 in the midst of Prime Minster Tony Blair's reelection campaign. The British media has reported on this memo and its implications, but the mainstream media this side of the Atlantic has neglected this story with impunity.

Votlucka said, "Only now are media outlets beginning to look into this document. Congressman John Conyers held a public hearing in Washington DC on June 16 [2005] regarding the memo and its implications." See "Analysis and Text of the Downing Street Memo" for more. I highly recommend it.

Editor's Note: Sir Richard Dearlove is no longer head of MI6 , Britain's Secret Intelligence Service. He was succeeded by John McLeod Scarlett on May 6, 2004.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 18, 2005

The Observer Looks At The Battle of Brussels

An article in the June 19, 2005 edition of the Observer of London says "On the 190th anniversary of Waterloo, Britain and France are fighting again. But now the bitterness following the collapsed EU summit runs deeper even than in [former British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher's era," the publication said in an article headlined "Inside the battle of Brussels." Reporters Alex Duval Smith and Nick Watt in Brussels and Ned Temko in London provided useful insight into why the summit collapsed.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush, Israel, Palestine And A Final-Status Agreement

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and William B. Quandt, a senior NSA staffer responsibility for the Middle East, penned an important commentary on the Middle East that appeared in the June 17, 2005 edition of The Washington Post. They wrote:

The statement President Bush delivered at the conclusion of his recent meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas deserves serious attention. It has been much discussed by the Israeli press but drew scant commentary in the U.S. media. The president, in his formal presentation, declared that any final-status agreement between Palestinians and Israelis "must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to."

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the president said that "Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices final-status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. . . . A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank. And a state of scattered territories will not work. "There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza," the scholars wrote, adding: "This is the position of the United States today. It will be the position of the United States at the time of final-status negotiations." They said Mr. "Bush's declaration was a significant and helpful restatement of some long-held American positions. If these principles are actively embedded in Washington's policies over the months ahead, they could help further the president's stated goals of resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promoting democracy in the Middle East and undercutting support for Islamist terrorism."

See "From Bush, Mideast Words to Act On" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What's The Big Deal About The Downing Street Memo?

Harold Thomas "Bud" Beck at Political Gateway asks: Would someone please tell me what I am missing?"

"I've drawn the ire of some very fine people who seem to believe I have changed sides and now support the president and his policies," he wrote in a June 18, 2005 post headlined Beyond Downing Street into the media itself. "I don't! But at the same time, I also don't understand the big thing they seem to believe they have with the Downing Street Memo. His commentary is worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Conyers, Others Demand Inquiry Into The 'Downing Street memo'

David Paul Kuhn, Salon's Washington correspondent, in an article published in the June 17, 2005 issue of the Guardian Unlimited of Britain through a special arrangement, explains "how the Democratic representative John Conyers defied Republicans' to call for an inquiry into the 'Downing Street Memo." See "Just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes?" for his analysis. It's definitely worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The 'Downing Street Memo': A Smoking Gun?

Tom Regan at The Christian Science Monitor noted June 17, 2005 that, "President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and some media outlets, dismiss its importance, but the so-called 'Downing Street Memo' seems to be gathering increasing public attention." See "Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun?" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Mounting Protests Against The Iraq War

Conservative Columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review, acknowledges that, "It's correct that there is political commotion mounting in opposition to the war [in Iraq]. It is important to distinguish between two kinds," he opined in a June 18, 2005 Op/Ed column at Yahoo!News.

"One, which is gaining attention, centers on misrepresentations," he added. "The so-called Downing Street Memo is cited. This records an exchange at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002, at which, it is said, the representatives of Mr. Bush made it clear that the president had resolved to proceed against Iraq irrespective of what the United Nations might do." Mr. Buckley also wrote:

Rejecting that account, the Bush people have said that the invasion was not finally planned until after the appeal to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 5, 2003.

He said, "The revisionist line is saying that the war should not have taken place and that many who gave it support were deceived by apodictic claims from the White House that the enemy had weapons of mass destruction." See "The Mounting Protests" for more of Mr. Buckley's interesting analysis

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Raimondo Sees Treason Behind Downing Street Memo

Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.Com opined on June 17, 2005 that, "Behind the Downing Street Memos Lurks the specter of treason."

Thanks to the Deep Blade Journal for pointing to post.

Deep Blade linked to the post "not only because Justin Raimondo has included in his piece a link back into Deep Blade Journal's March 29, 2005 post on Republican squelching of the Senate Select Committee's so-called ``Phase II'' Iraq intelligence investigation, but also because it's a damn fine resource for anyone wishing to learn the full context of the leaked Downing Street documents."

As a long-time reader of Antiwar.Com, I concur with this assessment.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Pentagon's 'Early Bird' and Iraq

Inter Press Services News Agency's Jim Lobe's June 13, 2005 article on "the Pentagon's 'Early Bird' news file, a daily compilation of around 50 stories circulated throughout the U.S. national-security bureaucracy," offers a fascinating glimpse at what the compilers of the Early Bird thinks was important on June 10 and June 13, 2005. The articles chosen painted a pessimistic picture of the war in Iraq and the American people's support for it. ZNet published Mr. Lobe's analysis on June 17, 2005. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Village Voice: 'What's The Deal With The Downing Street Memo'?

Patrick Mulvaney at The Village Voice asks: What's the Deal With the Downing Street Memo? The subhead on the story is "Getting a grip on that Bush/Blair war scandal." I recommend it. I found it thought-provoking.

See The Downing Street Memo blog for extensive coverage on the memo, which was first revealed by Rupert Murdoch's conservative Times of London on May 1, 2005. The highlight of the July 23, 2002 memo, which was written by Matthew Rycroft to David Manning, British Ambassador to the U.S., for "UK (United Kingdom eyes only," seems to be this:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) is spearheading an effort to generate debate on the memo. He also sent a "Letter to President Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rumsfeld Admits Coalition Can't Defeat Iraqi Insurgency

Professor Paul Rogers asserts in his June 16, 2005 article at Open Democracy that U.S. Secretary of Defense "Donald Rumsfeld has broken a taboo: the United States military cannot win in Iraq." He was referring to a comment Mr. Rumsfeld made in a June 14, 2005 interview with Sir David Frost on the BBC's Newsnight Program.

Mr. Frost: Tell me, on the subject of Iraq, Mr. Secretary, do you believe the security situation in Iraq is better today than it was on the day after the war ended?

Rumsfeld: Well, statistically no, but clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along. In other words, at the end of the war the Army fled, was captured in large, many thousands, tens of thousands were captured, and the country was defeated. The insurgency then built over a period of time, and it's had its ups and downs. Clearly they made an effort during the election period, January 30th, to try to derail the election and prevent it from happening, but the Iraqi security forces now number 169,000; the efforts on the part of the coalition countries have shifted from counterinsurgency to helping the Iraqi security forces and they've had some important political milestones. They've had an election, they've got a government, they are now working on their constitution, and a lot of the bad things that could have happened have not happened.

Frost: Why has the bad thing though happened that the insurgents multiplied, people have been from 5,000 to 17,500.

Rumsfeld: I think people who come up with those numbers are pulling them out of the air. I don't know how you know those. I don't know those. I hear different numbers from different people at different times and then I hear the same people changing their numbers.

There's clearly people coming in from other countries, from Iran and from Syria and through other borders. The borders are relatively porous. The important thing it seems to me is for them to recognize that this insurgency is going to be defeated not by the coalition, it's going to be defeated by the Iraqi people and by the Iraqi security forces. It's going to happen as the Iraqi people begin go believe they've got a future in that country. All elements have a future in that country. The constitutional process will be important and then the elections to take place at the end of the year. Statistically, no. It has been getting better as we've gone along. A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened. See "An unwinnable war" for more.

Editor's Note: The excerpt above is from the Defense Department's website. I only found excerpts of the BBC transcript, which means I was unable to make a comparison. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the Defense Department transcript.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Simon Jeffery: 'The War That Will Not End'

Simon Jeffery at Guardian Unlimited Newsblog thinks "The three-week invasion that ended with US troops toppling Saddam's statue in Baghdad is in danger of turning into a three-year crisis: more than 900 people killed since May 3 and thousands more before. The peace studies professor Paul Rogers, writing on the excellent Open Democracy, calls it an "unwinnable war", he wrote in a June 17, 2005 post, adding: "The Abu Ghraib prison abuses and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's murderous campaigns will sear the conflict into the history books for a while to come."

"Another factor has been the refusal of the war's original opponents, and those who came on board later, to let go of the arguments," Mr. Jeffery opined. He said "The war has remained roughly as important as they wanted it to as the relentless questioning of the motives and methods of the political leaders who started it has, in Britain at least, been a dominant thread of recent politics." And they will continue to be questioned as the futility of the war becomes more evident. See "The war that will not end" for more of Mr. Jeffery's post.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 17, 2005

Why U.S. Criticizes Iran's Election

U.S. Syndicated Columnist Adrian Hamiliton made this observation about the Iranian election:

It's an indication of the way we look at the Middle East that any election the West feels it has helped along -- in Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt for example -- is greeted as a historic breakthrough, while the Iranian presidential election today, with which we have no part, is being largely treated as artificial, soured by voter apathy and unlikely to change very much.

But the Iranian elections are for real. Of course they are not full and fair in the sense that the control of the candidates' list by the clerics excludes many of the potential reformist figures.Indeed, the Bush Administration has criticized the election. See "Iranians vote for president, U.S. barbs fly." Here's more of Hamilton's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'The Criminal Chickens Of Iraq War Will Come Home To Roost'

Syndicated Columnist and Priest Andrew Greeley wrote in his June 17, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times column:

In May there were 90 suicide bombings in Iraq. That means that 90 young Arabs, mostly from Saudi Arabia, smuggled themselves into Iraq through Syria, fastened a jacket of explosives around their bodies and blew themselves up in search for Islamic martyrdom, killing scores of other Muslims in the process. The war in Iraq, billed as an essential component of the war on terror, is creating more terrorists.

Mr. Greeley said, "It is not unreasonable to expect that other young men will soon be destroying themselves in this country as they blow up Americans in shopping malls and restaurants and hospitals and churches. The chickens of the criminal war in Iraq will come home to roost. No matter that the majority of Americans disapprove of the war. It is too late for that now."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2005

'Lebanon's Political Formula Must Change'

"The good news is that Lebanon has partially recovered from the Syrian occupation and is on its way to establishing a democracy, albeit, a fragile one" contends Ghassan Rubeiz, a Washington, D.C.-based Lebanese-American social scientist, in a June 16, 2005 csmonitor.com commentary. "But if that democracy is to survive and grow, Lebanon will need to find a way to overcome a perversely complicated political framework, where specific Christian and Muslim communities share power of governance and representation."

"This strange formula of power sharing (half the parliamentary seats for Christians and half for Muslims) is not likely to work forever, given the country's changing population profiles," he added. "For instance, Muslims tend to have larger families, and Christians tend to emigrate during hard times. As a result, some Lebanese have grown up as Western-oriented citizens without authentic Arab roots; in contrast, some over-identify with fanatic Arab causes." See "Shaping Lebanon's future" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

EU Referendum: 'Time For A Gesture'

Richard North at EU Referendum comments today on "a down-page leader in The Daily Telegraph, which does not even seem to be on-line, giving advice on "What Blair must tell Chirac." It says, Chirac's "bluster over the British rebate is an attempt to divert attention from the ruins of his ambition to subject all Europe to the French 'social model.'"

"Wrong," Mr. North wrote. "In part, it is a diversion, but the French are playing a much more subtle game. As things have got clearer over the days since the French and Dutch rejections of the constitution, what is now emerging is the classic French negotiating strategy." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will Money Move Freely In The EU?

The Road to EU Serfdom makes this observation in a June 15, 2005 post: "The freedom of movement of people and goods is, we are told, an underlying principle of the EU. Well how about money? That must be free to move as well right?" See "Freedom of Movement?" for EU Serf's answer.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 13, 2005

Deutsche Welle: 'Fighting Poverty Needs More Than Debt Relief

Deutsche Welle's Ute Schaeffer's analysis of the G8's decision to write off some African and Latin American nations' debt is worth considering. I agree with Schaeffer's contention that "

Finance ministers of the world's leading industrialized nations and Russia (G8) were reaching for superlatives after Saturday's [June 11, 2005] decision to write off debts of 38 countries in Africa and Latin America, amounting to a whopping $55 billion.

Superlatives such as: "A historic decision," the "biggest debt relief program that the world has ever seen" and "a success for the world."

Schaeffer noted that, " Eighteen countries will immediately have their debt burdens cancelled, while 20 more are expected to profit from it later," adding "The decision is a show of strength for the G8 and yet it can at best be only a small step to achieve the millennium development goals. At the same time, Tony Blair and the British presidency of the G8 have managed to defy the doomsayers and get the first part of their ambitious "Marshall Plan for Africa" on the road: canceling out debts for the world's most impoverished countries."

