Obama's Middle East Foreign Policy seems wide ranging from pressuring Israel in order to appease Palestinians and Israel bashers to humanitarian type tyrant toppling ventures.
The press and media have given Obama a pass for his Libyan intrusion but yet could not accept GW's explanation for attacking Iraq which was partly based on Saddam's murderous regime, rejection of 17 U.N. resolutions, constant rocket assaults on American flights, and, yes, flawed evidence of possessing WMD.
Nor were the press and media willing to give GW credit for building an alliance formed under the umbrella of the UN's blessing. GW was characterized as a loner cowboy shooting from the hip. No one in the media and/or press, that I have seen, have cartooned Obama wearing six shooters! Some even applaud Obama's reluctance to lead and ignore the fact that it took France and pressure from three women in his own administration to get him respond in kind.
One day Obama applauds and verbally assists the toppling of Egypt's Mubarak but in the case of Qaddafi, Obama makes make demands Qaddafi and his thuggish sons leave and yet seems willing to hope for the best. There are other instances of mixed messages in the case of Yemen, Syria, Iran etc.
Obviously each Middle East uprising is a special case but there are distinct common threads that run throughout, ie. as GW oft repeated - freedom is a powerful force. That said, going from throwing off the bonds of repressive authoritarian leadership to democratic rule is fraught with risks and uncertainties.
We are experiencing political cacophonous discard ourselves at a time when our nation's economic and fiscal survival are threatened by previous and egregious neglect, buttressed by outlandish current spending demands all for the specious purpose of buying constituent votes and the next presidential election.
Specifically in the case of Egypt, my son, who studied in Cairo and speaks Arabic, believes Egyptians will reject Islamism for a more secular life and economic benefits of a freer market driven economy. I am not as sanguine and believe the Administration's press for a quick election will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and return a chastened and weaker Egyptian Military to power. Already there are signs Egypt's adherence to their soft peace with Israel is under attack and Egypt's embrace of the treaty's specific terms is becoming increasingly questionable going forward.
In the case of Syria we seem to believe a dandelion policy will swing that nation's leadership away from Iran, ignoring all past efforts in this regard. The record of our State Department is not comforting when it comes to predicting turn of events. I see nothing in terms of Sec. Clinton and her crew that make me sanguine. Theoretically a jam jar top has a 50-50 chance of how it lands but invariably if generally lands jam side first. (See 1 below.)
---
Lloyd Marcus continues to tell his fellow blacks their obeisance to Liberalism has been and continues to be their undoing. (See 2 below.)
---
First the Russians warned Iran about starting up their nuclear plant in view of the Stuxnet attack and now the Saudis have warned Obama. Is this warning falling on deaf ears? Is this warning rational? (See 3 below.)
---
Is Obama, like Carter and former Sen. Church squelching the CIA's pursuit of terrorists? You decide. (See 4 below.)
---
Though few Arab countries are capable of democratic self-rule the U.N has concluded, and will soon release a report stating, the Palestinians are. The report is a consequence of Palestinian efforts which are proving successful in order to bring pressure upon Israel. The Palestinians are incapable of self government because Fatah is weak and Hamas is unlikely to turn away from terror but the U.N. is pro Palestinian and that is the way this cookie will crumble. One more log on the Middle East pyre compliments of the U.N.(See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Tom Sowell has a spending cut proposal of his own. (See 6 below.)
---
Liberals have a theme song taken from Casablanca - "It's Just The Same Old Story." Cut defense, raise taxes, build political constituencies with the money, transfer wealth and increase the nation's debt.
American voters were dumb enough to elect Obama now the question is are they smart enough to throw him our of office? Are we more likely to succumb to the selling of soap or are we capable of embracing good sense?
It will be Obama again if Republicans do not offer a viable alternative unless Obama beats himself.
Though the price of gasoline, the level of unemployment, inflation and erosion of our standard of living would normally fell any mortal politician, Obama is the liberal media and press's protected messiah and they want him back in office because they too believe America's wings need to be clipped. (See 7 below.
