Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

In Booker- and Nobel Prize-winning author J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians, the 'barbarians' are very different compared to the terrorists the United States and its allies are fighting today. The barbarians are a set group, compared to the more ambiguous terrorist enemy. Also, they seem to attack when directly provoked (actually, during the course of the story there isn't concrete, objective proof of a barbarian attack on the Empire). They are a fairly peaceful, simple, nomadic people who live in fear of the Empire and suffer because of its expansion. However, there are some parallels between the barbarians and Islamist extremists. Many modern Islamic terrorists are waging jihad against the US because of its occupation of lands they see as sacred, belonging to Muslims, as well as its diehard support of occupiers of Mideast land like Israel. America is tainting these lands for its own profit (oil), or so their line of thought goes.

The stronger parallel between the Empire's wrath for the barbarians and America's 'war on terror' is the chilling aspect of torture used gratuitously by the Empire in the book and — to a lesser, more secretive extent, directly or indirectly — by the United States today. My personal view is not that the US is an empire in the way the one in the book is; whether it is at all is a point of contention among experts. Of course the US looks out for its own economic interests in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as do all nations who rely on energy supplies from that region. It is the reality of men and nations that we take care of ourselves first and make sure our well being is well provided for.

The thing that has brought the world's sole superpower into such a great mess is security. Although oil has played an indirect role, those drawing such a strong line between Iraq and Exxon should reevaluate their logic. America supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1979 Soviet invasion and ensuing war to fend off its Cold War arch-rival. Today it faces the same people it supported in Afghanistan in a globalized 'war.' However, unlike the war in Waiting for the Barbarians, one side is ambiguous in the 'war on terror': the terrorists. This ambiguity allows the US more leeway in its 'war,' but also leads to more trouble: anyone could be a terrorist. These terrorists either operate relatively alone with influences from groups or in cells, often under the authority of others. What unites them for the most part is ideology, but there are devisions even within that radical anti-American foundation. The Bush administration has clumped its 'barbarians' together into one massive group of pure evil. It's 'us against them'.

Torture is made into entertainment in the book. The public is put at ease at the sight of a few innocent barbarians being abused and sometimes killed. The army turns fear into hate and allows the public an outlet for that hatred. In Waiting for the Barbarians the man plagued by this lack of human decency, the town judge, is displaced by all this mess as he attempts to take on the torture machine. He is arrested at the circumvention of the law — emergency powers are in the hands of the military because of the barbarians are apparently ready to pounce. The people in the remote frontier town in Waiting for the Barbarians are in constantly terrorized by the threat of a supposedly imminent barbarian invasion, yet another similarity between their society and America's (among others).

The us vs. them seen especially during wartime is seen in the book: "The soldiery tyrannizes the town. They have held a ... meeting to denounce "cowards and traitors" and to affirm collective alliance to the Empire" (Coetzee 130). There are elements of absurdity in the story of torture in Barbarians, but that same absurdity is seen in real life in the political rhetoric condoning torture. Innocent people — people who share fear if any ties with the enemy — are tortured needlessly for no real point. Whereas the fictional barbarian situation came to an end and just rule was reinstated, the terror subsided, there is no assurance that the same will happen in America's 'war on terror.'

Congress legalizes Bush's NSA wiretapping program

An inept Congress hands Bush his NSA wiretapping program legalized on a silver platter...
Quiz time! What is the one of the last things Congress did before taking a four-week August recess? Hand more power to the Bush administration and slash away at the US Constitution, of course! Another sting to civil liberties courtesy of the 'war on terrorism' and the American government. Enter the Protect America Act of 2007 (Senate vote info; House votes). All links in this post are, in my opinion, quite important to understanding this complex issue.

Secrecy, spying, and a false 'war'
Why did the United States Congress cave in to (NYT) President George Bush on the expanded wiretapping bill? If this were the Clinton years I might think secret deal or tradeoff (i.e. you pass my stuff and I don't veto yours). However, that system hasn't been as prolific in the relationship between Bush's White House and the majority-Democratic Congress.

One would think this new bill would finally resolve the legality of the Bush administration's controversial domestic surveillance program. How could any self-respecting legislator approve it — let alone a Democrat? The answer appears to be fear, on both sides, especially Democratic, of appearing soft on terrorism.

The Dems have already spent — for better or for worse — so much political energy on symbolic jabs at the Bush administration on the subject of Iraq. But when it comes to something real, impacting, non-symbolic, and relevant, but by no means routine, they give George W. Bush the kind of victory he hoped for. The NSA wiretapping program — revealed in 2005 by The New York Times — has been ruled illegal again and again. It sidesteps an already troubling statute: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, whose secret judges grant secret warrants for secret searches or wiretaps, secretly. The Bush administration was forced to but the NSA program under the domain of FISA in January, resulting in a still-secret ruling that the program was illegal and placed restrictions, or something of the sort.

But the word 'illegal' is not in Bush's dictionary...
This bill, signed into law by Bush this weekend, validates the illegal wiretapping program that he has even admitted exists (in his own special way, plus it gave him a chance to attack the so-called liberal news media). It has a decent reach too. One of the administration's excuses for its until-recently-illegal eavesdropping program was that the current FISA court only deals with old means of communication, not modern ones like email and calls over fiber optic cable. Naturally, instead of requesting the then Republican-controlled Congress update the legislation (especially for the post-9/11 world, for which which the administration claims the illegal secret programs are essential), the White House decided to launch its own secret programs — legal or otherwise.

Extension of power
So what's wrong with this law just updating FISA to keep up with the times? Well, keeping up with technology is not the only changes this law puts into place...

Just as before, the FISA court only issues the search warrant after the search/wiretap is carried out — troubling, I know. But this legislation goes a bit further by removing more power from the courts, albeit secret ones that almost never take issue with clandestine spying on a domestic level. Now the searches can be carried out at the discretion of the attorney general or intelligence director.

That is all the more troubling considering the political yes-men Bush keeps in his cabinet and staff, and the fact that Alberto Gonzales is known for politically-motivated (in)justice. The horror! And as if the fact that Gonzales can now order secret searches, legally this time, isn't enough to make you a bit queasy for the disregard of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, keep in mind that under this new law the AG and head of intelligence have plenty of discretionary leeway when it comes to ordering secret surveillance. Plus, it's all secret; I'd expect nothing less transparent from this administration.

The sorta good news
A positive is that the AG will indeed have his power checked to a certain extent by internal audits, which have proved their worth in the past. That aspect of oversight is one the White House doesn't like.

One sliver of good news is that because of lawsuit threats that only increase under this legislation, telecommunications companies and ISPs are less likely to be bullied into invading their customers' privacy under pressure by the Bush administration. In fact, as I understand it this law removes the shield the White House has desperately tried to use to protect the telcos, which is bad news for the industry. Still, Gonzales has less leeway to invade our phone and internet records, though more to wiretap if the conversation might (emphasis on might) be with someone outside of the United States. Nonetheless, the telcos are as scared as ever of being sued for disclosing private details of their customers, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, as did the NYT (linked above):

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
...
In fact, pressure from the telecommunications companies on the Bush administration has apparently played a major hidden role in the political battle over the surveillance issue over the past few months.

Worse than FISA
FISA was scary enough — but maybe understandable and, to an extent, justifiable — but putting the secret search rights into Bush's political cronies (yes, that's what Gonzales, among others, is) is going more than a tad overboard. Justifying it with national security is puzzling. The least Congress could do is get rid of Alberto Gonzales, which would take a bipartisan effort; many, many Republicans are on board with the idea and the Democrats have been jabbing at it for months. This new law will last six months or so, ending in early February 2008.

Just to make this more confusing, this all ties back to the legality of the 'war on terror':

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions. It maintains, however, that the program did not violate existing law because Congress implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). But the AUMF cannot reasonably be construed to implicitly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during wartime, where Congress has expressly and specifically addressed that precise question in FISA and limited any such warrantless surveillance to the first fifteen days of war.

So even under FISA the NSA program is questionable. No wait, the White House says it doesn't follow FISA rules because of the 'war on terror' powers given to the president by Congress. No worries: this new law legalizes all that existing wiretapping junk and then some.


There's balance, it's just all tilted towards the White House, (and the only checks are top secret)
In the war against terrorism there's no need to bother with those pesky courts of Constitutional practice anymore, says the White House. Congress seems to have fallen in line with that logic. And this isn't the first time. Remember the horrendous Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Isn't Congress supposed to oversee the operations of the executive? Has everyone forgotten the fundamental idea of checks and balances? With this law Congress has only given more power to the bloated, unpopular, unitary executive Bush administration that a majority of it claims to hate. It also cuts away further at the notion that Americans have rights guaranteed to them by their constitutional, and that civil liberties come with those rights. Freedom trumps security — or at least it should. But in a police state as well as in a certain way modern America (though nothing near a police state), fear rules all.

Soft on civil liberties
If the Democrats are so afraid of being painted as weak on national security, than actually being weak on civil liberties is not a very good fix. Are they more worried of what their opponents think of them and will paint them as than what they are actually doing? That's just sad.

When it comes to the reaction to national security — GWOT and its consequences — the Democrats have been disappointing. Does what your opponents think of you matter more than doing the right thing? Enjoy your recess, Congress. Hopefully you'll come back to Capitol Hill with more brains and balls.

Balkinization offers brilliant legal analysis and opinion on the 'proposed FISA "fix"', as they call it.

This post is over 1,500 words. Eventually I will probably cut it into shorter, more specific posts then expanding them. So don't be alarmed if you see a post with parts of this essay in the future.

Rock music and American pop counterculture

From the early origins of rock and roll, to the age of rebellion, to modern fads...
Popular culture and entertainment have always served something people could copy — whether that thing is a lifestyle, a drink, or a hair style. The Beatles were idolized and modeled by Western youth in the 1960s. Fonzie in the American TV show Happy Days provided a role model for many of that generation. He was cool; people wanted to be like him. Jennifer Aniston's character's hairstyle in Friends was copied enough for it to earn its own place in American fashion: "The Rachel". American pop culture has served as a promoter of turning points in American culture.

Pop culture — the widespread appeal of modern or radical cultural elements in a society — seemed to flourish in the 1960s in the form of art, just as being a rebel (i.e. counterculture) seemed like the cool thing to do. It's important to note that like many phrases, pop culture has various definitions believed by various people. A pop culture reader, Common Culture, defines pop culture as

the shared knowledge and practices of a specific group at a specific time...pop culture both reflects and influences people's way of life...pop culture is transitory, subject to change, and often an initiator of change.

Rebellion is a common theme in modern pop culture, especially in regards to music. Punk and its early rock predecessors created a lifestyle in the style of its music. Art has always been a good measurement of a society's openness, its cultural diversity, and even its political feelings. Just as punk music rocked to the voices of angst and rebellion, and the more recent emo movement has played to the (intentionally) depressed, hip-hop and rap saw their beginnings in African Americans venting against the white foundation of the United States. Dr. Dre's (et al) "Fuck the Police", Public Enemy's "Fight the Power", and, in modern rap, "Ridin' [Dirty]" have served as an outlet against a real or perceived oppressor — it's time to stand up, to rebel.

Punk rock was brought to the US in great part by the many great rock bands of the United Kingdom. Bob Dylan's pop-folk became legendary and lasted decades; Elvis Presley's individual popularity saw the role of rock and roll music in pop culture exemplified with his country and blues "rockabilly" (1950s); The Beatles brought pop and rock in general to the United States from Britain (1960s); the Rolling Stones paved the way for more blues and rock and roll (1960s-'70s); David Bowie, the 'chameleon' of rock, was especially influential in the 1970s; the Sex Pistols rocked in a purely punk fashion (1970s); Pink Floyd ushered in progressive rock (1970s) and Led Zeppelin hard rock and heavy metal (1960s-'70s); Queen created an explosion in glam, arena, and hard/progressive rock (1970s-'80s); Nirvana's grunge rock brought in an era of its own in the '90s. Most of the aforementioned came from the UK, a common trend in the history of rock, especially punk.

Especially in their beginnings, movies also served as great pioneers in change of culture and opinion. Though Hollywood didn't used to be so 'liberal' as it is today, movies and television did break down a good many of taboos. But the real counterculture movement rested in the hands of the music industry, with many of the artists introducing pop rock, punk, etc., to our borders coming from Britain. The roots of rock rest in the US though, thanks in part to the great racism against blacks in the US. Such racism also later resulted in hip-hop and rap music from mostly-black urban inter-city areas. Jazz and blues were the predecessors to rock. Scott Joplin in 1899 published a very important composition, "The Maple Leaf Rag", that would come to usher in an age of jazz by boosting the genre of ragtime. Jazz became particularly prevalent in the 1920s and '30s. Ray Charles influenced soul, and thus rock, in the '50s. Motown and soul, which branched off from early jazz in a separate direction than rock, grew in the 1950s and '60s. The early rock and roll innovators bridged what was then experimental and classical music into pop rock.
As rock became more prevalent on American airwaves and in its culture, more bands came and more branches of rock were creates. There are some who believe that rock in general is a force to use to fight against 'the man', just as Public Enemy fought 'the power'. There have often been "rock against..." movements — like "Rock Against Bush" or "Rock Against Racism". Charity events like Live Aid use rock music for a reason: it is often seen as the music of change. It's also popular and culturally influential. And how much many punk rebels want others to think of them as a small, distant, underground minority, punk and related forms of rock have entered the veins of American music, with political and cultural venting galore, and mainstream appeal. Alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, psychedelic, and punk rock all express in their music a means of change from the status quo, a rebellion of sorts also seen in some urban music (e.g. rap, hip-hop).

1970s punk rock helped build alternative rock, which was more of a culmination of various rock genres, including electronic, folk, and jazz, and indie music. Alternative rock resulted in more forms of indie, as well as grunge, Britpop, and post-punk. Marginalized in the 1980s, alternative saw its true calling in the '90s and the beginning of the next millennium. All Music Guide states:

Alternative pop/rock is essentially a catch-all term for post-punk bands from the mid-'80s to the mid-'90s. There is a multitude of musical styles within alternative rock, from the sweet melodies of jangle-pop to the disturbing metallic grind of industrial, yet are all tied together by a similar aesthetic -- they all existed and operated outside [sic] of the mainstream.

What effects on the fabric of pop culture in the United States have rebellious music reaped? The 1960s and '70s saw the real formation of modern (post Second World War) counterculture. Counterculture is the political opposition of the current mainstream by a cultural group creating a movement for a period of time. There have been many times of counterculture prevalence, but possibly none so influential, rebellious, and liberal as the counterculture of the modern era. This counterculture was spread throughout developed nations (i.e. North America, Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia) by the rebel youth largely of the Baby Boom.

Hippies were the main group of US counterculture, as opposition to the Vietnam war grew, sex, drugs, and other moral issues became less taboo (within that cultural group), and the conservative politics and culture seemed too restricting, especially in terms of civil rights (segregation) and governmental powers during the Cold War. Briefly put, counterculture of that time period brought about change by those in wealthy, educated nations. Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and non-musical figures like Andy Warhol, played large roles in this movement. Nowadays, hippies are almost nonexistent, emphasizing the place of pop-counterculture in specific period of time, and not a more evolving, drawn out phenomenon like general culture.
Just as counterculture is a wider movement, rebellion can be large or small in scale. Rebels or pseudo-rebels popped up during and after the counterculture that lasted from roughly 1965 to 1978 in the United States. Punks and indies are seen as the more mainstream survivors or evolution of the counterculture movement. Any sort of rebellious movement has fought conformity, the establishment, and the social status quo — e.g. embracing communism throughout the Cold War, opposing the Iraq war today. The main timeframe where counterculture wasn't a subculture was in its 20th century, post-WWII heyday.

There is no doubt there will be future punk manifestations in the now-postmodern art era. However, it is unlikely we will see another era of hippies, music revolutionaries, and a shift in nearly every form of Western art and culture anytime soon. Who will be the next Beatles, the next Warhol, or the next Sex Pistols? Pop culture will evolve just as art does in one sense and society in another. The anti-establishment voices in music and entertainment will continue to cry out — as long as there is an establishment or movement to fight against.

References

"Alternative rock." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

"Black History Month 2003: Timeline of Key Dates in African-American History". NPR. 2003.

"Counterculture." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Cousin Steve. "Timeline: Significant events in the history of Rock Music". 1998.

"Genre: Alternative/Indie-Rock." All Music Guide.

McKinney, Jessie. "Pop Culture Definition". Homepage. 13 Feb 2004.

Palmer, Robert. "Critic's Notebook; The Evolution of Rock, a Long and Winding Road". New York Times. 22 August 1985.

Petracca, Michael and Madeleine Sorapure. Common Culture. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2004.

"Punk ideologies." Wikipedia.

"Queen declared 'top British band'". BBC News.

Robb, John. "Popular culture: The Birth of Punk". The Independent. 5 Nov 2005.

Turnwall, Craig. "The apparent indeterminable classification of counterculture", an essay.

Van Dorston, A.S. "A History of Punk". Fast 'n' Bulbous Music Webzine.

US diplomacy in the Middle East

US diplomacy in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, and why it matters

With the previously dominant neoconservative hawks in Washington seeming to take the back seat in US foreign policy, America has finally started to embrace a more pragmatic approach to diplomacy in the Middle East — to an extent.

Diplomatic relations with such a tumultuous region can be hard to maintain at times, but keeping the channels of communication open is essential in order to help fix the problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. In addition, discussion with states like Syria and Iran can resolve ongoing tensions. Unlike war, diplomacy is soft and does not always produce immediate effects. Some are dissatisfied with the outcome of diplomacy. However, also unlike war there are few instances where diplomacy actually hurts the problem one or both sides wish to resolve.

On 3 May, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in a much-needed discussion. At the top of the agenda was Iraq, and Syria's borders — which many extremists cross through to enter Iraq — were also an issue. Even though the meeting lasted a modest 30 minutes, just the fact that Rice spoke to Moallem illustrated a turning point in the Bush administration's foreign policy. This discussion came during a conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on the Iraq issue. Iran and Syria are both in attendance, as America finally showed a more logical and less stubborn diplomatic policy in similar talks on Iraq in late March. One development of the summit comes as no surprise: Iran blames the US for Iraq's woes, which is only partially correct. Both Iran and America are to blame. Although the US started the war, and has made it worse, Iran and other external (and internal) actors have only inflamed it further.

A while back, the influential, bipartisan Iraq Study Group, or Baker-Hamilton commission, recommended in its report that the United States work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and to help stabilize and secure Iraq. This set off shockwaves in Washington, making some politicians, including President George W. Bush, show their cowboy international diplomacy mentality again — that is, they scoffed at and ignored the sensible recommendations. The ISG emphasized discussion and cooperation with all relevent Middle Eastern states, even the ones the White House had a particular distaste for. The report said:
"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability."

The meeting between Condi Rice and Walid Moallem was the first direct, official, and high-level talks between Syria and the United States in years. Remember: Syria has been labeled an 'evil' state by Bush, and an honorary member of the infamous "axis of evil". Way to be diplomatic, Mr. President. While some — including a prominent Newsweek article and conservative American commentators like Michelle Malkin — call talks like this "talking with the enemy", Rice said her discussion with the Syrian foreign minister was "professional", and that she "didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me." However positive this news might be, signs are yet to reveal themselves of direct talks between the US and Iran. America came close to talking to its Persian arch-nemesis, but an official diplomatic discussion never panned out. Neither American nor Iranian diplomats actually took the initiative of beginning the discussion, another reflection of the state of US diplomacy in the Middle East. Further, more broad discussions are also needed between the United States and Syria.

The two-day summit on Iraq resulted in an International Compact for Iraq (ICI), a five-year plan for financial help and 'national reconciliation' for Iraq. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon placed the stated 'financial commitments' to Iraq at over $30 billion. The conference included delegations from the United States, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and the European Union. Such a summit brought together all the G8 and UN Security Council powers, several members of the Arab League, and then some, but was still seen as a relative failure. Nevertheless, it brought more attention to the Iraq humanitarian issue of international interest. The conference also brought out a less resistive foreign policy from the US.

As this is the Middle East, surely not in its finest days, pessimism remains. Abd-al-Bari Atwan wrote in the Pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, translated by BBC Monitoring:
"The Sharm al-Shaykh conference will conclude by issuing a communique. There will be a photo opportunity and smiles, but, after that, the region will return to its situation and the conditions in Iraq will be even more dangerous and turbulent."

In these times it's hard to talk about Syria without bringing up Iran. They’re currently like two peas on a pod. But things didn’t used to be so peachy for Syrian-Iranian relations. Isolation by the United States and the fall of Saddam Hussein's Iraq are a couple of factors that have led to Syria getting closer to Iran — a predominantly Shia nation and wannabe nuclear power slated as the next regional power. In fact, Saddam's overthrow has led to a massive inbalence of power. The ruthless dictator, now dead, kept Iran, and many sectarian factions, in check.

In early April, there was a row over the decision by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visit to Syria. Syria is a Middle Eastern nation that had been isolated by the Bush administration in some misguided notion of hope that alienating an active power in a region that needs all the help it can get would help things. Of course Pelosi’s excursion revealed a wider hypocrisy: the fact that a Republican delegation had visited earlier left the White House and the media unfettered, as did the visit of representative, Darrell Issa (R-CA), on 5 April — a day after Pelosi’s much-debated trip. Like Pelosi, Issa met with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, a dictator, but one with the potential for more amiable feelings for the United States.

The White House said that Pelosi's trip 'sent the wrong message', making Syria think it is a valid member of the international community. This level of logic is not the kind that should be resonating from the White House press room, nor any other branch of the government. Of course, as the Bush administration intends to alienate nations like Syria, it is doing a fine job, depending on how you look at it. While America and Syria are not very engaged, Syria is less likely to help the US on issues like, say, Iraq. Iraq is devastated as it is, and the militants and terrorists within its borders do not need any more additions.

I supported Nancy Pelosi's recent (unofficial, non-policy related) diplomatic trip to Syria, whether a political stunt or not. By isolating Syria, this current administration has forced it nearer to Iran — by no means a positive influence. Lucky for the US, Syria is open to working with America and has an interest in the outcome of the current civil conflict in Iraq as well as the spread radical Islamic terrorism. The Syrians have even more to worry about political stability against terrorists than the US does: they are situated in the Middle East hotbed of terror, America is not. Along with many experts and foreign governments, the Iraq Study Group and many members of Congress have urged the White House to talk to Syria before relations deteriorate further and Iraq gets even worse.

Syria’s foreign policy remained fairly moderate — that is, until they were shunned by the United States. Syria also fights against terrorist groups and ideologies like jihad and al-Qaeda, and has an interest in the wider Middle East conflicts. Pelosi has met with the Syrian foreign minister and is expected to talk with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian press has been very friendly to Pelosi, slapping labels such as 'brave lady' to the first ever female speaker and highest ranking Congressional Democrat; Syrian — mostly state-run — media pointed to her visit as 'positive'.

Not only does the transnational flow of terrorists and their radical movements need to be halted, but a helpful combination of good PR, economic agreements, and open-channel diplomacy should be kept with states suspected of harboring — or even directly or indirectly supporting — terrorism. Countries like Syria, which is a major hub for insurgents entering Iraq, could help in the fight against terrorism if they were not shunned by the US. In Syria's case, good relations with America could even bring the state further from more devious states like Iran. Lest we forget, terrorism is a problem for other governments too, even 'evil' ones. Most every state in the Middle East and North Africa fears terrorism of the radical Islamic persuasion.

Channels of diplomacy need to be kept open. US-Syria relations are needed and welcomed by Syria. Syria isn’t as seemingly sinister or incessantly meddling as Iran, and its close relations to Iran deal largely with the United States. Unlike Iran, Syria is not interested in a so-called Shia crescent across the Mid-East. Syria may be authoritarian, but so is Egypt, an American ally, which shares the Syrian policy against Islamic extremism. Iran has been a (mostly) bad influence on Syria, but there is still hope.

The common misconception is that the US talking to Syria is like talking to the enemy, whomever the enemy actually is. In reality, neither Syria nor Iran are real enemies. Al-Qaeda — or what’s left of it — is an enemy; Nazi Germany was the enemy in World War II, of course that was easier to define because it was a nation-state, not a movement or ideology. It is hard to make the case that diplomatic relations with Syria would hurt. There is also the tolerance issue. While we shouldn’t tolerate Syria’s mass human rights abuses, for instance, how was Nancy Pelosi a terrorist when she put on a frankly western-looking headdress? Just because others are different doesn’t make them wrong, yet another issue both the extremist fringe in Washington and in Tehran and Damascus need to recognize. There’s one thing the US has in common with Iran, Syria, and certainly others.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. Just because Syria has a deplorable human rights record shouldn’t keep the US from talking to it. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan also commit unjustified acts, and America remains close diplomatic relations with those three countries. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, America and the international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, and win for Middle East and international political stability; both good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).

The US cannot fight its war — in Iraq or against the ever-ambigious 'terror' — alone. It needs to be willing to reach out to friends and foes alike, observing the greater good while still keeping on the ethical side of things. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two American 'allies' and key political players, have hosted recent Middle East diplomatic initiatives on topics ranging from a new Palestinian unity government to the aforementioned multi-national solution for Iraq's woes. Be sure to keep an eye on these not-too-radical nations as diplomacy in the Mid-East progresses, hopefully in a forward direction.

May 2007 has seen a shift in White House policy on discourse with states like Syria. While it is good that the world’s powers are meeting — hopefully on equal grounds — on a topic as important as Iraq, one must wonder what has really been accomplished by meetings like the one in early May. Keeping up efforts to work alongside the United Nations, by any means a bastion of global diplomacy, is a best bet if the State Department really has modified its policy for the better.

It's time for all parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the Iraqi civil war to open their minds and look at the sensible options. At the moment US popularity is very low. That should only encourage and give warrant to a flexible diplomatic campaign, an emphasis on multilateralism, and the need for a massive rethink of the Bush administration's "Global War on Terrorism". A diplomatic, multilateral foreign policy campaign has been dismissed time and time again for a militant, unilateral 'us against them', 'with us or against us' policy. We've seen the disastrous effects of such a policy. It's time for change.

Work in progress... 'The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox'

I am currently working on a lengthy paper on the 'fire paradox' and the 'war on terror'.

Excerpts (not yet edited; may sound choppy):
Current United States policy on managing terrorism and insurgency is a fire paradox of sorts. Why many current counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency, policies only make it all worse: the US Global War on Terror and the proliferation of the radical, fundamentalist Islamic ideology in a terrorist insurgency.

Whether fighting the foreign occupiers in Iraq, fighting the 'western menace' from within its own borders, or rallying on some other jihadist front, there is a new kind of terrorism and no one seems to know what to define it as. Call it an insurgency against the West, call it a rebellious movement, call it pure terrorism, call it a fundamentalist wave in the Muslim world...
_____
They fear the west; westerners fear them. The middlemen? The governments of the West, namely of the US, and the extremist Islamic groups.
_____
From the White House press briefings to the Mujahideen spin machine, there’s one thing both sides have in common, besides exploiting their own people’s fears and insecurities and irrationality: propaganda.
_____
It all ties into politics and public perception. This kind of terrorism cannot exist without a great deal of public support, and its roots tie deeply into societal conditions and political relations.
_____
One underlying cause for the terrorism/counterterrorism culture is the public’s obsession with terrorism.
_____
After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks (9/11), Americans defied the terrorists, at least in the way the government wanted, by showing their patriotism and continuing their American way of life. After all, the terrorists attacked because they were angry at the US`s freedom, right?

Yet as soon as the Bush White House noted how easily people could be controlled and manipulated for political capital, the guise of a war on terror was put up. There’s no vast conspiracy, but the Bush administration did use 9/11 as an excuse for its many following endeavors in fronts in its global war on terrorism (GWOT).

Centralizing power, "us against them" throughout history

ESSAY: Centralizing power
Religious and governmental institutions throughout history.

Move people against others (e.g. those different); partisanship to garner support.

"Us against them" and "either you are with us or against us". "They are bad — because they are different."

Utilizing few to have power over many instead of many over few.

For example, in Nazi-era Germany, for instance, the government rallied against the Jews, showing them as an “inferior race”. However, the Nazis also used the fact that Jews tended to be more well to do than most other Germans to strengthen their anti-Semitic ideals. Any rational person able to break free from society’s hold on their mind and opinions would see that the calling Jews inferior and pointing that that they are richer is both contradictory and self-defeating. However desperate people (many Germans at that time) along with centralized power and strengthening that power by blaming things on others and showing them as the enemy helped Hitler in his quest for domination — however psychotic it may be. Saying ‘we are good, they are bad’ can be a good way to strengthen one’s power and legitimacy, obviously it can also backfire. It depends on the circumstance. Some humans are lucky enough to be able to see through some of the blinders those in power — or those trying to get into power — put in place. Sometimes these people are not powerful enough to break through the system anyway. That is where information, communication come in. The spread of information can either bring down or support an establishment; communication and this flow of knowledge is not always non-exclusive, but if it is made available, it is often utilized — to the dismay to those in power (unless they are appreciated by those with access and control over such information).


[tagname]

Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?

Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.

The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.

2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.

Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.

Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.

After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.

Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.

The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.

Political climate
The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.

One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.

Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.

It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.

I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.

Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.

The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.

technorati tags: democrats, republicans, gop, dems, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, bush, chaney, delay, house, congress, usa, united+states, politics, news, current+affairs, in+the+news, iraq, white+house, 2006, elections, midterm, essay, opinion, news, president, senate, 100-hour+plan, minimum+wage, economy, domestic+issues, liberals, conservatives, ideologies, demographics, gengrich, newt, feingold, feinstein, boxer, california, kennedy, history, analysis, veto, gridlock, majority, in+perspective, clearthought

Essay on identity, political correctness, and the uncontrollable factors of one's life

Though I consider myself centre-left, liberal in modern, relatively conservative America, I do not believe in affirmative action. Is it not hypocrisy to fill up positions that would be for those possibly better suited for them with people who are minorities — just because they are of “minority” ethnic status? Keep in mind there is no “average American” (you can’t have 2.2 children), though the vast, vast majority of those living in the United States describe themselves as “average”. Another issue I have been dealing with is that of identity. If I were black, or African American, would I care more about African American civil rights in the US, or anywhere with those of African descent? Race is something that is biological. Although the term “race” sometimes makes people forget we are all of the same race; we are all humans… for the sake of this writing, I’ll ignore that semantic aspect.

Traits that are biological are — for the most part — uncontrollable factors by us, as is gender, etc. We have seen what happens when people change the color of their skin or modify the sex of their body, and that receives a usually-bitter response from society in general. If we are to look at each other in a way where we cannot change these biological and uncontrollable traits, and many times it is scientifically impossible to do so, should the fact that I am not black hinder me from caring about the human rights of those who are not of the same close descent as me? Although I think you are what you are, people should be able to do those things to their body unless it is endangering themselves or the livelihood of others.

Since the era of African American civil rights, largely in the 1950s and 60s, all of America seems to be stuck in a time warp. Of political correctness — which is often hypocritical and irrational, like religion —, of viewing others as equal even though many think otherwise, of not questioning how Americans are supposed to look at things and keeping the status quo. Although I am not totally against political correctness, it does stifle free thought and free speech in ways I obviously do not promote. This era of excessive close-mindedness needs to come to an end, as does the one oppressing homosexuals, which is quite tantamount to past oppressions of those of African descent, et al. (See my views on gays in this post and this one, more soon.)

So, my question is this, does someone view the world differently for being different via an uncontrollable factor, e.g. being black instead of white? Even if they are not treated differently (which is sadly unlikely, even in this day in age)? Even if they can dissociate themselves from racial and other uncontrollable factors’ generalization and stereotypical labels from society as a whole?

technorati tags: politically+correct, race, racism, affirmitive+action, identity, society, essay, in+perspective, clearthought, race, gays, thinking, united+states, black, white, african-americans, being, life, sociology, opinion, politics