See "Fighting Poverty Needs More than Debt Relief" for more of Schaeffer's views.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 12, 2005

Why Not Use Africa's Oil And Mineral Wealth To Save Africa?

Naomi Klein raised a pertinent question in a June 10, 2005 article in The Guardian headlined A noose, not a bracelet. The article focused on Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown's call to the "richer oil-producing states" of the Middle East to fill the funding gap" in writing off Africa's debt.

"Here is a better idea," she wrote: "instead of Saudi Arabia's oil wealth being used to "save Africa", how about if Africa's oil wealth was used to save Africa - along with its gas, diamond, gold, platinum, chromium, ferroalloy and coal wealth?"

That's a great question, Ms. Klein. Of course, we know the majority of Africa's people will not benefit from the continent's vast wealth. We in the west will. See "No joy in Africa's 'black gold.'"

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

BayouBuzz. Com: 'African Debt Forgiveness Makes Little Cents'

Steve Sabludowsky at BayouBuzz. Com says "African Debt Forgiveness Makes Little Cents."

"Gee, what can I do to get the banks and creditors to forgive my debts?" he asks. "Answer: Declare myself as an African nation or Bolivia and watch the red ink fade."

Certainly," he continues, " that is how most taxpaying citizens of the world must feel right now as G 8 led by Tony Blair is maneuvering to just blow away the creditors."

Mr. Sabludowsky said, "the scourge of poverty, death and AIDS has hit the African subcontinent hard. But," he contends, "the recession and jobless markets have not been kind to the average working middle-class Joe in countries that are considered to be prosperous, but whose citizens are in constant everyday struggle." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Editor & Publisher: 'More Life on 'Downing Street...'

Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher says "Just as the U.S. media-albeit a month late-scramble to get on top of the so-called Downing Street Memo, the Sunday Times in London unveiled another leaked document which confirms and goes behind the message of the memo." See "More Life on 'Downing Street' with Leak of New Documents on Iraq."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Blogger Landis Quoted in 'The Middle East's Real Problem...'

Blogger and Middle East Scholar Joshua Landis is quoted in Ferry Biedermann's article for Salon.Com headlined "The Middle East's real problem: The mafia." Mr. Biedermann, a journalist based in Israel, according to Salon.Com, described Mr. Landis as "an American expert on Syria who lives in Damascus, where he publishes the respected blog Syria Comment.com."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 11, 2005

Raimondo Takes A Look At The Franklin Spy Scandal

Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.Com has a thought-provoking analysis of the Larry Franklin spy scandal in the June 20, 2005 issue of The American Conservative. It's headlined "State of the State Secrets Larry Franklin wanted to sway policy, not just spill intel."

Also see his June 6, 2005 article Anti-War.Com article headlined "The War Party on Trial: The upcoming trial of the AIPAC defendants will flush plenty of rats out of the woodwork."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Debate Over Closing Gitmo P.O.W. Camp

Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch takes a look at the confusion in the Bush Administration over whether to close down the Guantanamo Bay Prisoner of War camp. President George W. Bush is saying one thing about the camp and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is saying another. See "Gitmo Rollback?" for more. By the way, the discussion was initiated when former President Jimmy Carter called on the Administration to close the P.O.W. camp.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 09, 2005

'How Does It Feel To Be A Big, Rich Contractor Now'?

Imad Khaduri at Free Iraq has an interesting post on the May 2005 arrest of 16 contract U.S. Security guards and three Iraqis in Fallujah, Iraq by U.S. Marines. It's headlined "How does it feel to be a big, rich contractor now?" The contractors, who reportedly shot at Marines and Iraqi citizens, say they were held for three days and treated like "insurgents." There are reportedly 20,000 private security guards and mercenaries in Iraq.

By the way, if this story is true, what the hell were the security guards thinking? You are not going to shoot at a marine and get away with it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kurtz: Latest Poll Says 'A Pox on Both Houses'

Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz said in a June 9, 2005 analysis of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll on the Bush Administration:

On the surface, at least, there's good news for Democrats in the latest Washington Post-ABC poll. When you've got 52 percent disapproving of Bush's performance and 56 percent turning thumbs down on the Republicans in Congress, that's got to provide a morale boost to the out-of-power party.

"But it turns out that 56 percent also disapprove of the Democrats in Congress," Mr. Kurtz concluded. "In short, no one in D.C. is terribly popular right now." See "A Pox on Both Houses" for more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What Do Americans Think About The Iraq War Now?

Andrew Gumbel of The Independent of London told his paper's readers in a June 8, 2005 post that,

Most Americans no longer believe the war in Iraq has made their country safer, and more than 60 per cent of the country believes the military is bogged down in a conflict that was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new opinion poll offering only bad news to the Bush administration.

The poll for The Washington Post and ABC News poll, published yesterday [June 7, 2005], was the first survey in which a majority of Americans rejected the White House's argument that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was good for domestic security. Mr. Gumbel said, "The poll also suggested that opinions were almost exactly evenly divided between those with a positive impression of President Bush's "war on terror" and those it viewed it negatively." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Online Opinion Compares 'Watergate and the Iraq War'

Jason Leopold, writing in a June 10, 2005 post at Online Opinion, "Australia's e-Journal of Social and Political Debate," thinks "The parallels between the Bush and Nixon administrations are eerily familiar. Both," he asserts, "bullied the press, were and are highly secretive, obsessed over leaks, engaged and are in engaging in massive cover-ups and have quickly branded aides as disloyal if they dared to raise questions about the presidents policies.

Mr. Leopold said "The Washington Post, the very paper that is credited with forcing Nixon resignation, summed it up perfectly in a November 25, 2003 story on the similarities between the two administrations:

Bush ... structures his White House much as Nixon did. Nixon governed largely with four other men: Henry A. Kissinger, H.R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman and Charles Colson. This is not unlike the "iron triangle" of aides who led Bush's campaign and the handful of underlings now - Cheney, chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr, national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice and communications director Dan Bartlett - who are in on most top decisions. Nixon essentially ended the tradition of powerful Cabinets in favor of a few powerful White House aides - a model Bush has followed.

The most striking similarity is in the area of secrecy and what Nixon staffers called "managing the news". Nixon created the White House Office of Communications, the office that has become the center of Bush's vaunted message discipline.

Mr. Leopold said, "Unfortunately, neither the Washington Post nor any other mainstream newspaper or magazine in this country will ever be credited with exposing another Watergate. Mainstream reporters just don't have the guts to put their careers on the line to sniff around, ask tough questions, and perhaps find sources like W. Mark Felt." he declared. "Not even Woodward has the muckraking qualities he used to have. Worse, editors for large papers don't encourage reporters to practice that kind of reporting anymore, because they don't want to rock the boat, or risk losing their jobs, or be seen as liberal and therefore beckon the ire of the blogosphere." See "Watergate and the Iraq War - A higher standard of truthfulness?" for more of Mr. Leopold's interesting analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

USA Today And The Downing Street Memo'

Editor & Publisher noted June 8, 2005 that, "In a report on President Bush's joint press conference late yesterday afternoon with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, USA Today for the first time mentioned the so-called Downing Street Memo, first reported in London's Sunday Times on May 1, and explained why the Gannett flagship had not previously covered the memo story."

"The Downing Street Memo is reported to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting among Blair and some of his top intelligence and national-security aides," Editor & Publisher added. "One of the aides reportedly told Blair at the meeting that the Bush administration has already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for justification. "Intelligence and facts were being fixed" to make war appear inevitable, the memo reportedly stated. Its veracity has not been contested by No. 10 Downing Street."

See 'USA Today' Defends Lack of Coverage for Downing Street Memo" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 08, 2005

The Lebanese Paradox

Hazem Saghieh, in a June 6, 2005 article in Dar Al Hayat headlined "The Predators of Samir Kassir", said The brave and enlightened pen did not fall by the hands of the "Syrian-Lebanese Security Apparatus" alone, or the latter did not execute its crime but in an environment that provokes murder or promote it." He added:

Between March 14 and the day of the crime, a considerable recession in the political and national occurred, leaving confessions, notables, peers of the realm, religious figures, and men with an ever-growing ego of every type, to occupy the vacuum. Since the political and the national have receded, dubious omens of every form began to appear. We saw General Michel Aoun, returning as a little Napoleon, reshuffling the cards and changing its form, obsessed with launching history from square zero, from the void. We saw electoral alliances, and no one is to be excluded, grow away from the political alignment of March 14, not to speak of the adopted principles, which were growing closer to the smaller parish calculations. We saw voter turnout, being the mother of all political and citizenship practices, drop to a level that suggests public despair and desolation after a notable broad energy. As for the youth that have refused to become part of the confessional equation, they seemed like orphans at the table of the wicked, pleading for representation.

"Finally," he asserted, "the fatal Lebanese paradox became clear. The election is not an intense political moment anymore; it has become a moment that is equivalent to politics, carrying inherent chances of collapse." Mr. Saghieh's analysis of current politic events in Lebanon is worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Michael Schwartz Analyzes Car Bombings In Iraq

Michael Schwartz, "professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says "Don't be fooled by the press coverage" of car bombings in Iraq. "The car bombs are not detonated at random, nor are they primarily directed at Shi'ite mosques," he says in an indepth analysis in the June 8, 2005 edition of Asia Times Online.

"In fact," he noted, "only a handful have been targeted primarily at civilians - the vast majority are aimed at recruits or active duty members of the Iraqi police and army; the civilian injuries are - to use the ghoulish American military jargon - "collateral damage" See "Car bombings: Iraq's time bomb" for Mr. Schwartz's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 06, 2005

Second Guessing France's No Vote On EU Constitution

British Blogger Peter Cuthbertson at the popular Conservative Commentary asks:

Why are europhiles starting to claim that many Frenchmen voted against the EU Constitution not out of euroscepticism but because of their feelings about Chirac and national politics, as if it's some knock-out blow? Apart from the fact that people are entitled to vote for something for any reason they like in a democracy, they surely can't believe it doesn't work both ways.

See "No meant No" for Mr. Cuthbertson's analysis. It's worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Has Amnesty International 'Lost It'?

GeoPolitical Review, which offers insightful analysis on global affairs, analyzes Amnesty International's claims that the U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is similar to a Gulag. A June 5, 2005 post centers on the fact that William Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, said on June 5, 2005 that, "Clearly this [Amnesty international in London comparing the U.S.' Guantanamo Bay prisoner of war camp to a Soviet Gulag] is not an exact or a literal analogy."

Specifically, Amnesty said:

The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.

Mr.Schulz said, according to a Reuters account of his appearance on Fox News Sunday:

... But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared ... And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed."
"And whether the Americans like it or not, it does reflect how the more than 2 million Amnesty members in a hundred countries around the world and indeed the vast majority of those countries feel about the United States' detention policy.

GeoPoliticalReview concludes its analysis with this: " Whatever Amnesty once was, she lost it a long time ago."

Maybe, but U.S. officials still listen and react when Amnesty makes charges, whether correct or incorrect, against it. So do many other nations, organizations and individuals around the world. Some reports say Amnesty is refusing to back down from its "Gulag" comment. See "Amnesty International: 'It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea'" for more." It's an interesting analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 05, 2005

Baroud: France Vetoes Neo Liberalism, U.S. Agenda

Ramzy Baroud, described by The Baltimore Chronicle as "a veteran Arab-American journalist and the author of the upcoming book entitled A Force to Be Reckoned With: Writings on the Second Palestinian Uprising, has a interesting perspective on France's May 29, 2005 referendum on the European Union Constitution, which was rejected by French voters. It's called "France Vetoes Neo Liberalism, US Agenda."

The U.S. editor-in-chief of the Palestine Chronicle said, "France's unyielding repudiation of the proposed European Union constitution is a resounding reminder that the populace still possesses the power to defy political elitism with all of its economic dogmas--neo-liberalism being one of them." I recommend the article.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Malta Columnist Sees 'Confusion And Turmoil in Europe'

Commentary on French and Dutch voters' rejection of the European Constitution on May 29 and June 1, 2005 respectively continues to be offered in publications around the world as commentators try to understand the meaning behind the 'No" votes. Anthony Manduca of The Sunday Times of Malta provides an interesting perspective in the June 5, 2005 issue of the publication. Among other things, he said, Jacque Chirac's unpopularity is certainly not the only reason why the French rejected this treaty." He noted that:

There was a large left-wing movement against its ratification. The Socialist Party was split over its support for the Constitution and the Communist Party was opposed.
The Left considered the treaty to be far too economically liberal or "Anglo-Saxon", as the French like to call it. There was a genuine fear about the effects on France of increased competition - such as the European Commission's proposal to open up the services sector in Europe - and this was wrongly confused with the European Constitution and EU enlargement.