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)Among the Muslim Brothers The contradictory faces of political Islam in post-Mubarak Egypt.. By MATTHEW KAMINSKI Two months after Hosni Mubarak's ouster, Egyptian politics are a dervish of confused agitation. Each day, it seems, a new party forms to fill liberal, Nasserist, Marxist, Islamist and other niches. A joke has it that 10% of Egyptians plan to run for president. "All Egyptians now think they are Che Guevara, Castro or something," says Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, bursting into laughter. "This is democracy." Amid this political ferment, the Brotherhood is an exception: a well-funded, organized and established force. Founded in 1928, it's also the grandaddy of the Mideast's political Islamist movements. The Brotherhood was banned from politics 57 years ago and focused on business, charity and social ventures. But the secretive fraternity always aspired to power. Now free elections due later this year offer the Brotherhood their best opportunity. The group says it believes in "Islamic democracy," but what does that really mean? I spent a week with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it turns out the answers are far from monolithic, though often far from reassuring. *** Shortly before midnight on Monday, Mohamed Baltagi walks into his office in a middle-class Cairo apartment block and apologizes for the late hour. Brotherhood leaders are all over the place these days—on popular evening chat shows, at public conferences, setting up their new Freedom and Justice Party, or advising the military regime on the interim constitution. The revolution made Dr. Baltagi, an ear-nose-and-throat specialist, a prominent face of what might be called the Brotherhood's progressive wing. Dr. Baltagi, who is 47, led the group's informal 88-strong caucus in Egypt's parliament during a limited democratic experiment from 2005-10. He wears a moustache and gray business suit and expresses regret that U.S. diplomats shunned him and other Brothers during their time in parliament. The Brotherhood's green flag—with the group's motto "Islam is the solution"—sits on his desk next to the Egyptian tricolor. While the most senior Brotherhood leadership sat out the first few days of anti-Mubarak protests, Dr. Baltagi was in Tahrir Square from the start of the 18-day uprising. He was the only Brother on the 10-member revolutionary steering committee. "It's not a revolution of the Muslim Brotherhood, or of the Islamists," he says. "It's the revolution of all Egyptians." View Full Image AFP/Getty Images Egyptians in Alexandria celebrate after Hosni Mubarak was forced out of office. .Unprompted, Dr. Baltagi brings up the charge that Islamists prefer "one man, one vote, one time." "As far as I know," he says, Islamists in Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere were victims, not perpetrators, of repression. Iran's theocracy, to him and every other Brother I spoke to, is a Shiite apostasy irrelevant to Sunni Muslim countries. The Muslim Brothers recently lost elections for student union posts at state-run Cairo University, which the group dominated in the past. "We accepted that," he says. "We accept democracy." He says the revolution will change the Brotherhood. For the first time, his organization considers its goal in Egypt the establishment of a civic not a religious state, as close to "secular" as an Islamist group might come in words. After internal wrangling, the Brothers said they could live with an elected Christian woman as president of Egypt—a merely symbolic concession since the odds of that are less than zero. *** Any push for transparency runs against decades of cloak-and-dagger habits. "We will be working openly in front of everyone," says Dr. Baltagi, "talking openly about our members, programs, fund raising." So how many Brotherhood members are there? He gives a nervous, almost apologetic smile and says, "for now that is a secret." He offers little more on funding beyond that members tithe and include generous businessmen. The new environment has brought to light internal tensions. Its conservative culture jars the younger, tech-savvy Brothers. The leadership announced that all members must support the new Freedom and Justice Party, angering especially younger members. A week ago Friday, the Brotherhood didn't call out its supporters to join other anti-Mubarak groups in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the "January 25th Revolution." Islam Lotfi, a 33-year-old lawyer, was one of numerous "young Brothers" who went anyway. The tensions inside the Brotherhood, he says, "are very normal. It is a gap between generations." Mr. Lotfi has a smoothly shaved, round face and works closely with youth activists across the spectrum. "We want wider opportunities to work inside" the hierarchical Brotherhood, he adds. "It's not accepted by a culture that doesn't believe in young people." Two-thirds of Egypt's 80 million people are under the age of 30. Abdel Moneim Aboul Fatouh, a leader of the Brotherhood's middle generation, recently backed a rival religious-leaning party, seeking to bring discontented younger Brothers with him. Dr. El-Erian, a physician who sits on the group's 15-member ruling Guidance Bureau, waves off defections. "In Israel you have many religious parties," he says. "You can have many Islamist parties [that] can cohere together and make alliances" in a future parliament. The Brotherhood has seen splits before, with no serious consequences. Fifteen years ago, Abou Elela Mady, then the youngest member of its Shura Council, left to found the Wasat (or Center) Party. He says the Brotherhood's new, tolerant positions are nothing more than "tactical" moves to reassure anxious Egyptians, the military and the West. "The majority of the organization is old thinkers," he says. "The young Brothers"—the Lotfi types—"are still a minority among young people [in the Brotherhood]." Mr. Mady, whose party will compete with the Brothers for the large conservative and poor chunk of the electorate, says he wouldn't form a coalition with them. The Mubarak regime called Wasat a Trojan Horse for Islamists. He likens his group to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party. Mr. Mady, who is 53, fits the profile of many current and former Brothers. Born into a lower-class family, he did well in school and got an engineering degree. He joined the Brotherhood in the late 1970s through the university unions. The Brotherhood seeks out ambitious outcasts—a sort of geeky fraternity for those who study hard and feel awkward around girls. He left the party, he says, because "I wanted to be more open-minded. . . . I now can watch TV, listen to music and shake a woman's hand without feeling you were doing something wrong. Most members frown on it," he says. "The challenge of freedom for the Muslim Brotherhood is much more difficult than the challenge of an authoritarian regime. . . . They have to give concrete answers to difficult questions" about Egypt's future. *** Then there are Egypt's adherents of Salafist Islam, which in its most extreme version is practiced by Osama bin Laden. After last Friday's demonstrations, Salim Ghazor takes me to a large gathering in a lower-class Cairo neighborhood. A line of buses has brought the faithful from across Egypt to the Amr Ibn El-Aas mosque. Lit by a faint moon, bearded men in billowing gellabiyas walk past women in black niqabs into Egypt's oldest mosque. "Islam is the religion and the country," reads a sign. The Muslim Brothers, who favor Western clothes and neatly trimmed facial hair, have clashed with the traditional Salafists, who looked down on political activity until the revolution. Mr. Ghazor, a teacher, once backed the Brotherhood but went over to the Salafists. "The Brothers care about politics more than the application of Islam," he says. Yet Brothers tend to practice the Salafist brand of Islam—raising the possibility that their movement could become Salaficized. "The Brotherhood is already a part of Salafism," says Mr. Ghazor. Salafists are out from the shadows in post-Mubarak Egypt. At the khutbah (prayer meeting), cleric Ahmed Farid preaches: "Those who refuse to abide by Islamic law will suffer and be damned." Said Abdul Razim speaks of Coptic Christians, about 10% of Egypt's population: "If they want peace and security, they should surrender to the will of Islamic Shariah." *** The other Sunday, I drive to Alexandria, the famed Mediterranean port, to meet the Brotherhood's rising star. Sobhi Saleh, 58, is a former parliamentarian and lawyer whom the military picked for the committee that drafted a raft of amendments to the interim constitution. No other anti-Mubarak political group was represented on the body. In the next parliament, Mr. Saleh would likely help draft a permanent new constitution. "People will be surprised how open-minded we will be," he promises. Mr. Saleh rehearses the Brotherhood's plans to "purify laws" and "implement Shariah" in Egypt. It wouldn't, he says, be of the Taliban variety. Certainly alcohol would be banned in public spaces. Women would be required to wear the hijab headscarf, but not the full-bodied niqab. These laws are intended to "protect our feelings as an Islamic society," he says. As for the rights of Coptic Christians, he says that "Muslims have to protect Copts"—a patronizing view held by many Islamists. (Dr. Baltagi, by contrast, had offered that Copts are "fellow citizens.") A left-wing nationalist in his youth, Mr. Saleh waves away complaints about the Brotherhood's possible dominance over political life. "I do not care about the opinions of secularists who are against their own religion," he says. "If they were real liberals they should accept others and their right to express themselves." But aren't the Brothers proposing to limit their right to self-expression? "We would ban activities in the public square, not in private space. Islam is against spreading unethical behavior and this is the difference between Islamic democracy and Western democracy. In Islam, everything that is against religion is banned in public. You"—meaning the West—"selectively ban behavior. We are only against those who are against religion and try to diminish it." This view seems to allow limited tolerance of dissenting opinions or minority rights. The Brotherhood abandoned violence against Egypt's government in the 1970s, but it endorses Hamas and other armed Islamic movements. Every Brotherhood member I spoke to calls the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Camp David accords existing international law that a future government might reopen. Egypt's liberals say the same. "Israel treats us as enemies," says Mr. Saleh. "If they are enemies for all its neighbors, why is it there?" I ask, should Israel exist? "When they admit our peoples' rights," he says, referring to Palestinians, "we can study this." The appeal of the Brotherhood remains hard to gauge, with no proper polls, few parties or elections in living memory. The group's candidates took 20% in a partially contested parliamentary poll in 2005, and it aims to win a third of seats this year. The Brothers won't field a presidential candidate, a savvy move to soothe nerves and avoid governing responsibility over a messy Egypt. They can wait. Anyway, the military seems to prefer an establishment figure like Amr Moussa, the recent chief of the Arab League. The secular parties are immature, numerous and elitist—not the best recipe for electoral success. "No one needs to be afraid of us," says Dr. El-Erian. "We need now five years of national consensus of reform, to boost the new democratic system, and then have open political competition." How seriously one chooses to take such reassurances depends on whether the Brotherhood ends up as just another political party in a freer Egypt or stays a religiously driven cause. "Skeptical optimism" is a phrase often heard in Egypt these days. Religion wasn't the galvanizing force in Egypt's revolution, and the Brotherhood's 83-year-old brand of political Islam looks its age compared to ideas of modernity and freedom that excited the crowds in Tahrir Square. You don't find the fervency of religious extremism here as in, say, Pakistan. If the generals today or a future regime allow space for pluralism to flourish, Egypt could build on its weak foundations and accommodate a changed Muslim Brotherhood. That assumes, not altogether safely, that the worst instincts of would-be authoritarians in military, clerical or Brother garb are kept in check, and the Arab world's most important democratic transition stays on track. Mr. Kaminski is a member of the Journal's editorial board ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)Liberalism, Black America's Greatest Enemy By Lloyd Marcus I recently had another cherished chat over the phone with my 84-year-old black dad. He lives in Maryland. I live in Florida. Dad, sharp as ever, still pastors four churches. He also volunteers a few days a week teaching at an elementary school. Dad told me about an outrageously unruly and disruptive little boy in his class. Dad said, "Every time I take him to the office for discipline, they do nothing and send the disobedient child back to my class." Dad jokingly said, "Does this kid have something on you guys? Why do you keep letting him off scot-free?" Dad, the answer to why the school is not administering discipline is liberalism. Excited, I thought, "This is a great opportunity to talk to dad about the evils and failure of liberalism which is the ideology of his idolized black president, Obama." Dad is a strong Christian who lives by conservative principles and values. And yet, he always votes Democrat. Dad is old school in his political beliefs; Democrats are for the little guy. Republicans are rich, white, and racist. Dad is clueless to the fact that the leadership of his beloved Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left. Blind to his own racism, Obama is Dad's hero solely because he is black. Perhaps, my explaining how liberalism hurts people will give Dad a better insight into why his first born is a black conservative Republican and does not share his admiration for the first black president. Thus, I am, excuse the pun, the "black sheep" of our black family. A part of me wants to say, "Dad, what on earth is the matter with you? Snap out of it! As a Christian, how can you justify your almost idol worship of Obama whose policies go against your Christian principles and values? Does your loyalty to skin color override your commitment to Christ?" Call me wimpy or old fashioned, but confronting my dad straight up feels disrespectful. Also, attacking Dad's superhero directly would be unfruitful. I must take a more stealth approach to educating Dad about the truth of Obama's destructive agenda. I thought, "I will attack liberalism rather than Obama." Confidently, I stated, "Dad, liberalism is black America's greatest enemy. Allow me to explain how liberalism sounds compassionate, but in reality, is extremely destructive, counter to the human spirit and is destroying our great country. I give you Liberal Dad vs Conservative Dad." One morning Liberal Dad says to his little boy, "Wake up Johnny, time for school." Johnny whines, "Dad, I don't want to go to school. It is hard and not much fun. The kids are mean!" Liberal Dad replies, "You're right son. I feel your pain. You can stay home." Conservative Dad would say, "Jonathan Brandon Whatever, the third, you get your butt out of that bed and get ready for school this instant! I realize school can be difficult. I'll speak with your teachers and join the PTA. Your future success and happiness depend upon you acquiring a good education. I am forcing you to go to school because I love you!" Which father displayed the most "true" compassion? Answer: Obviously, Conservative Dad. I continued explaining to my dad how liberalism tends to be about instant gratification and being generous with other folks' hard-earned money. So, you're an immigrant desirous of reaping the benefits of U.S. citizenship. Liberals say we totally understand you choosing not to trouble yourself with taking the legal path to citizenship, just sneak across our border. Liberals condemn all enforcement of U.S. immigration laws as being racist and cruel. And, God forbid we conservatives dare hold anyone accountable for bad behavior. Liberals accuse us of being "holier than thou." I told Dad how 50% of black males are not graduating high school. Why not? A high school education is free. Again, the problem is liberalism which encourages a breakdown in standards and morals. Yes, I said morals. Don't paint me as a Bible thumping fanatic for mentioning the liberal-hated "M" word. In the 1950s when racism truly was a problem for blacks in America, most black kids grew up in two parent homes. Today, after 60 years of liberal Democrat entitlement programs, most black kids are growing up in fatherless homes. No matter how you slice it, something is seriously wrong in the black community. And it has nothing to do with white folks nor Republicans. These fatherless black boys make babies and join gangs. Typical of liberal screwed up thinking, I heard a PhD on TV say, "There is nothing a father can teach his son which the child cannot learn from his single mother." I thought, "Good lord, this woman went to college to learn this crap!" Newsflash libs: males crave male bonding and leadership. Why do you think they join gangs? This is not rocket science! Liberal entitlement/welfare policies are exploitative. They encourage a destructive cycle of out of wedlock births and government dependency. Sadly, these poor souls created by government to be insecure in regards to their ability continue to vote Democrat to keep the freebies coming. History confirms Americans respond swiftly, enthusiastically, and cheerfully to lending a hand to neighbors in need domestic and foreign. Regardless of liberals' anti-America rhetoric, we are the most generous nation on the planet. We have no problem with government providing a safety net. We do disagree with folks turning the safety net into a hammock. Despite his black son being active in the movement and even writing and performing the "American Tea Party Anthem," for crying out loud, Dad believes the tea party is racist. Yes, he believes the NAACP, CNN, and the other liberal media over me. Still, I interjected in our conversation how the tea party is about rejecting liberalism and has nothing to do with race. Without directly attacking his hero, Obama, I believe my conversation with my dad ended with him a little more enlightened to the evils and failures of liberalism. Excellent! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3) Saudi Arabia: Second Fukushima if Iranian Bushehr activated in May Saudi and Kuwait officials have warned the US that if Iran activates its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr in May as planned, there is a good chance it will blow up and the entire Gulf region suffer a nuclear disaster on the scale of the misfortune at Japan's Fukushima and expose millions to radiation contamination. This issue was urgently raised in recent Saudi-US talks – first on April 4 with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and again Monday, April 11, with the National Security Adviser to the US President Tom Donilon. The two high-level US official visits to Riyadh in six days attest to the fierce discord between Saudi King Abdullah and the administration - not just over Iran and its nuclear activity but the entire gamut of US Middle East policy. When he met the defense secretary, the king took Gates charged that the White House ignored Saudi intelligence evidence passed to the CIA that Tehran and Hizballah were actively fomenting the unrest in Bahrain with a view to igniting parallel disturbances in the eastern Saudi oil regions among the two million Shiites living there. Abdullah complained bluntly that no matter what evidence is put before President Obama, he refuses to budge from his course of engagement with regard to Iran. The king declared angrily that the lax American attitude toward Islamic Republic's nuclear aspirations places the very existence of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf nations in peril. Washington had twisted Saudi arms to refrain from challenging the Bushehr nuclear plant when preparations for its activation were completed last year, despite its harmful potential for the region. Even the Iranians, Abdullah told Gates, were scared to switch it on out of concern for their own people. It was the first time the Saudi monarch linked the Iranian plant with the Japanese nuclear calamity. Tuesday, April 12, Japan raised its severity to maximum seven the same as Chernobyl. Four months ago, on Jan. 26, Moscow acted outside the rules of conventional diplomacy when Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin publicly demanded a NATO investigation into the effects of the Stuxnet malworm on the Bushehr reactor. He repeated a previous warning to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that "The virus attack on a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran could trigger a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl." Intelligence and Russians sources report that Russian concerns focused on the discovery of the unexplained entry of small pieces of metal into the cooling system. This told them that the Iranians had not managed to stop Stuxnet or its impact on the reactor's control systems and there was no guarantee that more malfunctions capable of causing the plant to blow up had been were not in store. These warnings were initially heeded: Russian-Iranian preparations to active the reactor were suspended and it was emptied of nuclear fuel. But then Friday, April 8, the fuel was reloaded the fuel. The next day, the head of Iran's Nuclear Energy Commission Fereydoun Abbasi said: "Even before the earthquake and nuclear contamination crisis in Japan, Iran had accepted Russian experts' proposal to revise its plant to load fuel into the core of the Bushehr power plant's reactor." Iran had never before referred to the Fukushima in relation to Bushehr. Sources add that the Abbasi statement clearly held Moscow responsible for any potential nuclear disaster that may beset the Iranian facility. It also confirmed the Saudi claim. Riyadh has accordingly demanded that Washington act without delay and by all means possible to prevent Bushehr going on line next month according to plan. Such US action would be diametrically opposed to the Obama administration's Iran policy at present. However, failure to meet the Saudi demand will deepen the acute crisis in Saudi-US relations and mistrust sparked by the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak - with effect on other related issues such as Yemen and even Pakistan. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4)CIA knows where one of world's most dangerous terrorism suspects is, but refuses to take action By Ken Dilanian In fact, under the Obama administration, the CIA has stopped trying to detain or interrogate suspects caught abroad, except those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan He's considered one of world's most dangerous terrorism suspects, and the U.S. offered a $1 million reward for his capture in 2005. Intelligence experts say he's a master bomb maker and extremist leader who possesses a wealth of information about al-Qaida-linked groups in Southeast Asia. Yet the U.S. has made no move to interrogate or seek custody of Indonesian Umar Patek since he was apprehended this year by officials in Pakistan with the help of a CIA tip, U.S. and Pakistani officials say. The little-known case highlights a sharp difference between President Barack Obama's counterterrorism policy and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Under Obama, the CIA has stopped trying to detain or interrogate suspects caught abroad, except those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The CIA is out of the detention and interrogation business," said a U.S. official who is familiar with intelligence operations but was not authorized to speak publicly. Several factors are behind the change. Widespread criticism of Bush administration interrogation and detention policies as brutal and degrading led Obama to stop sending suspected terrorists to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Public exposure also forced the CIA to close a network of secret prisons. That left U.S. officials with no obvious place to hold new captives. In January 2009, Obama ordered the CIA to abide by the interrogation rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual, which guides military interrogators and includes prohibitions on the use of physical force against detainees. Critics warn that al-Qaida operatives could study the manual, which is available on the Internet, to learn how to resist its techniques, although no evidence has emerged suggesting that has happened. In addition, some CIA officers are spooked by a long-running criminal investigation by a Washington special prosecutor into whether CIA officers broke the law by conducting brutal interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration. "Given the enormous headaches involved … it's not surprising there are fewer people coming into our hands," said Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official. Patek, described by intelligence officials and analysts as a central figure among Islamic extremists in Southeast Asia, could reveal links between al-Qaida sympathizers across the region. He is a prime suspect in the 2002 nightclub bombings that killed 202 people on the Indonesian island of Bali. In the years after the Bali bombings, Patek is believed to have led a terrorist cell in the Philippines, where U.S. Special Forces have helped the military hunt Islamic militants on Mindanao island for years, said Sidney Jones, a Jakarta, Indonesia-based analyst for the International Crisis Group, an independent nonprofit organization that studies conflicts. Patek's information "would be a gold mine" to U.S. intelligence, she said. Pakistani officials say they plan to deliver Patek to authorities in Indonesia, where he is wanted in the Bali case. Although seven Americans were among those killed in the bombings, no U.S. criminal charges are pending against him, a senior Justice Department official said. A Pakistani intelligence source said no one from the CIA or any other U.S. agency had asked to question Patek. U.S. officials say they expect the CIA will be given access to intelligence gleaned from Indonesia's interrogations of Patek, and may even be allowed to sit in and provide guidance, given the close ties between U.S. and Indonesian counterterrorism officials. But that is not the same as controlling the questioning, critics say. "Having access to someone in someone else's custody is never the same as setting the conditions of their interrogation," said a congressional aide who is briefed on intelligence issues but who was not authorized to speak publicly. Senior Republican lawmakers say the U.S. may be giving up valuable intelligence by not acting more aggressively to detain and question suspects captured overseas. "It is a shame that our administration has made the decision to defer to others to pursue the detention and interrogation of our enemies," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Now we'll have to rely on a foreign government to grant us access to this terrorist to obtain vital intelligence, if we're lucky." Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said: "The tangled mess of legal and policy issues surrounding detention right now makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to gain complete access for questioning. This forces us to work through the host country, which is not always optimal for a number of reasons." CIA spokesman George Little defended the policy, saying the agency has a "wide range of effective capabilities at our disposal to pursue terrorists and thwart their activities. Our efforts in recent years have led to a number of counterterrorism successes that have saved lives." The current rules may be flexible in any case. At a hearing in February, Chambliss asked CIA Director Leon E. Panetta what would happen if the U.S. caught Osama bin Laden or his top aide, Ayman Zawahiri. Both men are believed to be hiding in Pakistan. "We would probably move them quickly into military jurisdiction" for questioning at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, "and then eventually move them probably to Guantanamo," Panetta replied. James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, quickly added that the question had not been resolved, however. That indecision has led to frustration in one recent case. In February 2010, the CIA helped Pakistani intelligence officers arrest Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban's military leader, in Karachi. U.S. officials describe him as the most senior Taliban figure captured since the Afghan war began in 2001. Baradar remains in Pakistani custody, and CIA officers are not satisfied with their access to him, according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the matter. "We just don't have something in place that works" outside Iraq and Afghanistan, said Louis Tucker, former staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "We're kind of just flying by the seat of our pants."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) UN assessment: PA is ready to govern a state of its own By Reuters Report to be submitted to Palestinian donors by UN special coordinator for Middle East says gov't functions are sufficient for Palestinian state, but progress will be hard while "occupation" continues. The Palestinian Authority is ready to govern a state of its own, according to a report published Tuesday by the office of UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Robert Serry, AFP reported. The report, which will be submitted to Palestinian donor nations at a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, said that in six areas where the UN is most engaged there are sufficient governmental functions to establish a state. The report, however stressed that it would be difficult for the Palestinians to make further progress while peace talks remained stalled and Israeli "occupation" continued. Serry praised Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in a statement accompanying the report. "This is a decisive period," he said, warning that progress could be retarded or even unravelled without more Israeli cooperation and a return to negotiations. Fayyad will present the report. He was expected to present facts and figures to show how his Palestinian Authority has used hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance over the past two years to create justice, education, energy, health, water, security and housing services. "I believe that our governing institutions have now reached a high state of readiness to assume all the responsibilities that will come with full sovereignty on the entire Palestinian occupied territory," Fayyad said in the 63-page document. But he underlined that unless the IDF's presence in the West Bank comes to an end, these accomplishments can only achieve so much.
5a)The Arab Risings, Israel and Hamas
By George Friedman
There was one striking thing missing from the events in the Middle East in past months: Israel. While certainly mentioned and condemned, none of the demonstrations centered on the issue of Israel. Israel was a side issue for the demonstrators, with the focus being on replacing unpopular rulers.
This is odd. Since even before the creation of the state of Israel, anti-Zionism has been a driving force among the Arab public, perhaps more than it has been with Arab governments. While a few have been willing to develop open diplomatic relations with Israel, many more have maintained informal relations: Numerous Arab governments have been willing to maintain covert relations with Israel, with extensive cooperation on intelligence and related matters. They have been unwilling to incur the displeasure of the Arab masses through open cooperation, however.
That makes it all the more strange that the Arab opposition movements - from Libya to Bahrain - have not made overt and covert cooperation with Israel a central issue, if for no other reason than to mobilize the Arab masses. Let me emphasize that Israel was frequently an issue, but not the central one. If we go far back to the rise of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his revolution for Pan-Arabism and socialism, his issues against King Farouk were tightly bound with anti-Zionism. Similarly, radical Islamists have always made Israel a central issue, yet it wasn't there in this round of unrest. This was particularly surprising with regimes like Egypt's, which had formal relations with Israel.
It is not clear why Israel was not a rallying point. One possible explanation is that the demonstrations in the Islamic world were focused on unpopular leaders and regimes, and the question of local governance was at their heart. That is possible, but particularly as the demonstrations faltered, invoking Israel would have seemed logical as a way to legitimize their cause. Another explanation might have rested in the reason that most of these risings failed, at least to this point, to achieve fundamental change. They were not mass movements involving all classes of society, but to a great extent the young and the better educated. This class was more sophisticated about the world and understood the need for American and European support in the long run; they understood that including Israel in their mix of grievances was likely to reduce Western pressure on the risings' targets. We know of several leaders of the Egyptian rising, for example, who were close to Hamas yet deliberately chose to downplay their relations. They clearly were intensely anti-Israeli but didn't want to make this a crucial issue. In the case of Egypt, they didn't want to alienate the military or the West. They were sophisticated enough to take the matter step by step.
A second thing was missing from the unrest: There was no rising, no intifada, in the Palestinian territories. Given the general unrest sweeping the region, it would seem logical that the Palestinian public would have pressed both the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Hamas to organize massive demonstrations against Israel. This didn't happen.
This clearly didn't displease the PNA, which had no appetite for underwriting another intifada that would have led to massive Israeli responses and disruption of the West Bank's economy. For Hamas in Gaza, however, it was a different case. Hamas was trapped by the Israeli-Egyptian blockade. This blockade limited its ability to access weapons, as well as basic supplies needed to build a minimally functioning economy. It also limited Hamas' ability to build a strong movement in the West Bank that would challenge Fatah's leadership of the PNA there.
Hamas has been isolated and trapped in Gaza. The uprising in Egypt represented a tremendous opportunity for Hamas, as it promised to create a new reality in Gaza. If the demonstrators had succeeded not only in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak but also in forcing true regime change - or at least forcing the military to change its policy toward Hamas - the door could have opened for Hamas to have increased dramatically its power and its room to maneuver. Hamas knew that it had supporters among a segment of the demonstrators and that the demonstrators wanted a reversal of Egyptian policy on Israel and Gaza. They were content to wait, however, particularly as the PNA was not prepared to launch an intifada in the West Bank and because one confined to Gaza would have had little effect. So they waited.
For Hamas, a shift in Egyptian policy was the opening that would allow them to become militarily and politically more effective. It didn't happen. The events of the past few months have shown that while the military wanted Mubarak out, it was not prepared to break with Israel or shift its Gaza policy. Most important, the events thus far have shown that the demonstrators were in no position to force the Egyptian military to do anything it didn't want to do. Beyond forcing Mubarak out and perhaps having him put on trial, the basic policies of his regime remained in place.
Over the last few weeks, it became apparent to many observers, including the Hamas leadership, that what they hoped for in Egypt was either not going to happen any time soon or perhaps not at all. At the same time, it was obvious that the movement in the Arab world had not yet died out. If Hamas could combine the historical animosity toward Israel in the Arab world with the current unrest, it might be able to effect changes in policy not only in Egypt but also in the rest of the Arab world, a region that, beyond rhetoric, had become increasingly indifferent to the Palestinian cause.
Gaza has become a symbol in the Arab world of Palestinian resistance and Israeli oppression. The last war in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, has become used as a symbol in the Arab world and in Europe to generate anti-Israeli sentiment. Interestingly, Richard Goldstone, lead author of a report on the operation that severely criticized Israel, retracted many of his charges last week. One of the Palestinians' major achievements was shaping public opinion in Europe over Cast Lead via the Goldstone Report. Its retraction was therefore a defeat for Hamas.
In the face of the decision by Arab demonstrators not to emphasize Israel, in the face of the apparent failure of the Egyptian rising to achieve definitive policy changes, and in the face of the reversal by Goldstone of many of his charges, Hamas clearly felt that it not only faced a lost opportunity, but it was likely to face a retreat in Western public opinion (albeit the latter was a secondary consideration).
The Advantage of Another Gaza Conflict for Hamas
Another Israeli assault on Gaza might generate forces that benefit Hamas. In Cast Lead, the Egyptian government was able to deflect calls to stop its blockade of Gaza and break relations with Israel. In 2011, it might not be as easy for them to resist in the event of another war. Moreover, with the uprising losing steam, a war in Gaza might re-energize Hamas, using what would be claimed as unilateral brutality by Israel to bring far larger crowds into the street and forcing a weakened Egyptian regime to make the kinds of concessions that would matter to Hamas.
Egypt is key for Hamas. Linked to an anti-Israel, pro-Hamas Cairo, the Gaza Strip returns to its old status as a bayonet pointed at Tel Aviv. Certainly, it would be a base for operations and a significant alternative to Fatah. But a war would benefit Hamas more broadly. For example, Turkey's view of Gaza has changed significantly since the 2010 flotilla incident in which Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish civilians on a ship headed for Gaza. Turkey's relationship with Israel could be further weakened, and with Egypt and Turkey both becoming hostile to Israel, Hamas' position would improve. If Hamas could cause Hezbollah to join the war from the north then Israel would be placed in a challenging military position perhaps with the United States, afraid of a complete breakdown of its regional alliance system, forcing Israel to accept an unfavorable settlement.
Hamas had the same means for starting a war it had before Cast Lead and that Hezbollah had in 2006. It can still fire rockets at Israel. For the most part, these artillery rockets - homemade Qassams and mortars, do no harm. But some strike Israeli targets, and under any circumstances, the constant firing drives home the limits of Israeli intelligence to an uneasy Israeli public - Israel doesn't know where the missiles are stored and can't take them out. Add to this the rocket that landed 20 miles south of Tel Aviv and Israeli public perceptions of the murder of most of a Jewish family in the West Bank, including an infant, and it becomes clear that Hamas is creating the circumstances under which the Israelis have no choice but to attack Gaza.
Outside Intervention
After the first series of rocket attacks, two nations intervened. Turkey fairly publicly intervened via Syria, persuading Hamas to halt its attacks. Turkey understood the fragility of the Arab world and was not interested in the uprising receiving an additional boost from a war in Gaza. The Saudis also intervened. The Saudis provide the main funding for Hamas via Syria and were themselves trying to stabilize the situation from Yemen to Bahrain on its southern and eastern border; it did not want anything adding fuel to that fire. Hamas accordingly subsided.
Hamas then resumed its attack this weekend. We don't know its reasoning, but we can infer it: Whatever Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria or anyone else wanted, this was Hamas' historic opportunity. If Egypt returns to the status quo, Hamas returns to its trap. Whatever their friends or allies might say, missing this historic opportunity would be foolish for it. A war would hurt, but a defeat could be turned into a political victory.
It is not clear what the Israelis' limit is. Clearly, they are trying to avoid an all-out assault on Gaza, limiting their response to a few airstrikes. The existence of Iron Dome, a new system to stop rockets, provides Israel some psychological comfort, but it is years from full deployment, and its effectiveness is still unknown. The rockets can be endured only so long before an attack. And the Goldstone reversal gives the Israelis a sense of vindication that gives them more room for maneuver.
Hamas appears to have plenty of rockets, and it will use them until Israel responds. Hamas will use the Israeli response to try to launch a broader Arab movement focused both on Israel and on regimes that openly or covertly collaborate with Israel. Hamas hopes above all to bring down the Egyptian regime with a newly energized movement. Israel above all does not want this to happen. It will resist responding to Hamas as long as it can, but given the political situation in Israel, its ability to do so is limited - and that is what Hamas is counting on.
For the United States and Europe, the merger of Islamists and democrats is an explosive combination. Apart, they do little. Together, they could genuinely destabilize the region and even further undermine the U.S. effort against jihadists. The United States and Europe want Israel to restrain itself but cannot restrain Hamas. Another war, therefore, is not out of the question - and in the end, the decision to launch one rests with Hamas.
The Arab Risings, Israel and Hamas is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6)Another Spending Cut Plan By Thomas Sowell Since everybody else seems to be coming up with plans on how to cope with the skyrocketing national debt, let me try my hand at it too. The liberals' easy solution is just to increase taxes on "the rich." But, if you do the math, there aren't enough of "the rich" to cover the huge and record-breaking deficit. Trying to reduce the deficit by cutting spending runs into an old familiar counter-attack. There will be all kinds of claims by politicians and sad stories in the media about how these cuts will cause the poor to go hungry, the sick to be left to die, etc. My plan would start by cutting off all government transfer payments to billionaires. Many, if not most, people are probably unaware that the government is handing out the taxpayers' money to billionaires. But agricultural subsidies go to a number of billionaires. Very little goes to the ordinary farmer. Big corporations also get big bucks from the government, not only in agricultural subsidies but also in the name of "green" policies, in the name of "alternative energy" policies, and in the name of whatever else will rationalize shoveling the taxpayers' money out the door to whomever the administration designates, for its own political reasons. The usual political counter-attacks against spending cuts will not work against this new kind of spending cut approach. How many heart-rending stories can the media run about billionaires who have lost their handouts from the taxpayers? How many tears will be shed if General Motors gets dumped off the gravy train? It would also be eye-opening to many people to discover how much government money is going into subsidizing all sorts of things that have nothing to do with helping "the poor" or protecting the public. This would include government-subsidized insurance for posh and pricey coastal resorts, located too dangerously close to the ocean for a private insurance company to risk insuring them. This approach would not only circumvent the sob stories, it would also circumvent the ideological battles over whether to cut off money to Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio. The money to be saved by cutting off agricultural subsidies to the wealthy and the big corporations is vastly greater than the money to be saved by cutting off Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio, much as they both deserve to be cut off. If spending cuts are to be done strategically, a good strategy to follow would be that of General Douglas MacArthur in World War II. General MacArthur realized that he didn't have to attack every Pacific island held by the Japanese. He captured the islands that he had to capture, in order to get within striking distance of Japan. In peace as in war, there is no point wasting time and resources attacking heavily defended enemy positions that you don't have to take. Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be among the most difficult programs to cut without ruinous political consequences. However, it is not necessary to attack all the spending on these programs in order to make big savings. Instead of attacking these programs as a whole, what is far more vulnerable is the compulsory aspect of these programs. If Medicare is so great, why is it necessary for the government to force people to be covered by Medicare as a precondition for receiving the money they paid into Social Security? Many people with private health insurance would rather continue to rely on that, instead of being trapped in Medicare red tape. It is not a question of taking away Medicare but allowing people to opt out, saving the taxpayer from having to subsidize something that many people don't want. It is not a question of forcing people off Social Security either. But private retirement accounts can offer a better deal. Even someone who retires when the stock market is down is almost certain to get a bigger pension from a decent mutual fund than from Social Security. By giving young people the option, while continuing to honor commitments to retirees and those nearing retirement age, the sob story defense of runaway spending can be nipped in the bud.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)The liberals' plan: Gut defense and tax, tax, tax By ByronYork President Obama poses after he spoke regarding the budget and averted government shutdown Friday.-Charles Dharapak/APThe pundits are fond of saying that Republicans are deeply divided over cutting federal spending. House Speaker John Boehner, the story goes, is barely able to ride herd on rowdy Tea Party freshmen, who want deeper cuts than House GOP leaders. There's been less discussion of the deep divisions on the Democratic side. How deep are those divisions? As President Obama prepares to reveal his budget priorities Wednesday, just take a look at a new document called the "People's Budget." It's the product of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal Democrats in the House. It's not a small outfit; the caucus has 76 members, about 40 percent of the 192 Democrats in the House. Many are quite prominent and some were until recently in charge of the most powerful House committees: Reps. Barney Frank, John Conyers, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Rosa DeLauro, Jerrold Nadler, Louise Slaughter and others. In other words, the Progressive Caucus -- about three times bigger than the moderate Blue Dog Coalition -- is no fringe organization. The "People's Budget" is the liberals' answer to House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's 2012 budget proposal, which is "leading us down a road to ruin," according to caucus co-chairmen Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. The "People's Budget," Grijalva and Ellison claim, would eliminate the deficit in just 10 years (Ryan's plan would take more than 25 years) while expanding, not cutting, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. "This budget saves the American people from the recklessness of the Republican majority," Grijalva and Ellison write in a letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. How can such fiscal miracles be accomplished? By tax increases that would make even some top Democrats gasp. Perhaps the most extraordinary is the caucus plan to raise the Social Security tax to cover nearly all of a taxpayer's income. Right now, the tax is imposed on the first $106,000 of earnings. For people who make more than that, the caucus would tax a full 90 percent of income -- no matter how high it goes. The caucus would raise the Social Security tax that employers pay as well. The caucus would create three new individual tax brackets for the highest incomes, topping out at 47 percent. It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes. It would create something called a "financial crisis responsibility fee" and a "financial speculation tax." And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts. As if anyone needed reminding, the "People's Budget" is proof that the liberal idea of budget balancing is tax, tax, tax. If you're looking for spending cuts, you'll find just one really big one: national defense. The liberals would end "overseas contingency operations" -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- starting in 2013. They would save more money by "reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and research & development programs." In other words, they would gut the United States' ability to defend itself, today and long into the future. What would the liberals spend money on? The "People's Budget" is essentially a newer and bigger stimulus bill. Grijalva and Ellison pledge to "invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, early childhood, K-12 and special education, quality child care, energy and broadband infrastructure, housing, and research and development," along with billions more for stimuluslike road and other transportation programs. Overall, the plan shows the gaping divide between the Progressive Caucus and the Obama White House. Back in his Chicago days, Barack Obama might easily have signed on to something like this. Now, as a president desperate for the support of independent voters in 2012, he can't. Instead, the president will deliver his spending priorities this week in terms of deficit reduction, because that is what independents want to hear. But by doing so, Obama risks further irritating an already-anxious Democratic base. Some strategists will argue that the "People's Budget" is good for Obama because it lets him position himself responsibly between what he will call the excesses of Ryan and the Progressive Caucus. But caucus members make up a big portion of the president's support on Capitol Hill. Obama needs their constituents -- the caucus represents more than 50 million people -- not just to be on board but to be enthusiastic in 2012. The "People's Budget" just makes Obama's job tougher. Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment