April 23, 2009

Guest Column: Pirates and Patriots
By Sentinel

Guest Column: Naivete Kills
By Barry Rubin

Guest Column: Pirates and Patriots
By Sentinel

For many years, Americans have been sliding down a slippery slope of political correctness, preferring to change the names of the things we do not understand rather than face unpleasant and frightening realities.

Among the least attractive of the qualities that we have been cultivating has been the growing ease with which we can call each other names, polarizing Americans against each other, demonizing those who disagree with us, and showing an unhealthy unwillingness to discuss our differences with civility. We avoid what makes us uncomfortable and miss the opportunity to better understand each other's position.

Our refusal to talk to each other about sensitive issues may be one of the most serious challenges facing us today, for as we avoid discussion, the distance between us grows wider and the problems we refuse to discuss grow increasingly dangerous.

Our failure to communicate effectively and to deny the reality of the dangers that face us brings to mind two recent events that bring the issues into sharp focus.

PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS

Since the end of the last decade, the waters off Somalia have become the playground for fortune-seeking pirates, and the numbers are growing at an alarming rate. Last year, 93 ships were attacked off the Somali coast. In the first three and a half months of 2009, more than 70 attacks have already taken place. This growing threat to international shipping in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden poses a deadly and costly challenge to vessels plying the open waters off eastern Africa, because modern piracy makes traditional military tactics largely ineffective.

Traditional approaches to maritime piracy will not work in the waters east of the Horn of Africa. The vast expanse of seas beyond Somalia's coast in which the attacks occur make it virtually impossible for a conventional navy to address the problem effectively.

Maritime piracy has been flourishing and expanding its reach for many years, although until recently it was largely overlooked as a reason for global concern. While the frequency and severity of attacks were growing over the last decade, they were centered largely in southeast Asia and off the coast of Nigeria. Then in 2008, when Somali pirates hijacked an oil supertanker in open seas, maritime piracy began to finally capture the world's attention.

Somali pirates are driven largely by greed, demanding millions for the release of the hostages and the ships that they have seized at sea. Their appetite for wealth has been fed by our inability to stop them, despite our access to both high and low tech solutions. It is reported that $80 million of pirate ransoms were paid out in 2008.

Piracy has brought the boom to the coastal towns that spawn them. Pirates are reported to have even set up a form of social security with their illicit earnings to help the local unemployed. But the destination of the lion's share of ransom money may be far more sinister. Strong connections have been identified between piracy for profit and Islamic jihad. Much of the vast sums of ransom money taken from the ships by the Muslim Somali pirates are channeled through well-organized money-laundering piracy syndicates operating in the Gulf States, part of it on its way to support terrorist activities.

Fighting Maritime Piracy

An array of measures can be employed to combat piracy, including onboard defense systems, armed officers trained to defend their ships, preemptive strikes against known pirate craft, a blockade of the Somali coastline, and speedy court trial for pirates who are caught, to mention a few. The current trial of Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, the only surviving pirate from the Maersk Alabama attack, in New York may set a precedent for an appropriate response by the country under whose flag the ship was flying.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the safety of ships should, first and foremost, be placed squarely on the ship owners, who should be required to outfit their vessels with appropriate anti-piracy devices. Their crews should be prepared to protect and defend their ships against piracy attacks.

The rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from the pirates after five days of captivity provides an example that we would do well to emulate. Three cheers to the sharp shooters who concluded the standoff with three well-placed rounds. From all accounts, only the lack of political will in Washington kept the solution from being employed days earlier.

Those who have accepted the reins of government must recognize that in order to govern effectively, they must be leaders, decisive and firm in their resolve. As this great country stands on the precipice of catastrophic change, our policy must be driven by the proper responses to both piracy and terrorism, and they should be the same - swift, effective, and final.

===

PATRIOTS

Two recent events on the home front should also make us thoughtful about the direction that our country is going in these dangerous times.

On the days preceding the Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15th, the Department of Homeland Security published an attack on "right-wing extremist groups. . . [which] incite individuals or small groups toward violence". Included in this group were gun owners, "disgruntled veterans" returning from overseas deployment, and Evangelical Christians. This document crossed the line between legitimate concerns and hysterical witch hunting.

When did the Constitution become un-American?

Footnoted references on page 2 of the DHS report "Right-wing extremism in the United States" included the following definition: "anti-government (rejecting federal authority in favor of state of local authority. . . . )" What is so shocking about that statement is that it contradicts the Tenth Amendment which specifically states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This is not treason, but the basis of our republican form of government.

In a recent e-mail posted on a veteran's list, came this pithy response from an angry veteran: "Just exactly when did it become anything more than PATRIOTISM, PRIDE in one's nation, and RIGHT - to take a stand when government does wrong! That is a citizens' DUTY to this nation! And, it is exactly what every Veteran swore an oath to do - for the rest of his or her lifetime! '...to defend the Constitution from all threat, foreign or domestic...' Disgruntled Veterans are PATRIOTS ! NOT extremists!"

The Media Missed the Tea Party

Planning for the Tea Parties around the country was many weeks in the making. The release of the DHS documentadded fuel to the demonstrations, which brought out over 600,000 Americans in 200 cities across the country to protest government fiscal policy. Amazingly, much of the mainstream media still managed to minimize or even ignore the week's events. (Hats off to FoxNews which gave extensive coverage to this amazing grass roots happening.)

A glaring example of how the mainstream media tried to marginalize the demonstrations was the coverage by CNN correspondent Susan Roesgan of a Tea Party demonstration in Chicago. Her crude attempt to paint the demonstration as "right wing" and "anti-American" was way off the mark and her comment that the Chicago event was not "appropriate for family viewing" was just plain silly.

In branding the demonstrations 'anti-American', Roesgan got it exactly wrong. Nothing could be more American than a peaceful assembly to protest government policy that is perceived to be against the best interests of the American people. When 600,000 people take part in 200 such demonstrations simultaneously, it is news.

Many of those participants interviewed by more fair-minded reporters were clearly representative of a broad spectrum of Americans. They included Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and a significant number of politically unaligned who came together to protest runaway government spending. Their presence was triggered by their frustration and anger, not by their political leanings. Painting them all with the same broad 'extremist' brush was as counter-productive as it was inaccurate.

This media broadside against Americans who don't follow the prevailing party line is not likely to stop what may well be the beginning of a sea change of public opinion. As unemployment continues to grow, the lack of spending power will continue to trickle down throughout the retail and service industries. Those who have lost their jobs in failing companies, their life savings in failed banks and shrinking 401K plans, and their homes in the sub-prime mortgage scandal have also lost their ability to pay their bills and to infuse capital into the system at the local level.

According to the FDIC, over 70 banks have failed in this country since January 1. The ripple effect of this widespread economic disempowerment has only just begun to be felt, and the pain will be far more than economic. But those who take the path of violence suggested in the report represent only a small minority. The vast majority of Americans in distress are responsible citizens who feel the same rage and frustration, but exercise their concerns through peaceful demonstrations and democratic process. If they feel the need to take their lives back from what they perceive as a federal government that is strangling them with the fallout from misspent taxpayer money, they express their opinions through civil action. Exercising the First-Amendment-protected "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is not extremism. It is, in fact, still reasonable to call it 'patriotism'.

The Real Threat to America

Interestingly, nowhere in the DHS document was any mention of the threat of radical Islamists, for whom the economic crisis provides both opportunity and strategic advantage. Random acts of violence will not bring this nation down. The greatest threat, in fact, is a two pronged danger that has been largely ignored by our policy and law makers.

The first of these is the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and the growing infiltration and radicalization of our universities, our prisons, and our mainstream institutions by jihadists. There is a large and growing body of evidence that documents the growing presence of a significant fifth column, people we have admitted into our society despite their outspoken hatred of the principles that we cherish most.

The second threat is our own readiness to ignore this creeping malaise that puts us in such great peril. Our rush to political correctness that gives advantage to the minority at the expense of the majority is in opposition to our system of law that provides equal justice to all. When, for example, we ban Christian prayer in schools, but allow Islamic study units that include Muslim prayer in the same schools, we marginalize the Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our nation was built. Every time we give a pass to political correctness at the expense of the unprejudiced application of law, we are endangering the future of our nation.

As the financial crisis worsens in communities across the country, the energy that created the nationwide Tea Party demonstrations is likely to grow.

These are historic times and I believe that they will define the direction that this country will take for a very long time. The greatness of America's model for a democratic republic has never been so severely tested as it will be in the coming months and years.

Last week's Tea Parties demonstrated that our nation's patriotic spirit is not dead, and that this country can still be a beacon of light in a world that is struggling for survival.

The unique formula - a democratic republic with limited central powers - which our founding fathers developed for the fledgling new nation, is not right for everyone. But it is right for us. And now it is up to us to protect it, defend it, and preserve this nation for those who still want to remain free.

===

POSTSCRIPT ON THIS AND THAT

Durban II

Bravo to the delegates of Durban II who walked out on Mahmoud Ahmedinijad's single-minded invective against Israel. On Yom Ha'Sho'ah, the Holocaust Memorial Day, he railed at the Jews for "exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion."

Delegates from 30 countries immediately rose and left the hall as Ahmedinijad spoke. They followed the lead of nine other countries - Israel, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy, Poland and The Netherlands - who elected not to participate in Durban II at all, because of its clearly anti-Semitic agenda. The Czech Republic pulled out of the conference Monday, after Ahmadinejad's outrageous speech.

The presence of the Iranian president (the only leader to speak at the conference) may, ultimately, defeat the purpose of the conference. Ostensibly convened as a conference against racism, Durban I and II have become symbolic of rabid anti-Semitism and unbridled ethnic hatred. The Iranian President's speech underscored

The delegates of thirty countries refused to listen to Ahmadinijad's tirade. They were: Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic (left the conference for good), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden , Morocco, and St. Kitts and Nevis.

President Obama Dances with Tyrants and Terrorists

It is difficult to understand why the President wishes to court the favor of such outspoken enemies as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Endless hand shakes and smiling photo ops with tyrants and terrorists do not create good will, but rather diminish our stature abroad. They are not seen by his opposite numbers as suave and friendly, but rather as naïve, weak, and foolish.

His groveling before Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, juxtaposed with his cavalier disregard of protocols and willingness to slight our friends when meeting with the British Queen and her Prime Minister, is no less difficult to comprehend. It must have taken great self-control on the part of the Britons to receive Obama's tasteless gifts - an iPod for the Queen and a box of mindless CDs that won't play on the British PAL system - with grace and dignity.

Our President needs to be savvy and strong in the face of world opinion. He needs to be less concerned with his international popularity and place more credence in the threats that these tyrants continue to make openly against us. Ahmadinijad and Chavez are not credible negotiating partners. But they will make good use of the time swallowed up in negotiations to strengthen their positions as they prepare to do us harm.

Guest Column: Naivete Kills
April 14, 2009
http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/04/Naivete-Kills.html

It never ceases to amaze me that people who know nothing about the Middle East, in this case Roger Cohen but many other names come to mind, can suddenly proclaim themselves experts and make the most elementary errors involving the lives of other people. It also never ceases to amaze me that people can visit a country, especially a dictatorship, be wined and dined, handed a line and believe it so thoroughly that their mind is closed ever after.

Recently, I met a young man who helped me understand this phenomenon better.  He worked on Afghanistan and took exception to my saying that there was no way that Western intervention was going to make that a stable and moderate country.  It was too geographically diverse, bound by traditional culture, beset by conflict, and economically underdeveloped to achieve that condition. And no matter how much money was poured in to train its army to be efficient or to finance its government to be honest and effective, the situation would not change drastically.

He responded with some heat that after the Soviet withdrawal that the Communist government Moscow had established lasted three years, proving how good the Afghan army could be. That argument surprised me since—like so many I hear nowadays—it was so easy to refute, indeed containing within itself its own refutation.

My response  was simple: so, in effect, what you are saying is that if the Western forces are withdrawn then the Taliban will take over within three years. In short, this is precisely the kind of thing I was saying.

I think that the mainstream view of the Middle East is so reinforced by its hegemony in the discussion, so underpinned by cultural and ideological assumption (which it isn’t even aware of making) that one often hears such weak or, in other cases, factually inaccurate statements. The idea of free debate is to test and correct our views. Yet when there is such hegemony in academia and—to a lesser extent—the mass media, for one viewpoint, that set of arguments is weakened simply because it dismisses all challenges without even considering them.

Later that day, I had a chance to talk further with this young man, who was very sincere and dedicated to his studies. He had spent a lot of time in Afghanistan. And it quickly became clear what that meant. He argued passionately that the West must overthrow the current government and install others who, he said, were honest and would provide the country with a great government.

Upon further discussion, it turns out that these were powerful people from wealthy families who had courted him. They had invited him to their palatial homes, wined and dined him, and flattered him. “You understand our country,” they had said in admiring terms. In some cases, though not this one, aside from access and flattery, career promotion opportunities and money are also offered.

One might speculate—this is just a thought—that women are used to being courted and have learned how to discount flattery to a greater extent. Men, however, are probably especially prone to such appeals as they are used to colder treatment by their fellows.

At any rate, we see this constantly. One young scholar, given unprecedented access to write the biography of a ruthless dictator, gushes at how wonderful he is. Roger Cohen of the New York Times, goes to Iran, they treat him well and thus he deduces that the mullahs have only benign intentions. Robert Leiken, totally ignorant about the region and succumbing to similar treatment by the Nicaraguan Contras, meets the Muslim Brotherhood and—with no knowledge of what they write in Arabic—believes everything they tell him and describes them as moderate. I also think such a process went on when Iraqi exiles assured American interlocutors that Iraq was just waiting for America to liberate it, that all would go smoothly, they would then take power and be moderate and stable democratic friends ever after.

As I write these words, I see an article in the Los Angeles Times that provides a terrific example of this phenomenon about David Lesch, a man with no real knowledge of the region who was chosen to be the biographer of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad.  Lesch hero-worships the dictator who, in a real sense, made his career.

“He is very low-key, he is a very amiable, very humble individual, not intimidating at all,” Lesch says.

He admits that he wouldn’t get tough with Bashar: “It would do damage to this access, which will be far worse than bringing it up.” And he talks more like a fan for a rock star than a serious analyst of regional politics: “He values my opinions and ideas.” How pitiful, how easily deceived. Yet in dealing with Iran and Hamas, Hizballah and Syria, Muslim Brotherhoods and assorted other dictators and anti-democratic movements or states, how often this happens.

This article is positively embarrassing and the fact that Lesch, the article’s author, and the Los Angeles Times don’t see this is an important sign of how seriously mainstream journalism and academic Middle East studies have gone off the rails.

Why is the gap between reality and perception so much wider on the Middle East than on other subjects or areas of the world? It would take a book to give a proper answer but here are some admittedly too-brief and incomplete talking points:

1. High level of partisanship, making even the simplest statements of fact controversial at times.
2. Indoctrination on campuses to an extraordinary extent.
3. Since so much is written about the region—often bad material—people think they know everything, a mistake less likely to occur in more “obscure” places.
4. The need for special knowledge to understand the region which should not—but is—often lightly disregarded.
5. A complex historical picture which people may ignore since history is not deemed to be important.
6. The importance of cultural differences in understanding the region at a time when, according to PC, everyone is supposed to be seen as being exactly the same. A letter by Iranian-American academic in the New York Times this week asserts that it’s ridiculous to claim Iranian regime nuclear weapons are threat because Iranian mothers want good lives for their children and living standards have gone up.
7. The importance of ideology which is discounted as an influence creating totally different world views, at least among regimes. (See point 6, above).
8. Precisely because the threat from the region and in it is so high there is a tendency either to claim no threat exists or that it can be easily defused through understanding and concessions.
9. The hysteria about alleged Islamophobia and misuse of the concept of racism which makes it somewhere between hard and impossible to have a serious discussion of these issues.
10. Failure to understand the difference between what's said in English or in Arabic and Persian, discounting the latter as of no importance. 

People have a right to be foolish and naïve. But they have no right to misdirect national policies and risk—or cost—the lives of hundreds and possibly damage the lives of millions on the basis of their own stupidity.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org

Published by the The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Israel
info@gloria-center.org

return to top — print view

Home | Services | Methodologies | About Terrorism | About GGi | Our Values | The GGi Team | Links | Contact GGi