Mr. Manduca also said:"The No vote in the Netherlands, which was even larger than the French rejection, was more to do with Dutch fears over the treaty and the future of Europe than an expression of anti-government feeling, even though Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende is not particularly popular at this point in time.

"It is also clear that the Yes camp was caught off guard by the strength and strategy of the No bloc and that it ran a weak campaign," he added. "Here again, the Netherlands did not have to hold a referendum and the government's decision to hold one - it obviously expected to win - once again shows the huge gulf between politicians and citizens." See "Confusion and turmoil in Europe" for more Mr. Manduca's informed opinion.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 03, 2005

The U.S., India and Nepal

"For the world's sole surviving superpower increasingly criticized for its brash unilateralism, the United States has exhibited a peculiar trait in delegating its Nepal policy to India," asserts Madan P. Khana in an article in the June 2, 2005 edition of Scoop, a New Zealand publication . Mr. Khana said "allowing Indian perceptions to guide American policy on the kingdom would be counterproductive to the overriding imperative of strengthening security and stability in South Asia." See "A Dangerous Delegation of American Diplomacy" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 02, 2005

Martin Kettle: 'Don't Jump to Conclusions' About EU Voters

The Guardian Unlimited's Martin Kettle is of the opinion that, "The people of France and the Netherlands have killed the EU constitution. It is an ex-treaty," he states in a June 3, 2005 column. "But if we must respect what the voters have done, we must also respect the reasons they have given for doing it. Commentators who impose their own romantic or apocalyptic scenarios on facts that do not support them are just as culpable as EU leaders in denial," he asserted. I agree. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

USA TODAY: Europe is Being Democratic.

USA TODAY stated in a June 2, 2005 editorial that,"Old-fashioned democracy" is thwarting "EU's grand plan." The paper noted that:

Before the Netherlands rejected a new European constitution Wednesday, something out of the ordinary happened: Voters held hundreds of debates about it in town halls and coffeehouses.
A similar raging discussion preceded France's resounding "no" vote three days earlier with a more in-your-face French flavor. In a typical scene, finger-jabbing sheep farmer Jose Bove told gathered crowds that "200 years after the (French revolution's storming of the) Bastille, the people of the left today are going to wreck this constitution!"

"With their votes," USA TODAY added, "the French and Dutch people did indeed shatter the proposed constitution. They sent another message as well: Europe is not dead; it is being democratic. And that's important, too." Here's the entire editorial.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Economic Reasons Behind the Dutch No Vote

Hamish McRae of The Independent of London opines in a June 2, 2005 article:

"June is blazing, the sun is shining and the Dutch are unhappy. In another vote against the EU elite, the Netherlands yesterday [June 1, 2005] added its voice to France against the way Europe wants to reorganize itself. The vote is an exercise in politics rather than economics but, to an even greater extent than the French, the Dutch have powerful economic reasons behind their concern.

See " Sun shines on Dutch but the economic shadows lengthen" for more of Mr. McRae's views on the subject..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Did French, Dutch Deliver 'Killer Blow' to EU Constitution?

Expatica's Aaron Gray-Block noted in a June 2, 2005 analysis of the June 1, 2005 rejection of the European Union Constitution by the Dutch that:

Denmark will proceed with its plebiscite planned for 27 September. Six other referendums are due to follow. However, despite the fact 10 nations have already approved of the constitution-- Latvia's Parliament backed it on June 2, 2005-- the treaty had to be ratified by all 25 member states. It means the French and Dutch no votes have effectively delivered a killer blow.

"Nevertheless," Mr. Gray-Block said, "European Parliament President Josep Borrell said earlier this week if only five countries reject the constitution, a period of negotiation must be entered into." See "Dutch 'no' vote sparks EU crisis" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

European Voters Send 'Salutary Warning' to Leaders

Gamal Nkrumah of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram contends that "Europe has hit a soft patch. It is a salutary warning," he said in the June 2-8, 2005 issue, adding:

Europeans are no longer enamoured of their own continent. The continent's electorates are forcing its politicians to have the EU returned to its founding principles. The Lisbon agenda of economic reform has been rejected by the French and Dutch electorate. Europe's politicians cannot press ahead with anti-people economic reforms. In France, it was the left that was held primarily responsible for the 'non' vote. "A masterpiece of masochism," trumpeted the French daily Liberation. The French and Dutch rejection of the European constitution prompted a continental debate on the future of Europe. Eurosceptics had a field day. However, the French 'non' doesn't necessarily mean that they were vindicated. Nor does it mean that other European nations avoid further referendums and ratify the EU constitution by parliamentary vote. Several other European countries, in any case, are going ahead with the ratification of the constitution.

Mr. Nkrumah said, "The Spanish opted for a decisive 'si', so much to their consternation, the French vote came as a shock. The Dutch 'no', not surprisingly, was a foregone conclusion." See "Bruises of the EU bandwagon" for the rest of Mr. Nkruma's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 31, 2005

Friedman is Right: Gitmo P.O.W Camp Should Be Shut Down

I agree with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman that the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp should be shut down. Now. On May 27, 2005, Mr. Friedman wrote: "Shut it down. Just shut it down." He added:

I'm talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantanamo Bay. Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please Mr. President, just shut it down.

Mr. Friedman's call for the Gitmo camp to be shut down is equivalent to former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Leland Cronkite's 1968 commentary on the Vietnam War. As PBS' noted in its "Reporting America at War" series:

In 1968, while anchor of the "CBS Evening News," Cronkite journeyed to Vietnam to report on the aftermath of the Tet offensive. In a dramatic departure from the traditions of "objective" journalism, Cronkite concluded his reports with a personal commentary in which he voiced his strong belief that the war would end in stalemate.

PBS noted that, Mr. "Cronkite's editorial would later be regarded as a critical indice of public opinion of the Vietnam War." Mr. Friedman is regarded in some quarters as the nation's leading foreign affairs columnist and a voice for the current U.S. foreign policy establishment. See "Just Shut It Down."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Media, The White House and AI's Human Rights Report

The Fields Report, which offers commentary on international affairs, says "The media is letting the White House again dictate the storyline with regards to the Amnesty International human rights report. As long as the issue continues to be the "gulag" controversy, Amnesty's actual charges get obfuscated," according to a May 31, 2005 post in the blog. Here's more. Also see Amnesty International Report 2005.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is President Bush Stalling On The Bolton Documents?

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note, who has provided consistently good analysis of the Bolton confirmation battle, said "President Bush knocked around Democrats today for delaying a vote on John Bolton -- but in fact, it is his own team who has caused the delay."

Mr. Bolton is Mr. Bush's choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

"With one utterance," Mr. Clemons declared in a May 31, 2005 post, "President Bush could end the efforts by Democrats and moderate Republicans to hold off a Bolton vote by just offering up the documents requested by Senators during their Constitutionally-required investigation of Bolton, his record, and his behavior."

Mr. Clemons said "Until Bush concedes defeat to the growing list of Senators who have serious concern (like Senator John McCain) that this battle over requested evidence is not just about Bolton but about the principle of separation of powers in government, then Bolton's nomination will sit in limbo." He may be right on this. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will the European Union Unravel?

Pavel Molchanov, a Texas financial analyst, noted in the June 1, 2005 edition of The National Business Review of New Zealand that:

Three times in the past three years, France has thrown a bombshell on the stage of international politics, with lasting consequences. First, in April 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the second round of the presidential election, there was briefly the prospect of a far-right demagogue running a nuclear-armed G-7 country. Then, in early 2003, President Jacques Chirac with a stubbornness befitting his role model Charles de Gaulle declared that France would veto any Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, causing damage to the Atlantic alliance that lasts to this day.

"And then," Mr. Molchanov added, "on May 29, 2005, the people of France went to the polls and gave a bloody nose to the entire European Union." I recommend Where next for the European Dis-Union?

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is No Vote on EU Treaty a Case of Old Europe vs. New Europe

In a June 1, 2005 report in the New York Times Company-ownedInternatiional Herald Tribune, Judy Dempsey summarizes the positions of some former Eastern bloc nations towards France and Germany. For example, she wrote:

The Czechs say some of the older members of the European Union, such as France, fear the loss of their status quo inside the bloc and are taking it out on those Eastern European countries that joined only a year ago.

The Poles say that France is upset because the later entrants, mainly former Communist countries from Eastern Europe, are not willing to accept French leadership inside the bloc and are blaming them for upsetting the old order, largely dominated by France. The Slovaks say they are being used as scapegoats for high unemployment in France and Germany, even though it is France and Germany that have benefited from cheap labor costs in Slovakia, where both countries have invested heavily in the car industry. She said, "The Hungarians say Western Europeans are blaming Eastern Europeans for the no vote against the EU charter but that the reality is that a worn-down political class does not want to face the truth about the need for economic reforms." See "For many EU members, no vote on treaty is case of old vs. new" for more opinion from Eastern European observers.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is Tony Blair The Last Big Man Standing in Europe?

Jonathan Freedland opines in the June 1, 2005 issue of The Guardian that, Everywhere British Prime Minister Tony Blair looks, he will see dead ends. And yet, in conversations yesterday, Downing Street folk hardly seemed distraught. If anything, they appeared rather cheery. Here's why.

They now see a European stage in which Blair is the last big man standing. Jacques Chirac is mortally wounded, while Gerhard Schröder took a drubbing in last week's German regional elections. He could be out by the autumn. Viewed through Downing Street's rose-tinted glasses, that leaves a Blair-shaped hole. He has won a vote while all around him have lost theirs.

More importantly, the optimists note, the trend in Europe is in Britain's direction. For nearly a decade, the old Franco-German motor has been stalling as both nations have struggled economically: new members have been reluctant to follow their example. Enlargement has brought in ex-communist states which prefer so-called Anglo-Saxon liberal economics to the French social model, with its statist protections and regulations. Mr. Freedland said, "The result has been serial defeats for France and Germany, rebuffed on their choice for commission president, rebuffed on the contents of the constitution itself - a document the French scathingly dubbed the constitution Britannique. Symbolically, and most painfully for the French, the unofficial language of the corridors of Brussels is now English." Here's more of his interesting assessment.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Moderate Voice: Is Chirac French Toast?

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice provided excellent coverage of the May 29, 2005 rejection of the European Constitution by French voters. His lead on a May 30, 2005 post reads like this:

A shocker...A failure of leadership...A body blow... An embarrassment to France...A repudiation...

"Those are adjectives that some are using in the wake of France's rejection of the European Union's first constitution," Mr. Gandelman wrote, adding: "And they're popping up in news stories not just about the vote outcome but about French President Jacques Chirac and France's political establishment. The news reports, editorial reaction, and weblog comments are as devastating as the VOTE. The bottom line: Chirac put his reputation and clout on the line and lost, bigtime. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 30, 2005

A Debate Over Photo of a Partially Clad Saddam

Yamin Zakaria of Al-Jazeerah.Info, not to be confused with Al-Jazeera.Net, and Sun Editor Tom Newton engaged in an interesting exchange of opinion spurred by the Sun's publication of a picture showing former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in his underwear and sleeping. See "Yamin Zakaria's Response to The Sun Newspaper Editor, Tom Newton."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Abid Ullah Jan's Analysis of Realists vs. Nihilists

Abid Ullah Jan, author of "A War on Islam?" argues in the May 30, 2005 edition of Media Monitor's Network that, "The more time goes by, the more the realists and nihilists among the political analysts are exposed. The realist will tell you that the U.S. adventures for imposing its will with the barrel of a gun are doomed to failure. Nihilists will tell you that the war must go on for liberation and democratization." See "Realists vs. Nihilists." I think it's worth reading whether you agree with him or not.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The 'Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism'

Robert A. Pape, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, writing in a May 18, 2005 Op-Ed article in The New York Times, repeated an important observation about terrorism that I think Americans would do well to ponder. He made the same argument in "Dying to Kill Us," which was published in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times on September 22, 2003. In his latest Op-Ed article, he said, in part:

Many people are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq. The lull in violence after January's successful elections seemed to suggest that the march of democracy was trampling the threat of terrorism.But as electoral politics is taking root, the Iraqi insurgency and suicide terrorism are actually gaining momentum. In the past two weeks, suicide attackers have killed more than 420 Iraqis working with the United States and its allies. There were 20 such incidents in 2003, nearly 50 in 2004, and they are on pace to set a new record this year.

Mr. Pape added: "To make sense of this apparent contradiction, one has to understand the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Since Muslim terrorists professing religious motives have perpetrated many of the attacks, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause, and thus the wholesale transformation of Muslim societies into secular democracies, even at the barrel of a gun, is the obvious solution. However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading, and it may spur American policies that are likely to worsen the situation." Read 'Blowing Up An Assumption" to understand why.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Fleet Street's Verdict' On The EU Constitution

ePolitix.Com has gathered opinion from some of Britain's newspapers in a post headlined "EU constitution: Fleet Street's verdict." The publication said, "There are mixed views on whether a British referendum should still take place. But there is a consensus that the constitution in its current form is now dead."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Which Way Now?

The Road to Euro Serfdom: "The French have done the dirty deed for us, which may be the first time it was not the other way around. What happens next?" Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

French Voters And The Fear of Free-market Capitalism

John Leceister of The Associated Press reported May 30, 2005 that, European Union "Treaty opponents built a coalition of the disgruntled by bashing the United States, Turks, immigration in general, Eurocrats and free-market capitalism. They tapped into fears that jobs will be lost to 10 countries that joined the European Union last year, most of them in Eastern Europe where labor is cheaper," he wrote. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Deutsche Welle: 'French Vote Not the End of Europe'

Germany's Deutsche Welle is not as pessimistic about France's "Non' vote in THE May 29, 2005 referendum on the European Union Constitution. The publication opined on May 30, 2005:

Many have already started reading the European Union the last rites after the French rejected the EU constitution on Sunday. But far from killing it off, the EU may in the long run benefit from the result.

The 'non' vote in the French EU constitution represents one side of a European paradox: France has long been one of the strongest advocates of cooperation and integration within the bloc and yet Sunday's vote against the EU constitution is a clear sign that the French people now reject a contract which would promote these ideals. "However," Deutsche Welle added, "while doom-mongers may now be ringing the death knell of the EU, the French vote may actually give the bloc time to reflect and to take its foot off the gas in the enlargement juggernaut to its benefit." I agree. See "French Vote Not the End of Europe."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 29, 2005

Europe's 'Political Elites' and the EU Constitution

Laura Rozen at War and Piece had a good roundup of opinion on the France's EU referendum prior to the vote. The consensus was that the constitution would be rejected. The reasons are still worth reading although the outcome of the vote is known. Here it is.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Belgravia Dispatch's Perspective on the French Vote

Gregory Djerejian at the influential Belgravia Dispatch calls the French rejection of the EU Constitution "A rather resounding non." He offers an interesting and worth reading perspective on the subject. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Lament Over the Defeat of the EU Constitution in France

The Austria-based proprietor of Ostracised from Österreich made this interesting comment about French voters rejecting the EU Constitution on May 29, 2005:

Just as Chirac is threatening to appear on my TV screen in a couple of seconds, I feel it's a sad moment for political Europe. The fact that European proposals elaborated with as much collective effort as the constitutional treaty are successfully and easily destroyed by people like the ones who are celebrating now on the TV stations across Europe (Mme Le Pen, Mr Emmanueli, Mr Haider) shows that the constructive part of the political spectrum has a serious problem in relating to its constituents. There is an issue of dissociation between the people and its representatives. On the other hand, this is exactly why it's high time to do something for the kind of politics we deserve.

This sounds like an astute observation to me. Estrangement of voters and their representatives seems to be a problem all over the world. This also includes the United States. On the other hand, voters have a right not to follow their leaders like blind sheep. When leaders are out of step with the majority of those who vote, they and their programs are rejected. It's called democracy.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Fistful of Euros: And It’s A ’No’

Edward over at A Fistful of Euros said, "According to the initial estimates from the French agency CSA for 'France info' the no vote has carried the day, by 55.5% to 44.5%: a huge difference.

"OK, I guess the debate can now begin," he wrote.

And so it will, Edward. It's a worthy topic for debate. I suspect much of the commentary will center around French President Jacque Chirac and what the vote means for his legacy. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'It Was Never Meant To Be That Way'

The Financial Times' John Thornhill, writing from Paris, tells "How consensus in favour of Yes to the European Constitution slipped away in France. "It was never meant to be that way," he wrote in a May 29, 2005 dispatch. His perspective is quite interesting. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hungering for Justice in Haiti

The Baltimore Sun: "Most Americans have never heard of Yvon Neptune, the jailed former prime minister of Haiti who has been on a hunger strike since April 17, [2005] but his decision to starve himself speaks volumes about the failure of U.S. policy in Haiti. And it underscores the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's policy of engaged diplomacy in defense of human rights and democracy around the world," the Tribune company-owned paper said on May 29, 2005.

The publication said, "If the Bush administration is serious about supporting democracy around the world, where better than in Haiti, which is in our geographic back yard? It's not just Mr. Neptune's health that is in peril, it's also Haiti's." Read more of "Hungering for justice."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Yorkshire Ranter's 'Chinese View on the EU'

Alex at The Yorkshire Ranter has a very informative post headlined "Chinese View on the EU". I recommend it

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 27, 2005

'What's Eating Europe'?

William J. Kole of The Associated Press asks in a May 27, 2005 commentary:

"What's eating Europe? In theory," he opines, "these should be the continent's glory days. Already united by a common currency, flag, legislature and more, the European Union's 450 million citizens now are looking at a landmark constitution that many leaders insist will translate to a greater voice in world affairs and the means to achieve even greater prosperity.

"In practice," he added, "there's an overwhelming sense of doubt, disillusionment and just plain disgruntlement -- epitomized by polls that show France probably heading toward a rejection of the charter in a weekend referendum. From Berlin to Brussels, a funk born of frustration with high unemployment, lackluster economies and perceived political paralysis is feeding a nagging feeling that Europe's moment may irretrievably have passed it by." Here's more. The article is worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 23, 2005

Who Are The Winners and Losers in the Battle Over Bolton?

Steve Clemon at The Washington Note, said in a May 23, 2005 post that, "most who have been watching the battle over John Bolton's nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations have been surprised at the ferocity exhibited by Dick Cheney and others supporting him as well as by the many opposed.

"The American Prospect's Mark Goldberg has a superb article, out just today, that looks at the battle in a bit more distant way," Mr. Clemons told his readers. "He considers what the Bolton struggle tells us about future combat between choices promulgated by the radical right and opposed by progressives -- with moderates finding their way through the process." Mr. Clemon published the enitire article. It's worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 22, 2005

Jack Englehard on 'Israel's Madonna Complex'

Jack Engelhard, in an article in the May 22, 2005 online edition of Israel Insider headlined Israel's Madonna Complex," said: "Finally, a crisis with star appeal, or, Israel's version of "Hollywood Wives," with Madonna smack in the middle." He added:

This is not the usual trouble, but wouldn't it be something if, instead of all the real tsouris, this is the one that totters the government? In this corner, we have Israel's foreign minister Silvan "Steve" Shalom, and in that corner, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon. So what's the problem? Please don't ask. I can't figure it out. The scuffle isn't even between these two men; it's between their wives.

"I warned you," he continues. "This gets crazy. Let's keep it simple. According to reliable sources, the foreign minister's wife, Judy Nir Moses Shalom, well, she took a copy of my novel, Indecent Proposal, flushed it down the toilet, and this started rioting and stampeding all around the world." Here's more of his hilarious commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sleiman: U.S. Turns Blind Eye to Israeli Espionage

Mounzer Sleiman, PhD, described by Al-Jazeera.Net as "an independent political-military analyst and expert in U.S. national security affairs, based in the Washington DC area," noted in a May 22, 2005 article headlined "U.S. turns blind eye to espionage" that,

Just a day after Defence Department official Larry Franklin was arrested on charges of passing classified information in the service of Israel, America's Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte was the guest at a pro-Israel event, where he praised Israel as an American ally.

"Such is the degree of America's blindness to Israel's espionage activities in the United States," he said. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Jenkins: A French Yes Vote ( on EU) Lets Britain Go to Plan C

Simon Jenkins of The Times Online of London opined May 22, 2005 that,

We should all pray for the French to vote yes in next weeks European referendum. Britons should go down on their knees and beg for it. A French yes is vital if the British nation is to express a national view on the new constitution and throw it out. Only then might Europe get an economic treaty fit enough and lean enough for the new world economy.

Mr. Jenkins said, "whenever a politician says there is no plan B you can be sure he is lying. There is always a plan B, especially when plan A (a French yes) is plainly in trouble. The question for Britain is whether the plan B now being canvassed in Paris, Brussels and London is any good," he added. Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Karzai Demands Control of Afghan Prisoners Held by U.S.

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has an informative analysis of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's desire for more control over prisoners the U.S. is holding at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. He made his wishes known following The New York Times' May 20, 2005 report headlined "In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmate's Deaths." I wonder whether Mr. Karzai knew about the deaths and atrocities at Bagram prior to The Times' report. Here's more of Mr. Gandelman's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'Hugh Hewitt's Support of the Military Does More Harm Than Good'

John Cole at Balloon Juice contends that blogger Hugh Hewitt's "so-called 'support' of the military does it far more harm than it does good." Today's entry is a classic example," he wrote. He cited this excerpt from Mr. Hewitt:

The combined volley of a fake story (Newsweek's) and an old story (the New York Times') underscore Terry Moran's assertion that there exists deep hostility to the military in the MSM, and Linda Foley's idiocy is proof positive of the existence of a lunatic fringe that will believe whatever they have to believe in order to justify to themselves their feverish hatred of George W. Bush. It is almost inevitable that more anti-military stories will surface, powered by more leaks, all designed to discredit a war effort that is all too obviously succeeding in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and hopefully elsewhere in the Middle East...

Such a "leak" ended up leading to the death of innocents this week --though MSM seems uniquely disinterested in naming those dead in the Newsweek riots-- and the damage future scoops may cause can only be guessed.Everyone repeat after me," Mr. Cole said, adding:

Reporting on abuses that have been committed by our troops, in our name, is not anti-military. While I am not arrogant enough to attempt to divine the motives of every journalist who reports on such abuses, Hugh appears to be up to the challenge. I find his attack on the reporting of the outrageous abuses detailed at length in the NY Times to be both disturbing and disingenuous."

I totally agree. Here's more of Mr. Cole's unflinching critique of Mr. Hewitt's post. I highly recommend this article.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2005

Eamon Fitzgerald Comments on 'Extreme Ugliness in Germany'

Eamon Fitzgerald's Rainy Day says, "The cover story in this week's Spectator is a deeply disturbing take on the current state of Germany by Wolfgang Munchau, the associate editor of the Financial Times. Titled "Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism," the piece suggests that the country's economic difficulties have produced a disturbing German culture of bitterness, with politicians invoking hate-imagery from the Nazi era," contends Eamon Fitzgerald. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How to be a Democratic Europe

Alex at The Yorkshire Ranter is "kicking off a series of blog posts on how to be a democratic Europe." I intend to follow the series. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What's Missing in U.S. Reporting on Outsourcing to India?

I found Martin Stabe's "The two Indias" quite interesting. It's about how the western media covers India's emergence as a high-tech center. He wrote:

Inspired, no doubt, by reading Thomas Friedman's columns based on his new globalisation book Flat World (best demolished by Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias), I've become interested in the breathless tones with which the Western media has been reporting the emergence of Indias high-tech economy.

"What's missing in all the outsourcing-fuelled reporting is some context about how the investment flowing into Bangalore is spreading into the rest of India," Mr. Stabe added. "Short version: it isn't, much." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Davos Newbies Sees an 'Anxious Amsterdam'

Lance Knobel at Davos Newbies published an article on May 18, 2005 headlined "Anxious Amsterdam. It's about a visit he had with a " friend in Amsterdam" on May 17, 2005." He said "despite the enduring beauty of the city," the visit was "a rather disquieting experience." Why?

Partly it was the discussion I had with my friend. He's a distinguished economist, a friend from my Davos days. And he was gloomy about the current course of the world. He sees the US increasingly influenced by evangelical groups, wholly alien to a liberal European perspective. Latin America, after some signs of promise in the 90s, is slipping back to dangerous populism, personified by Hugo Chavez. Continental Europe is sclerotic. And Africa should be a scar on all of our consciences, but is hardly thought about by most of us.

Mr Knobel said, "Europe was a particular worry. I'd taken the metro to his neighborhood and been shocked by the '80s-era NY graffiti covering every carriage. It looked horrible and my friend told me he no longer feels safe taking the metro in his home city. Whats happened to easy-going, tolerant Amsterdam?" I could feel the despair in the article.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Did Hizbullah Have a Role in Assassinating Rafik Hariri?

Tony at Across the Bay reports that Michael Young at Reason Online "noted a bombshell article in the Kuwaiti As-Siyasah suggesting the involvement of a "significant Lebanese party" in the assassination of [former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik]Hariri, [who was assassinated on February 14, 2005]. Michael points out that this "significant Lebanese party" is none other than Hizbullah," Across the Bay reported.This article is definitely worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Joshua Landis: 'Change is Coming (to Syria) - but How'?

Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.Com:

"Change is coming to Syria - there is no way to deny it. How it will happen and how controlled it will be, no one can say. As one Syrian friend said to me, "Will it be in five years, ten years, or next year? I cannot say, but it is coming."The signs are everywhere. One top Alawite official joked to a Sunni friend, "Will you treat us well in the future?" This kind of remark revealing the anxiety of regime figures about the future, but still couched in a joke to indicate insouciance, would not have been heard a year ago."

Here's more of this interesting commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2005

Opinion on Newsweek's Qu'ran Story

Many words have been written on what UCLA professor and syndicated columnist Tom Plate calls "the embarrassing Newsweek climb-down on the now infamous Quran-stuffed-into-the-prison-toilet story." Some of the perspectives I've read have been downright ignorant and inflammatory while others were sober, thoughtful and skeptical. Here are links to some of that opinion and analysis.

Newsweek makes a deadly 6-word mistake--Billings Gazette
Story that might not be true paints a sadly accurate picture--By Tom Plate
Beyond Blame--Bangor Daily News
The Alleged Desecration of the Holy Quran--By Fargad Al-Madhi
Blaming the Messenger--By Anne Applebaum
Newsweek Was Right--By Ari Berman
Newsweek isn't only culprit in Middle East turmoil--By Art Levin
A gift for a White House set to pounce--Ellis Henican
Not just the media is to blame--By Mark Whittaker
Newsweek's Dilemma--By William F. Buckely, Jr.
Newsweek Debacle Might Have Been Avoided--By Georgie Anne Geyer
What false report did more damage?--Tahlequah Daily Press
Selective accountability--St Petersburg Times

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 18, 2005

Is There a Lesson for the Caribbean in the EU Referendum Debate?

Sir Ronald Sanders, a former diplomat representing Antigua and Barbuda, contends in a May 18, 2005 Caribbean Net News article that,

While organisations and individuals in the member states of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) are going through some soul searching over the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) and, in particular, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the member states of the European Union (EU) have also been suffering anxiety over whether their proposed European Constitution will become a reality.

"The deciding moment will come on May 29th when the electorate of France votes in a referendum on the Constitution which was signed by all 25 governments of the Union on October 29th last year," he wrote. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'The Matador of Tumbledown': An Informative Commentary on Iraq

I found a May 15, 2005 article in The Yorkshire Ranter headlined "The Matador of Tumbledown" very informative. It's about the war in Iraq. I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Belgravia Dispatch Analyzes Kharrazi's Visit to Iraq

Gregory Djerejian, the proprietor of the always interesting Belgravia Dispatch, has an interesting commentary about Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi's visit this week to Baghdad. Is this the behavior of a "Vichy surrogate"? he asks. "Hosting the foreign minister of a charter axis of evil foe of the American Fuhrer himself? Methinks not" he answered in response to his own questions. Here's the entire piece.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Riverbend on 'The Dead and the Undead'

Riverbend over at Baghdad Burning states in a May 18, 2005 post:

The last two weeks [in Iraq] have been violent. The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations- bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places. Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard. The latest corpses were those of some Sunni and Shia clerics- several of them well-known. People are being patient and there is a general consensus that these killings are being done to provoke civil war. Also worrisome is the fact that we are hearing of people being rounded up by security forces (Iraqi) and then being found dead days later- apparently when the new Iraqi government recently decided to reinstate the death penalty, they had something else in mind.

Riverbend's post is headlined The Dead and the Undead. I recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Drezner: 'How Do You Code Uzbekistan?

Blogger Daniel W. Drezner, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago, asked in a May 17, 2005 post: "Is the recent unrest in Uzbekistan an example of the Uzbeks yearning to join the burgeoning fourth wave of democratization, or is it something else altogether, an example of Islamic extremists threatening a secular state? I'm still not completely sure, but my hunch is the former." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The National Debate on the Newsweek Controversy

Robert Cox at The National Debate has an interesting perspective on Newsweek's alleged "retraction" of its claim that "Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash." The Newsweek article is headlined "Gitmo: SouthCom Showdown". Read Mr. Cox's post here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Deep Blade Journal's Take on the Qur'an Desecration Controversy

The always informative Deep Blade Journal's take on Qur'an desecration is that, "There is plenty of it on the record. Newsweek backing off the story has more to do with the fallout than the truth," Deep Blade said. I agree. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What Exactly Has Newsweek Retracted?

Brian Montopoli at CJR Daily contends that, "Newsweek made a serious error in relying on a single source for its story, and its subsequent report may (or may not) have spurred fatal riots. The magazine subsequently apologized, then retracted the part of the story in question and vowed not to make the error again," he wrote in a May 17, 2005 post, adding: "In contrast, most of the rest of the media, in reporting the story, has continued to stumble all over itself, making the same mistakes over and over again. And unlike Newsweek, none of them are showing any signs of remorse." Mr. Montopoli asks CJR Daily readers to:

Consider the central question of the story about the story: What exactly has the magazine retracted? Most reporters, particularly on television, are reporting that Newsweek has retracted the allegation that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. But that's wrong: The magazine has said only that it no longer stands by its claim that allegations of Koran desecration appear in a forthcoming report from U.S. Southern Command. That's a very different point. There have been numerous other reports -- mostly from detainees -- suggesting that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo did abuse the Koran. We don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that there's a significant difference between what Newsweek said -- that its source can no longer be sure that the allegations appear in an upcoming military report -- and what the press is reporting the magazine said -- that no desecration of the Koran ever took place.

He said, "But since the press has largely ceded control of the story to the White House, administration spinners have been able to twist it." He asked readers to "Consider another central issue: whether Newsweek's premature report actually spurred the riots. Thanks to the White House spin, and the media's lazy reporting, the conventional wisdom is now that it did," Mr. Montopoli wrote. "But the reality is that it probably did not, at least in any significant sense." Read more here. I highly recommend it.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Juan Cole: Has Newsweek Retracted?

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a long list of articles and commentary on alleged Qur'an desecration by U.S. personnel. See "Has Newsweek Retracted?"

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2005

Are Bush, Putin and Karimov to Blame for Uzbek Turmoil?

Writer Angela Charlton asserts in a column published in Russia's RIA Novosti that, "As much as Uzbekistan could use a dose of fair governance, talk of a democratic revolution there sounds premature, even dangerous, after the unrest that has left the Fergana Valley bloodied and terrified in recent days." She added:

Even Washington sees little room for optimism in the harsh and clumsy conflict in Andijan. Despite conspiracy theories that one or all of them are behind the turmoil, George Bush, Vladimir Putin and Islam Karimov have all lost face since Friday's protests, and should be praying that the storm dies down soon. Each leader, in his own way, is to blame for allowing public discontent and lawlessness in Uzbekistan to reach such a volatile level.

Ms. Charlton said, "Karimov, the Uzbek president, is the clearest culprit. A decade and a half of nurturing his cult of personality left him little time to heed the poverty and desperation of his compatriots. Islamic groups that tried to address those problems were labeled terrorist cells, yet many of them only turned to extremism in frustration at Karimov's authoritarianism. Karimov's reputation as a strongman concealed his core weakness and failure to unify his country." Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 11, 2005

George H.W. Bush Was Right About Not Invading and Occupying Iraq

Joseph Britt, in a May 10, 2005 post at The Belgravia Dispatch, takes issue with President George W. Bush's suggestion that the the U.S. was partly to blame for the Soviet Union's domination of Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. This the passage that seems to have hit a nerve:

The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.

Specifically, Mr. Bush admitted that the U.S. under President Franklin D. Roosevelt helped cause ``one of the greatest wrongs of history'' -- when Mr. Roosevelt signed the Yalta Agreement in 1945 along with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin.

He also said: "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others.'' He was referring to his attempts to impose democracy on the Middle East.

Before taking Mr. Bush to task, Mr. Britt prefaced it with, "I have nothing but praise for President Bush's visits to Latvia, Russia and Georgia this week and the statements he has made in each place -- especially for stating so forthrightly the truth about the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe by the Red Army -- with one exception." In the next paragraph, he asked:

Was the reference to Yalta, in Riga of all places, really necessary? An argument could be made -- not one I'm persuaded by at all, just a plausible argument -- that Roosevelt at Yalta and Truman afterward could have pressed Stalin harder, and successfully, to prevent the absorption of Poland into the Communist bloc. But the Baltic states? How exactly was Roosevelt supposed to prevent Stalin from keeping his armies in countries that far behind the lines and hundreds of miles from the nearest American army?

I dislike bad history, but frankly what bothers me more is this President's tendency to casually trash decisions made by his predecessors. He's already done this with respect to the Middle East, ascribing to American policy the lack of freedom in a part of the world where water has, historically, been more common than freedom and in which the least free states were almost all Soviet clients, not American ones. If he were going to apologize for anything a former President has done, he ought to have apologized for his father's historic loss of nerve and wretched judgment in unilaterally declaring an end to the Gulf War in 1991. So many of the problems we are having in Iraq now are traceable to what the elder Bush did then.

I disagree with Mr. Britt's contention that if President Bush "were going to apologize for anything a former President has done, he ought to have apologized for his father's historic loss of nerve and wretched judgment in unilaterally declaring an end to the Gulf War in 1991." I get the impression that Mr. Britt, like the Neocons behind the current War in Iraq, would have preferred that George Herbert Walker Bush had invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, overthrew former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and established a puppet regime in Baghdad.

But as the elder Bush states in A World Transformed, which he wrote with Brent Scowcroft,

"trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances , there was no viable "exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles."

Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations Mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different-and perhaps barren--outcome.

Declaring a cease-fire after 100 days was not "wretched judgment" as Mr. Britt suggests. If anyone should be declared as having "wretched judgment, it's the current president. That was reflected in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and without a U.N. Mandate. Not only that occupying Iraq is proving difficult and costly. It has spawned an insurgency that's growing daily and deadlier. Thousands of Iraqis have died during the occupation, whether at the hands of the U.S. and its coalition partners or the insurgents. Sadly, the U.S. doesn't care about Iraqis enough to keep count of Iraqi dead.

Finally, Mr. Britt asserts that, "many of the problems we are having in Iraq now are traceable to what the elder Bush did then." Wrong! The U.S. is having problems because it is occupying a foreign nation. No matter how many people welcome invaders, there will always be resistance. If some one invaded and occupied the U.S., many of us would become insurgents. I know I would. Read more of Mr. Britt's post headlined "Excuse me...Yalta."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 07, 2005

'Nothing Is Hate Speech When Directed Against Arabs'

Ihor Slissarenko, a journalist and scholar based in Kiev, Ukraine, had this to say about a diplomatic situation involving Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany:

To my deep satisfaction, I have learned that Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany was forced to apologize publicly and through diplomatic channels for his sick jokes about the Saudi football team as terrorists. I believe Gyurcsany personally has nothing against Saudi Arabia, Arabs or Muslims. Even more, as a former ruling Communist Party functionary, he was taught and used to teach the fellow Hungarians to respect other nations as parts of an international solidarity. It is sad that from the very beginning of the scandal he tried to justify himself telling he had made his comments in the context of a TV show parody, and blamed all who protested for political intolerance or even ill will.

Slissarenko said, "It seems Gyurcsany was really surprised that his jokes could lead to such negative consequences for him and his country, as though political correctness does not apply to the statesmen and politicians if they speak about or against Arabs and Muslims." Here's more of "Nothing Is Hate Speech When Directed Against Arabs."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'It's Not in the Interest of Global Security for U.S. to Win in Iraq'

Amr Al-Faisal, in an article in the May 8, 2005 issue of Arab News headlined "Follow the Leader" wrote:

I have been following the U.S. invasion of Iraq for some time ever since the Americans began their campaign to convince the world of the necessity for such an action until now. I have come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of global security that the US succeeds in its mission in Iraq. There are certain principles that the US is trying to establish, through its adventure in Iraq, in the field of international relations that are of a highly dangerous and pernicious nature.

He said, "One of these is that the end justifies the means. This principle is one that has been rejected by most legal systems around the world; it is seen as the remnant of a barbarous past the world is trying to forget. The other principle is that might is right." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Juna Cole Speculates About Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Juan Cole at Informed Comment said in a May 7, 2005 post that:

It seems pretty obvious that Iran will get the nuclear bomb and there is not much anyone can do about it. I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm just saying that I can't imagine what would stop it.One thing that might have stopped it was direct military action. But not all sorts of military action would likely be effective. A US or Israeli air strike on the centrifuges thought to be at Natanz is unlikely to be decisive. Centrifuges don't have to be kept all in the same place, and if Iran has 200 of them, they have almost certainly been spread around so that they could not be taken out with a single strike.

I'm still trying to understand why it is acceptable for Christian nations and a Jewish nation to have nuclear weapons but not Muslim nations, Africans or Asians. Here's more of Mr. Cole's commentary.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 06, 2005

Is there a 'new' George W. Bush?

Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer opined in a May 6, 2005 column that, "After this next week of President Bush's travels through Russia and its increasingly hostile "outskirts," we will have an answer to the question, "Is there a 'new' George W. Bush?" Her thoughts on the question are quite interesting. Here's more of "Meet George Bush."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

'If Conservatives Couldn't Beat Labor May 5, Then When'?

Brownie at Harry's Place writes that, Tony Blair has seen off 4 Conservative Party leaders and even at a time when British soldiers continue to die in a hugely divisive foreign war, he has led the Labour party to an unprecedented third-term with what would be considered, in any other circumstances, a more than healthy working majority. If the Conservatives could not beat Labour last night," Brownie wrote, "then when? As for the Lib Dems, a party so consumed by its own moral certitude that it is blind to the sick irony that saw them urging a British electorate to use their votes to give a bloody nose to a Prime Minister who had just delivered 8 million Iraqis theirs, they'd better hope Blair joins Bush in a preemptive war on Iran between now and 2008 if they are not to return to the political obscurity their nauseating opportunism deserves> Here's the entire post.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stephen Pollard: 'God Save Us From PR'

British blogger and political columnist Stephen Pollard, commenting on the May 5, 2005 elections in Britain that gave Prime Minister Tony Blair a third term, said May 6 that, "the chatter has already started about the illegitimacy of a government with such a small share of the vote, and the need for an electoral system which better reflects the vote. Nonsense," he said. Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 04, 2005

Are the British Like Americans?

Diane Roberts, former editorial writer for The St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, "who lives in England several months a year," opined in a May 1, 2005 Perspective that, "Americans visiting Britain are secretly relieved, even delighted, to find that for a foreign country, things aren't so, well, foreign. There are Friends reruns on TV and Diet Coke in the vending machines," she wrote. "The British have the Gap and Starbucks. They have a born-again Christian running the country, and they have troops in Iraq. They're just like us."

"Or maybe not," she said. "Despite being the closest of allies, Britain and the United States are oceans apart on many of the central issues of the day. Capital punishment. The AIDS epidemic in Africa. Palestinian rights. The environment - especially the environment." Here's more of her perspective.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Debate Over Accuracy of Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven Escalates

In "The Crusades: A wound that has lasted 900 years," Cahal Milmo of the Belfast Telegraph reviews Sir Ridley Scott's sand and sandals epic, 'Kingdom of Heaven', which premiered May 2, 2005 in Ireland. Here's the review.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 03, 2005

Juan Cole Opposes Boycott of Israeli Universities

Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment says "the American Association of University Professors has quite rightly come out against a recent resolution of the British Association of University Teachers (one of two main such organizations in the UK) that an academic boycott should be imposed on the University of Haifa and Bar Ilan University." Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

CNN.Com: 'Most in U.S. Say Iraq War Not Worthwhile'

CNN.Com, in a May 3, 2005 article with a Washington dateline, said "A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq." A national poll reported Tuesday that "fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults. That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not," CNN.Com noted. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will The U.S. Lose its 'Near Abroad'?

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, raising many important questions in a Mother Jones post headlined "Losing the American "Near Abroad." He noted that:

Of the two superpowers that faced each other down in an almost half-century-long Cold War, one -- the United States -- emerged victorious, alone in the world, economically powerful, militarily dominant; the other, never the stronger of the two, limped off, its empire shattered and scattered, its people impoverished and desperate, its military a shell of its former self. This is a story we all know, and more or less accept. Winner/loser, victor/vanquished. It makes sense. That's the way we expect matches, competitions, struggles, wars to end.
But what if, as I've suggested recently, the Cold War turned out to be a loser/loser contest? That may seem counterintuitive.

Mr. Engelhardt said, "in regards to the U.S., it would have been considered laughable not so long ago, except to a few scholars of imperial decline like Immanuel Wallerstein, and yet it may be an increasingly plausible thought." I highly recommend his article. It's time U.S. citizens start thinking the unthinkable. Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rubin Sees a Comedy of Errors in U.S-Turkish Relations

Three years after the "Turkish Grand National Assembly voted 319 to 101 to send troops to Afghanistan to assist the United States in its Global War on Terror," U.S.-Turkish ties "are in disarray," contends Michael Rubin in an American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy article headlined "A Comedy of Errors: U.S.-Turkish Diplomacy and the Iraq War."

Mr. Rubin noted that, "In December 2004, Mehmet Elkatmis, head of the Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, accused the United States of “conducting genocide in Iraq.” Faruk Anbarcioglu, a Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) deputy, suggested the dissolution of the Grand National Assembly’s Turkish-American Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group," he added,

"American officials, long friends of Turkey, also sounded alarm bells," Mr. Rubin asserts. "Despite frequent assurances from both Turkish and American diplomats that U.S.-Turkish relations were on the mend, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith acknowledged the problems during a February 17, 2005, speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. Responding to a question from a Turkish reporter, Feith said,

“It’s crucial that the appreciation of . . . relationships extend beyond government officials [and] down to the public in general, because otherwise the relationship is not really sustainable.”

Mr. Rubin said Mr. Feith "implied that the AKP was responsible for the rise of anti-Americanism, commenting,

“We hope that the officials in our partner countries are going to be devoting the kind of effort to building popular support for the relationship that we build in our own country.”

Mr. Rubin's article is worth reading. I value it because it provides a glimpse at the thinking of some of the players in U.S-Turkish relations.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John O'Sullivan Reviews The Interpreter: A Political Perspective

Chicago Sun-Times columnist John O'Sullivan, in a very interesting, May 3, 2005, review of The Interpreter, said, "Nothing half as good as "The Manchurian Candidate," which he calls "John Frankenheimer's great 1962 original, not last year's absurd re-make," has been produced in the political thriller "genre since 1962, in part because Hollywood writers have silly leftist political views and want, for instance, to portray the hapless, accident-prone CIA as a malevolently clever secret government."

"Hollywood's long string of misfires, however, has come to an end with Sydney Pollack's "The Interpreter," starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman," he wrote. "It is as convolutedly paranoid as "The Manchurian Candidate," brilliantly plotted, beautifully acted, and directed with terrific pace -- but somewhat more realistic in its portrayal of international and African politics than its predecessor was about the Cold War."

I wonder if Mr. O'Sullivan truly believes that all Hollwood writers have "silly leftist political views and want, for instance, to portray the hapless, accident-prone CIA as a malevolently clever secret government." Here's a link to his review.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 01, 2005

Writer: Islam Will Play Decisive Global Role in 21st Century

In an April 20, 2005 post in The Washington Dispatch, Egbert F. Bhatty made an important observation that many probably won't comprehend because they can't envision Muslims and Islam as a global force. "Other than the Catholic Church," Mr. Bhatty wrote, " Islam is the most powerful institution in the world today. Less organized than the Catholic Church, but likely to get more cohesive over time, Islam will exercise decisive influence across the world through the major part of the 21st century. It, thus, needs to be acknowledged, accepted, and respected. I agree. I think Muslims in the U.S., both American-born and immigrant, will play a major leadership role. No doubt the CIA and world intelligence agencies will continue to work diligently to try to shape Muslims' role in global affairs to benefit the West. Here's more of Mr. Bhatty's analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Shifting Tactics of Iraqi Insurgents

Joseph Britt, substituting for Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch, points to what he calls "a useful summary of opinion about shifting tactics by the insurgency in Iraq, from the Council on Foreign Relations. It provides ammunition both for those who claim progress is being made and those who insist it isn't," he said in an April 29, 2005 post, adding: "Read the whole thing, as the saying goes." I did read the whole thing.

Mr. Britt posed "Two questions: first -- and I apologize for inviting historical analogies, an overused tool in discussions about Iraq -- but what is the likely impact of (apparently) widely divergent objectives on the part of different groups of insurgents on the future of the insurgency? Second, at what point does the enthusiasm of some Sunnis for massacring Shiites become a factor in our relations with Iran?

I appreciate Mr. Britt's questions, and don't understand why he feels the need to "apologize for inviting historical analogies, an overused tool in discussions about Iraq." Without the analogies, there would be nothing to compare the Iraqi insurgency to. Military planners would be in the the dark. It is for that reason that on August 27, 2003, Pentagon operations chiefs screened the Battle of Algiers, "Gillo Pontecorvo's 1965 classic film of urban terrorist insurgency, for Pentagon employees." The Washington Post's David Ignatius wrote about it in a column headlined "Think Strategy, Not Numbers." Some readers need analogies to get an idea of what to expect as the war escalates.

As for "the likely impact of (apparently) widely divergent objectives on the part of different groups of insurgents on the future of the insurgency," one has to first ask: Who are the insurgents and are there objectives really divergent?

According to Wikipedia, "The Iraqi insurgency is composed of over a dozen major insurgency organizations and countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature," Wikipedia asserts, "the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. It is often subdivided into several main ideological strands, some of which are believed to overlap. Wikipedia identified the following categories of insurgents:

Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein;

Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims who fight for Iraqi independence;

Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement;

Foreign Islamist fighters, largely driven by the similar Sunni Wahabi doctrine, as well as the remnants of Ansar al-Islam; although it includes a broad range of religious/ethnic and political currents united by their opposition to the occupation;

Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; and

nonviolent resistance groups

The likely impact of the divergent groups, in the long-run, is that U.S. deaths from relentless ambushes, snipers fire and suicide bombings will wear down U.S. and "coalition forces" and create conditions that will cause public support in the U.S for the war to erode further. As the death toll continues to rise, and the crippled and maimed become more visible, citizens will demand that U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq. As Ivan Eland wrote in an article headlined "Morning in Iraq" and published in the July 7, 2004, edition of Media Monitors Network:

Although the U.S. military believes that the center of gravity in the continuing Iraq War is the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, the Iraqi insurgents believe, as did the North Vietnamese almost 40 years ago, that the center of gravity lies with the hearts and minds of the American people. The Iraqi insurgents must be pleased that in the age of 24-hour news, the Iraq War became unpopular in the United States much faster than the years needed to drain away American public support for the Vietnam conflict. Why would the Iraqi insurgents stop fighting when they are winning? Military experts say that the United States is winning tactically (specific battles), but losing operationally, strategically and on the level of grand strategy. This abysmal state of affairs replicates the U.S. experience in Vietnam, in which the United States won every battle and lost the war because the American public eventually became tired, disillusioned and exasperated with it.

The only way that his doesn't happen is that the groups abandon guerilla tactics for conventional warfare, start fighting among themselves, forget their objective or lose the necessary support of the Iraqis who provide logistics to the guerillas. As of this post, there are no significant signs of that happening.

Milt Bearden, who, in his own words, "served as the Central Intelligence Agency's quartermaster and political agent to the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation from 1986 until the Soviets left in 1989," correctly analyzed the insurgents' strategy in a November 9, 2003 piece in The New York Times headlined "Iraqi Insurgents Take page From Afghan Soviet Resistance." For example, these paragraphs still apply:

As the daily attacks against American forces in Iraq increase in number and sophistication, the Bush administration continues to portray its adversaries as an assortment of die-hard Baathists, criminals, thugs and foreign terrorists, all acting out of desperation. Certainly, there are Baathists and foreign terrorists operating against the American-led coalition, and their ranks probably include criminals. But the overarching reality is that the American and British forces are facing a resourceful adversary whose game plan may be more fully developed than originally thought.

Mr. Bearden said, "The insurgents' strategy could have been crafted by Sun Tzu, the Chinese military tactician, who more than 2,500 years ago wrote, in The Art of War, that the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's strategy."

And that is what is happening despite claims by American Forces Press Service that a Hotline established by U.S. occupation forces is "succeeding In foiling Iraqi insurgents," and boasts about the capture of dozens of insurgents. Insurgents, including leaders, will continue to be killed or captured. It has been that way for centuries. If the Iraqi insurgency follows the standard insurgency blueprint new leaders and new guerillas will step forward. So will a political arm. It will send out feelers for negotiations. In fact, some groups seem to have already offered feelers although it is difficult to tell who they are. Such gestures usually cause some uniformed Americans to suggest that the insurgents are losing, and see the handwriting on the wall. That's not necessarily so. In fact, it's rarely the case. U.S. military leaders understand this. The potency of the insurgency caused the Army to issue "a field guide to counterinsurgency warfare, an acknowledgment that the kind of fighting under way in Iraq may become more common in the years ahead." As Douglas Jehl and Thom Shanker with Eric Schmitt noted in a November 13, 2004 article in The New York Times:

The Army field manual on counterinsurgency operations is the first since the early Vietnam era, and the first ever intended for the kind of regular Army units now embroiled in battles in Iraq, as opposed to the Special Operations forces who have taken the lead in previous counterinsurgencies.

Under orders issued in February, the manual was prepared on an accelerated basis by the Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and was distributed to all officers, in Iraq and elsewhere, beginning last month. An introduction says the "aftermath of instability" in Iraq that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime underscored the need for an updated Army guide to counterinsurgency warfare.
Until now, formal American military doctrine for fighting insurgencies has been so limited that many Marines were deployed to Iraq with copies of the Marine Corps' "Small Wars Manual," issued in 1940. The most recent Army guides on the subject, written principally for Special Operations forces, were prepared in 1963 and 1965, in the early stages of the Vietnam War. Like the Army, the Marine Corps is also updating its manual.

The new Army guide contains instructions on such matters as searching a family car and setting up a hasty checkpoint. Other passages address the role played by "transnational insurgents," like the foreign fighters in Iraq, and emphasize the role of intelligence, rather than Vietnam-era search and destroy missions, in finding insurgents.

The Times said, "The guide also includes a stark warning about the dangers of prolonged counterinsurgency operations, saying that the longer American forces take the lead in such efforts, the greater the resentment they breed among the host-country population.

"A long-term U.S. combat role may undermine the legitimacy of the H.N. government and risks converting the conflict into a U.S.-only war," the manual says, using an abbreviation for host nation. "That combat role can also further alienate cultures that are hostile to the U.S."

My final point on this subject is that, if the U.S. builds so-called "enduring bases" in Iraq as planned, another "likely impact of (apparently) widely divergent objectives on the part of different groups of insurgents on the future of the insurgency" is that, they will continue to work parallel to each other to try to destroy those bases, and drive out the Americans, who probably will have been abandoned by their "coalition allies" by then. As David R. Francis, The Christian Science Monitor's chief economics correspondent noted in a September 30, 2004 article headlined "U.S. bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math, "a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said U.S. engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them."

Finally, Mr. Britt asks, "at what point does the enthusiasm of some Sunnis for massacring Shiites become a factor in our relations with Iran?" Question: where is the evidence of "the enthusiasm" of some Sunnis for massacring Shiites? If a massacre occurs, how do you place a value such as "enthusiasm" on it? If there are massacres, what do they have to do with U.S.-Iran relations? If U.S. forces massacred Shias--and I don't know that they have or haven't--I could see that impacting U.S.-Iran relations. But not a Sunni-Shia fight unless Iran applies the "but for" rule, which, as those in law knows, means but for your actions, this wouldn't have happened.

Here's a link to comments in response to Mr. Britt's post.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 30, 2005

'Take up the Western Man's Burden'

David R. Francis, The Christian Science Monitor's senior economics correspondent, commented April 28, 2005 on what is often described as "the New Imperialism" being promoted in some quarters. He writes:

When the United States took over the Philippines after the Spanish-American War in 1899, British poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in praise of imperialism. Each stanza began: "Take up the White Man's burden." After World War II, colonialism became a nasty word. The Philippines - and just about every other colony - won political independence.

But today Kipling's call to spread, as he saw it, civilization to remote parts of the world could be rephrased "Take up the Western Man's burden." The industrial nations are once again asking how much they should help poor countries establish good government and greater prosperity. University of Rochester economist Stanley Engerman calls it a "new, good imperialism." Mr. Francis said, "Good imperialism - if it exists - deals more with economics than the political control of the past."

No matter how you package it, domination is domination and economic exploitation is still exploitation. The real test of the new thinking in the U.S. is whether national political leaders will allow an economically rising China to apply the new imperialism doctrine in its relations with the world's most powerful nation. I predict that Americans would fight an attempt to economically dominate the U.S. Whether it succeeds is another story in this age of globalization, which can be a double-edged sword. Secondly, I suspect that, as in the past, the new imperialism will be directed at non-Europeans or non-Christians primarily in Africa and Asia, which includes the Middle East. I also think China will be among the major practitioners of the doctrine. Here's more of "The New Imperialism."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Ramesh Thakur on 'Enhancing U.N. Legitimacy'

Ramesh Thakur, in a "special to The Japan Times, opined that, "Many commentators have noted that the timing and intensity of the recent surge in anti-Japan protests in China may be due in part to Tokyo's push for permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council." See "Enhancing U.N. legitimacy" for more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What is 'Practical Conservatism'?

Joseph Britt, substituting for Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch, posted a thought-provoking article on April 28, 2005 headlined "Practical Conservatism." It's worth reading.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 27, 2005

Ehsan Ahrari Comments on the 'Dangerous Games the Saudis Play

Ehsan Ahrari, in an April 26, 2005 commentary in Asia Times Online, said "One wonders why there is any surprise that hardline Islamists won the Saudi municipal elections. Seven winners from that country's most liberal city, Jeddah, were part of the "golden list" circulated by hardline Islamist clerics," he wrote. "Five of the six winners in Buraidah, capital of the ultra-conservative province of Qassem, were also hardline Islamists. Islamists also did well in the holy city of Medina. A close look at these elections is likely to uncover dangerous games that are being played in the birthplace of Islam," he contends. Here's more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 21, 2005

Scholar Says China's Hardly in a Position to Lecture Japan

In an article in the April 22, 2005 edition of The Australian, Ross Terrill, a research associate in East Asian studies at Harvard University, opined:

You could be forgiven for smiling at East Asia's two giants bickering over school textbooks and rocky reefs, over how many apologies add up to an Apology and who should pontificate at the UN on behalf of Asia. Yet China-Japan wrangling, containable for now, could yet explode and make Middle East violence seem like kids throwing stones.East Asia is the axis of world power, because the US, China, Japan, and Russia intersect here as nowhere else.

Mr. Terrill, an expert on China, said, "coiled Japan and theatrical China have seldom got on well. War between them in 1894-95, starting over Korea, undermined China's last dynasty and gave Taiwan to Japan. Widespread war again occurred from 1937 to 1945, as Japan's armies sought to put China under Japanese tutelage. Japan's attack doomed Chiang Kai-shek's rule and fuelled Mao Zedong's victory - and Tokyo lost control of Korea as well as Taiwan. Since 1945 only US power has prevented a resurgence of China-Japan rivalry, with all that would mean for Australia and other countries in the region." Mr. Terrill's analysis is quite insightful.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Jakarta Post Reflects on First Africa-Asia Summit

As Asian and African leaders gather in Indonesia this weekend, Jakarta Post.Com recalled in an opinion piece that:

When Asian and African leaders gathered in Bandung 50 years ago, their mission seemed so much simpler. They strived for the liberation of colonized peoples and pledged not to be pawns in superpower rivalry.

"In many respects," the publication asserted, "our forefathers succeeded in their mission of creating a better world. No less than several dozen countries on the two continents were liberated as an indirect result of the Bandung Conference. But things are still far from perfect. From superpower rivalry, the world has now succumbed to a unilateral hegemony. The struggle against colonialism has changed into a struggle to liberate nations against new forms of enslavement, such as poverty and ignorance." Read more of the opinion piece headlined "Principles of life."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pravda: 'Can Condoleezza Rice speak Russian'?

"Is Condoleezza Rice a Russian expert? Yes! No, no, no, no, no, no, no!" The Russian publication Pravda asked that question and others in an April 21, 2005 article headlined "Can Condoleezza Rice speak Russian?" The paper also asked: "How did Condy get appointed as Secretary of State and labelled a Russian expert? Could it be that she told President Bush that she was an expert in rushin' around and he made her his "Rushin' expert"?

Posted by Munir Umrani at 02:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 18, 2005

Rahul Mahajan on 'Israel's Apartheid Wall'

Rahul Mahajan at Empire Notes has an informative post on "Israel's Apartheid Wall." In it, he describes his April 14, 2005 participation in "a public debate about the Israeli wall and its effect on Israeli-Palestinian relations and on Israeli security." This is an issue that should be more widely debated in the United States due to the fact that billions of dollars in taxpayer money goes to Israel. Unfortunately, it won't be because it is one of those hot-button issues that could invite attacks from some of Israel's supporters in the U.S.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Roots of U.S.-French Enmity

Matthew Price, writing in the April 10, 2005 edition of the Boston Globe, said "the vogue for freedom fries may have waned, but more than two years after the diplomatic dustup between George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac over the Iraq war the books on the fractured state of Franco-American relations keep coming." Some books cited are:

Denis Boyles' ''Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese'' (Encounter), Richard Z. Chesnoff's ''The Arrogance of the French: Why They Can't Stand Us - and Why the Feeling Is Mutual'' (Sentinel), John J. Miller's and Mark Molesky's ''Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France'' (Doubleday) - the very titles suggest that while George W. Bush may have made nice with Jacques Chirac on his most recent trip to Europe, certain segments of American society are never going to give France a break.

"But according to the French scholar Philippe Roger," Mr. Price said, "such Francophobic biliousness may be nothing compared to the deep-seated antipathy that our Gallic cousins feel for us. Nevermind the Marquis de Lafayette - or Benjamin Franklin's cozy memories of his years whipping up support for the nascent republic in the salons of Paris. The French have had it in for American civilization from the beginning." But does it matter? Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hobsbawm Describes an 'Assembly of Political Ghosts" From the 1980s

The London Review of Books has a thought-provoking essay by Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm titled "An Assembly of Ghosts" It's about "a fans chance to pay tribute to a hero, even a tragic hero." The fan is Mr. Hobsbawm and the hero is former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whom the fan met at this year's World Political Forum in Turn, Italy, March 4-6. The forum, according to Mr. Hobsbawm , attracted

"Upwards of a hundred middle-aged and elderly men and the usual handful of women are sitting at one side of a long rectangle of tables, in the hall of a military academy in Victor Emmanuel baroque, looking at each other across a wide space and listening to simultaneous translations from and into the usual languages plus Polish (the Poles have sent two ex-presidents of very different views, and an ex-premier). At right angles to me, at the top table, I observe the shrunken, sharp-eyed Giulio Andreotti, seven times Italian prime minister between 1972 and 1992, the stiff-backed military figure of General (later President) Jaruzelski, who suppressed Solidarity and negotiated the end of Polish Communism, and Mikhail Gorbachev himself, amazingly well-preserved, handsome and affable, but looking smaller than he is next to his huge neighbour, Helmut Kohl, the longest-serving chancellor of the Germany he reunified in 1990. A place has been kept for ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was late in arriving from Brazil. Even a cynical old historian is impressed by such a line-up.

Mr. Hobsbawm, who said "I can recall no experience like it, described the gathering as an "assembly of political ghosts. Read more here.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 11, 2005

Are Nuclear Weapons Only for White People?

Kenneth Pollack and Ray Takeyh, writing in an article in the March/April 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs headlined "Taking on Tehran," states:

Even as the United States struggles to fix the troubled reconstruction of Iraq, the next big national security crisis has already descended on Washington. Investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have discovered that Iran is trying to acquire the capability to enrich uranium and separate plutonium, activities that would allow it to make fissile material for nuclear weapons. Revelations of Iran's massive secret program have convinced even doubtful European governments that Tehran's ultimate aim is to acquire the weapons or, at least, the ability to produce them whenever it wants.

Why shouldn't they? Especially when the United States, Israel and other western nations have them? Why is it ok for people of European descent to have such weapons and not Africans, Arabs and other people of color?

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Can U.S. Foreign Policy Be Truly Altered?

Tom Barry, Laura Carlsen, and John Gershman notes in an article published at the International Relations Center's website that, "President Bush says we must stay the course in Iraq , and he promises to continue during his second administration the radical foreign and domestic policies laid out during his first term. We believe it is time to change course," the wrote. "But can the course of U.S. foreign policy ever truly be altered?"

"Has there ever been a model for a dramatic shift away from militarism and unilateralism toward international cooperation and peace?"

"The answer to these questions is yes," the maintain in their article headlined "The Good Neighbor Policy: A History to Make Us Proud." I think their ideas are worth reading and discussing.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

River Bend Comments on 'The Cruel Month...'

River Bend at Baghdad Burning: "Ever since Jalal Talbani was named president, there have been many angry Shia. It's useless explaining that the presidential chair is only symbolic- it doesn't mean anything. "La izayid we la inaqis." As we say in Iraq. "It doesn't increase anything, nor does it decrease anything." People have the sense that all the positions are 'symbolic'- hence, why shouldn't the Shia get the head symbol? The disturbing thing is how the Kurds could agree to have someone with so much blood on his hands. Talbani is known for his dealings with Turkey, Britain, America and other and his feuds with [Massoud] Barazani have led to the deaths of thousands of Kurds." Read more of her commentary on events in Iraq..

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 24, 2005

The Economic Times: 'Diplomacy Pushes Trade to the Edge

G. Ganapathy Subramaniam of The Economic Times of India reports that "Trade diplomacy is becoming increasingly ticklish for India as powerful multinationals, backed by European and American governments, are rocking the boat over major deals, especially in the civil aviation and defence sectors." Here's more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A New Face Won't Change U.S. Image in Middle East

Hearst Newspapers Columnist Helen Thomas contends that, "If the United States is trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in the turbulent Middle East, a new face won't cut it. It's not the person. It's the policy that needs changing," she opined in a March 22, 2005 column.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Scott Gray on 'The Quiet Diplomacy of Condoleezza Rice'

Scott Gray at OpinionEditorials.Com says "Condoleezza Rice was the essence of the race card early in the Bush administration; the African-American woman was a member of the most diverse cabinet in American history. After four years as National Security Advisor and proving herself one of the most eloquent members of the Bush administration, she was chosen to be Colin Powell's replacement in the State Department. Congressional Democrats chose to fight Dr. Rice's nomination as Secretary State, but it has obviously paid off." Here's more.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

Hypocrisy and Occupation

Is the U.S. occupation of Iraq any different than Syria's occupation of Lebanon? No! Occupation is occupation. Why is the Bush Administration demanding that Syria leave Lebanon by May 2005 but it is making no effort to leave Iraq? This reminds me of what many parents use to tell their children: "Do as I say, not as I do." It was hypocrisy then and it's hypocrisy now.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

President Bush's Foreign Policy Team

The Fields Report, which offers "commentary on international affairs," points to what it calls a "great article in the current Foreign Policy about President Bush's foreign policy team, mainly the national security council." The article is headlined "Inside the Committee that Runs the World."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2005

Reality, Morality and the United Nations

Fabiana at Foreign Affairs Blog, in critiquing "this post of Andy McCarthy at The Corner argues that:

... the U.N. has never been and should never be a morality-based institution. It is and can only be reality-based because it has to deal with reality: an anarchical and asymmetrical world where bad and good states inevitably coexist; if they did not try to get along somehow, war would be a frequent international event. Despite its inherent flaws, reflexive of an imperfect international system, as well as other flaws that can be corrected with reform, the U.N. is as effective as it could be. If it were fundamentally different than it is today or did not exist at all, international relations would be adversely affected."

Read the full article here. The Diplomatic Times Review welcomes comments on Fabiana's observations.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 11, 2005

John Hughes on 'US-China Relations'

John Hughes, a former editor of The Christian Science Monitor and an assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, contends that, "while United States policymakers are preoccupied with the Middle East and North Korea, trouble may be looming in China." Read why.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 05, 2005

Lloyd Axworthy's Open Letter to Condoleeza Rice

Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister, published an open letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in the March 3, 2005 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press. He began the letter with: Dear Condi,

I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game. Here's the entire letter.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

All Governments Act More on Politics than Principle

David Adesnik at Oxblog has an interesting March 5, 2005 post headlined "YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO SAID THIS. (REALLY. NEVER.) "

Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness...Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics.

"That's right," Mr. Adesnik said."Howard Dean. Maybe there's hope for this guy after all. (Hat tip: Aziz P.")

Questions: What's keeping the U.N. Security Council from imposing sanctions on Sudan? Secondly, does European inaction on Sudan justify the continued occupation of Iraq? I say: no.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 01:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Demanding Syria Leave Lebanon While Occupying Iraq

I wonder how long will it take for the world to demand that President George W. Bush pull U.S. forces out Iraq, just as he and other world-leaders demanded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad pull Syrian forces out of Lebanon.

Will the U.S. remain an occupier of a foreign country, Iraq, while hypocritically demanding that Syria leave Lebanon?

Will European and American opinion makers and citizens make an exception for the U.S. because they, like most Americans, are predominantly Christian and Iraq is predominantly a Muslim nation?

Are most Americans so much into democratic fundamentalism that they view the killings of Muslims and the destruction of Muslim nations as ok as long as it is done in the name of democracy?

Finally, how long before the proverbial chickens come home to roost? Only time will tell.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 02, 2005

'Inside the Committee that Runs the World'

While he's attending the International Studies Association annual meeting in Hawaii, and probably won't do much blogging, University of Chicago professor Daniel Drezner is urging his readers to "check out David Rothkopf's fascinating Foreign Policy essay, "Inside the Committee that Runs the World." It's about the foreign policy divisions that have emerged within the Bush administration," Mr. Drezner said in a March 2, 2005 post, adding" I've blogged about Rothkopf's argument before, but the FP article is the fullest treatment I've seen on this topic -- plus lots of inside dirt." Here's Mr. Drezner's summary of the Rothkopf article.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 27, 2005

Issue Focus: The State Dept.'s Daily Summary on Foreign Commentary

As the U.S. Department of State's Office of Research notes on its web site, "each business day," the office "produces an Issue Focus of foreign media commentary on a major foreign policy issue or related event. These reports provide a global round-up of editorials and op-ed commentary from major newspapers, magazines and broadcast media around the world," the Office of Research states in an introduction. "Following a one-page analysis of the commentary," users are told, "readers will find block quotes sorted by geographic region and country. An Issue Focus normally covers one to three weeks of editorial opinion. The latest reports date back one week," according to the Office of Research. Here is the report issued February 25, 2005. Here are other reports issued in February 2005. I find them quite valuable and read them regularly.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 26, 2005

The American Thinker: 'Baloney in Bratislava'

Herb Meyer at The American Thinker observed in a February 26, 2005 post that "President Bush and Russian President Putin seemed to get along famously last Thursday [February 25, 2005] in Bratislava. And at their post-meeting press conference, President Bush was visibly pleased when Putin stated publicly that Russia’s choice of democracy will never be reversed," he wrote, adding:

Unfortunately, there is no connection between what Putin says and what he does. In the last few years he has steadily eroded Russia’s democracy; today that country is, in fact, the only major country that is less democratic today than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001. And Putin’s recent decisions to go ahead with its sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and to provide technical help to Iran for what Putin calls that country’s nuclear “energy” program, have put Russia on a collision course with the US.

Mr. Meyer said "When the post-summit euphoria fades –I give it a week -- US-Russia relations will continue to worsen." I agree. Here's more of his analysis.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 24, 2005

River Bend Comments on 'Groceries and Election Results' in Iraq

"Groceries and Election Results...", River Bend's most recent post at Baghdad Burning,is quite revealing.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 23, 2005

Kimmage: 'Central Asia Provides Window On Russia-U.S. Relations'

"When U.S. President George Bush meets with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Bratislava on 24 February, Central Asia will not be an agenda-topping item," notes Daniel Kimmage in February 23, 2005 article on the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website. "But as a region where U.S. and Russian interests intersect, Central Asia provides a window on the dynamics that dominate the two countries' uneasy relationship in the former Soviet Union." Why? See "Analysis: Central Asia Provides Window On Russia-U.S. Relations" for Mr. Kimmage's rationale.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Blogger's Lament on 'Troubled Ramblings of Europe Lost'

Marvin Hutchens at Little Red Blog posted an article on February 23, 2005 headlined "Troubled Ramblings of Europe Lost," in which he opined: "There are times when the incalculably talented Mark Steyn’s words are too difficult to read. His latest offering, Atlanticist small talk is all that's left, is a masterpiece and at the same time terribly saddening. Steyn shows the nature of the cleaving of U.S. European relations, and moreover, the future of a bureaucratically inclined Europe in an age when values matter more than men are willing to admit." Click here to read Mr. Hutchens' lament.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 05:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 21, 2005

Is Bush and Rice Trying to Rebrand U.S. Image?

Let me be the first to say it: Condoleezza Rice may be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize," proclaimed Nancy E. Soderberg, a senior national security advisor in the Clinton administration, in a February 20, 2005 Los Angeles Times article headlined "A Second-Term Shift"? The author of "The Superpower Myth, the Use and Misuse of American Might" wrote:

As a critic of the Bush administration and a Democrat, I'm not a fan of Rice's record as national security advisor. But if her new rhetoric means a real second-term conversion, she may go down in history as one of the most successful secretaries of State ever.

Ms. Soderberg said "U.S. actions over the last four years have been driven by Rice and colleagues who believe that as the lone superpower, the United States is powerful enough to act whenever and wherever it wants, primarily through military means. That costly myth has made the superpower burden heavier — and spiked anti-Americanism to unprecedented levels that, in turn, breed further terrorist attacks," she contends, adding: There are signs, however, that the administration may be abandoning this myth." Read more here. Here is a critique of Ms. Soderberg's perspective.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pfaff's Opinion on 'Why Bush will fail in Europe'

William Pfaff, the Paris-based columnist who was once a staple in the Chicago Tribune, one of my hometown newspapers, told London Observer readers in a February 20, 2005 column Why Bush Will Fail in Europe. He asserted that "President George W. Bush arrives in Europe this week in the belief that the European Nato allies can be persuaded to 'turn away from the disagreements of the past' and open 'a new chapter' in transatlantic relations, as Condoleezza Rice, on her European trip, advised them to do. He is likely to go home without the concessions he wants." Mr. Pfaff added:

He wants more help from the Europeans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably in other places yet to be announced; European backing for American policy on Iran (and Syria and Israel/Palestine); and no European arms sales to China. Those are Washington's priorities. There is a further list of secondary issues, commercial as well as political.

Mr. Pfaff predicted:

His trip will fail because he and his administration do not understand what really divides most continental European governments from the United States today. At the same time, Europeans are mostly unwilling to confront these issues, because of the trouble with Washington they imply. But, unacknowledged or not, they count.

While European leaders have been cordial to Mr. Bush, thus far, his speeches are unlikely to produce any substantive changes in posture on either side. The differences are too great, and there is an imbalance of global power between the U.S. and Europe. In addition, France and Germany are unlikely to play a submissive role in the mold of England under Prime Minister Tony Blair. We saw them resist that role in the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was launched in March 2003 in complete disregard to international public opinion. Sure, there will be customary announcements of agreements to work together on Iraq and other issues. However, I suspect it's mostly rhetoric. Such announcements are like aid pledges during disasters. If the aid doesn't come through, and often it doesn't, the promises were empty gestures designed to deflect criticims. I'll be surprised if this visit produces any diplomatic victories.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gary Younge of The Guardian 'We Cannot Vote Labor'

In his February 21, 2005 column headlined "We cannot vote Labour," Gary Younge of The Guardian of London states that "The closest the Bush administration ever got to expressing regret for invading Iraq on false pretenses was a comment from the former U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell. "The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus," he said. "It changes the answer you get." Mr. Younge added:

Assuming that President George Bush's question was "Colin, what pretext should we adopt for bombing a sovereign, oil-rich nation so that we can steal its resources and humiliate its people", then Powell may have a point. Coming from Bush, the political representative of global capital, armed to the teeth and unfettered by international law, this would be a reasonable line of questioning. It is not to the tastes of most of the international community. But it is in keeping with the traditions that give his party and his platform meaning.

Mr. Younge said "from Tony Blair, however, one might have expected something different," noting:

As the political representative of a movement founded on the principles of international solidarity and equality, a Labour leader might have chosen a different path. Sadly, Blair's political calculus was faulty long before the first shot was fired. He decided that since the US was hellbent on having a fight and would undoubtedly win, the best thing Britain could do was not try to stop it but offer to hold its coat. He calculated that the security council would authorise the invasion; that the invaders would be greeted warmly; that they would find weapons of mass destruction; that all military opposition would be crushed quickly; and that he would emerge unambiguously victorious.

Here is more of "We cannot vote Labour."

Posted by Munir Umrani at 09:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 19, 2005

Do Blogs Influence Debate in International Affairs?

Scholars Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell raised an important question about blogs and international affairs in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy. The article, headlined "Web of Influence," asked: "Political scandals are one thing, but can the blogosphere influence global politics as well? Compared to other actors in world affairs—governments, international organizations, multinational corporations, and even nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—blogs do not appear to be very powerful or visible," they wrote. "Even the most popular blog garners only a fraction of they Web traffic that major media outlets attract." They further noted:

According to the 2003 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Internet Survey, only 4 percent of online Americans refer to blogs for information and opinions. The blogosphere has no central organization, and its participants have little ideological consensus. Indeed, an October 2003 survey of the blogosphere conducted by Perseus concluded that “the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life.” Blogging is almost exclusively a part-time, voluntary activity. The median income generated by a weblog is zero dollars. How then can a collection of decentralized, contrarian, and nonprofit Web sites possibly influence world politics?

Mr. Drezner and Mr. Farrell argue that "Blogs are becoming more influential because they affect the content of international media coverage." They recalled that "Journalism professor Todd Gitlin once noted that media frame reality through “principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters.” Increasingly, journalists and pundits take their cues about “what matters” in the world from weblogs," they wrote. "For salient topics in global affairs, the blogosphere functions as a rare combination of distributed expertise, real-time collective response to breaking news, and public-opinion barometer. What’s more," the scholars maintain, "a hierarchical structure has taken shape within the primordial chaos of cyberspace. A few elite blogs have emerged as aggregators of information and analysis, enabling media commentators to extract meaningful analysis and rely on blogs to help them interpret and predict political developments." Here's more of their thought-provoking opinion. I highly recommend it for anyone seeking a perspective on the influence, if any, that bloggers and new media have on shaping debates on international affairs.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 08:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 02, 2005

Spinning the Iraqi Election

Howard Kurtz, who writes "Media Notes" for The Washington Post, noted February 1, 2005, that "From the moment the first Iraqis cast their ballots [on January 30, 2005], the administration's supporters and critics were out in force, pushing their preferred story line. True, no one knows yet who won, or how many Sunnis turned out despite boycott threats, and 45 people were killed in a matter of hours. But none of that could stop the message wars," he opined.

Posted by Munir Umrani at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack