Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Friday, February 3, 2017

The United States should take a deep breath, and stop killing Muslims. Killing Muslims is especially unproductive, as the US recent history shows


A friend, son of a theologian, read the entire Quran and came to the same conclusion, that it is inherently war-like and expansionist. A reading of the whole Bible would likely lead one to the same conclusion.  Surely the Crusaders thought that. 

Saudi, in their Wahhabist beliefs, share that view and have spent billions on Madrases throughout Southern Asia and Salafi jihadists in Syria to propagate the view that Sharia is inherently at odds with all other beliefs, and all others are apostate or worse and should be converted, by force of arms if necessary.  

Saudi Arabia, with vast oil money and the corruption that brings, has weakened that view and now cooperates with the West. 

The Islamic State’s main objective is to capture Mecca  and establish Wahhabism as it was originally practiced by Saudi Arabia.  The Islamic State correctly regards Saudi Arabia as lapsed and apostate and a proper object for invasion.  Not incidentally, if the Islamic State were to control Mecca, its claim to be the Caliphate would be greatly strengthened.  See The Kingdom and the Caliphate: Duel of the Islamic States - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

The United States is at war with the Islamic State to protect Saudi Arabia, since none of its Islamic neighbors has agreed to lend a hand.  The United States has had a cooperative agreement with Saudi Arabia on oil, from the end of WWII.  Up until the First Gulf War, the  Saudi gave the United States a 20% break on the price of oil, which helped propel the United States into global military superiority.

The Islamic State' war on the West (and the rest of the world) is secondary to the war on Saudi Arabia, in the view of the Islamic State; or was until the United States  began bombing the shit out of ‘em.  The United States has now made another longstanding enemy in the Middle East. 

Each member of the Bushco-Obama-Trumpist cabal has had as a core foreign policy to kill Muslims, no matter how the foreign policy is expressed.   Trumpists are the most open about their eagerness to kill Muslims no matter the Muslims' actual beliefs and so the Trumpists are the most likely to unbalance the precarious and existentially necessary peace that has now lasted since the end of WWII, with local exceptions (Vietnam, e.g.). Necessary because of the Bomb.

(for younguns who may not remember
. . . "that man is endowed with a mushroom-shaped Cloud". . . .)


Iran’s religion, for example, is not expansionist, or wasn’t until recently.  See Nasr, The Shia Revival. Expansionism is not an integral part of Shia beliefs, but a reaction to external threats.  Peace with Iran is possible.  Peace with the obesely-rich Saudi is probably possible because it needs the West to buy its oil, but we must stop killing Yemeni and must pay to rebuild that unhappy land. 

Letting the only two Wahhabist states in the world — Saudi Arabia and the  Islamic State -- settle their own differences is a better course of action than trying to protect Saudi Arabia by  killing more Muslims. Killing Muslims has not worked out well for Bushco or Obama, and will not work out well for the Trumpists either.  

Bad for all the world. Sad but, I think, true.  Hope still springs eternal, but not as spritely as it used to do.
           

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Where are the Arab boots on the ground, or in the air, in the IS fight

Jordan's Arab King Abdullahcriticizes President Obama on IS:  but where are the Arab boots on the ground, or in the air, in the IS fight?  

There is a rift between Jordan and the US and that's a pity, because Joran is on the side of he Angels on Palestine.  Stubborn facts get in the way.


  • Jordan has an effective special ops force and intelligence unit, size unspecified; 
  • Egypt has 438,500 active military members, financed handsomely by the United States; 
  • Saudi Arabia has 75,000 troops ready and available to fight IS; 
  • Bahrain has 13,000 troops and is protected by the US 5th Fleet, stationed there; 
  • the UAE has 65,000 troops; 
  • Pakistan (a Muslim country but not primarily an Arab one) has 617,000 active duty troops as of 2010; Somalia, capable of waring on helpless Yemen, has 36,000 troops. [Estimates of troop strength are from Wikipedia.  Other sources have similar estimates.]


All of the Arab countries receive a lot of money from the United States for their military. 

Not one of the Arab countries has a single trooper in Iraq or in Syria to fight IS and the Pakistan parliament has recently voted to withhold troops from Saudi Arabia even if it were invaded by IS.

Individuals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE have spent billions arming "Salafi jihadism, . . .  a transnational religious-political ideology based on a belief in violent jihadism and the Salafi movement of returning to (what adherents believe to be) 'true' Sunni Islam" Salafi jihadists don't fight IS which shares the same transnational religious-political ideology  Rather, the aim to establish a fundamentalist religions Sunni government in Syria compatible with their own religious and political beliefs, an objective which neither Russia nor Iran, for different and valid reasons, can tolerate.

President Obama is being rational and responsible, under these circumstances, to chart a cautions, middle course.  King Abdullah should direct his ire at his fellow Arab nations.

An Al Monitor article, favorable to King Abdullah, is below. 


President Barack Obama walks to board Air Force One for Nebraska and Louisiana, after a short meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Jan. 13, 2016.  (photo by REUTERS/Carlos Barria)

State of the Union highlights Jordan’s rift with Obama
Despite the harsh divide among Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy, the importance of Jordan has been a unifying theme. Donald Trump praised King Abdullah on Twitter and Ohio Gov. John Kasich wished in a presidential debate that Jordan’s king “would reign for a thousand years.” In stark contrast to the Republicans, President Barack Obama downplayed or did not mention Amman’s most critical national priorities — the Islamic State [IS], Palestine and the war in Syria — during his Jan. 12 State of the Union address.
January 13, 2016
Addressing members of Congress that evening, Obama emphasized, “As we focus on destroying [IS], over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands.” The American leader’s assertion that such dire warnings about IS are misguided directly contradict one of Abdullah’s main talking points when traveling overseas.

Over and over — whether at the United Nations General Assembly podium, during an interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose or even in Kosovo — the Jordanian monarch has declared that the battle against IS is “a third world war, and I believe we must respond with equal intensity.”

After IS kidnapped Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath Al-Kaseasbeh and burned him alive in a cage in February of last year, the Jordanian air force launched a series of strikes against IS targets in Syria and Iraq. Jordan claimed to have killed 7,000 fighters in the days following Kaseasbeh’s execution.

Obama’s minimizing of the IS campaign speaks to a fundamental divergence with Abdullah and has led many leading thinkers in Amman to question America’s determination and willingness to, in the president’s own words, “degrade and ultimately destroy [IS]." If the world’s strongest and most advanced military cannot defeat a far inferior and less organized group, what are Obama’s true intentions?

In addition to IS, the State of the Union illustrated a major policy rift with Amman regarding the Palestinian peace process. Obama did not once bother to mention Palestine or Israel in the speech setting up his administration’s goals for the upcoming year. Here again, Jordanian leaders take an opposite approach to this sensitive issue. House Speaker Atif Tarawneh said in October, “Jordan, under the leadership of King Abdullah II, has placed the Palestinian issue on top of its priorities.” Amman raises the urgent need to create a Palestinian state in almost every meeting abroad.

The Hashemite Kingdom’s difference with the Obama administration is not solely focused on this speech, but rather encompasses a larger policy divide. Since Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace efforts stalled in 2014, the United States has not led an ongoing effort to end the Palestinian conflict. White House Middle East coordinator Rob Malley told reporters in November that reaching a negotiated solution between the parties during Obama’s remaining term “is not in the cards.” In contrast to Amman’s wishes, the Obama administration no longer prioritizes tackling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a region filled with violence.

Even before the speech, it was difficult to ignore the missing element in Abdullah’s Washington itinerary Jan. 12. After traveling thousands of miles, the king initially could not secure a meeting with Obama because of "scheduling conflicts." However, the two did meet briefly Jan. 13 at Andrews Air Force Base before both departed on separate trips. A longtime and dependable US ally despite the Middle East’s turmoil arrives in the US capital, but Obama could not carve out more than about five minutes for the king.

In addition to the battle against IS, nearly five years of fighting in Syria have dramatically impacted next-door Jordan. Jordan has absorbed over 630,000 Syrian refugees, according to the United Nations (one diplomat estimates that Syrians represent about 20% of Jordan’s population), and Abdullah has repeatedly called for decisive action to end the conflict. Yet, in Obama’s brief mentioning of the bloody crisis that has killed some 250,000 people, the US president appeared satisfied with US policy. Obama cites Syria as an example of the “smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power” by partnering with local forces — despite the fact that the conflict’s violence has only been spreading.

It is no wonder that in recent months, Abdullah has met multiple times with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a US rival, during trips to Moscow to discuss developments in the Middle East. The United States provides Jordan with significant financial aid, but mere monetary assistance is no longer sufficient in tackling the region’s spiraling crises. With Putin demonstrating decisive action in his military intervention alongside Damascus while daylight grows between Abdullah and Obama over IS, Palestine and Syria, the king may question whether the United States is truly a reliable Jordanian ally during such uncertain times.





Monday, July 20, 2015

Three views, each surprising in a way, on the Ian deal


Following is an interesting juxtaposition of views from Washington, Iran, and Israel, more hopeful than you may have been lead to suspect.

Obama sounds almost scientific in his approach to diplomacy and is surely the first American president to take the Sunni states to task.

The Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is looking for ways to open conversation with the Sunni States, who for 1,600 years have regarded Shiites as unclean apostates.  

Netanyahu is reported to consider alternatives to implacable opposition to Obama and his defense establishment is reported to be supporting him in that.

I'm hopeful of a brighter tomorrow.


Week in Review
Monday, July 20, 2015
Obama calls for 'practical conversation' between Iran, Arab states


US President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference about the recent nuclear deal reached with Iran, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, July 15, 2015.

Obama: Don’t blame Iran for every problem.

US President Barack Obama this past week called on America’s Arab allies to begin a “practical conversation” with Iran to reduce sectarian divisions and address shared threats from terrorism.

Although Obama stressed that the purpose of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed between the P5+1 countries and Iran on July 14 was to prevent Iran from a nuclear weapons breakout over the next 10 years, not to change Iran’s behavior, he also made clear that the region needs a new approach and attitude toward regional security.

Obama told Thomas Friedman of The New York Times on July 15, “What I think is undeniable is that the sectarian forces that have been unleashed are adding to the viciousness and destructiveness of what’s happening in a place like Syria, what’s happening in a place like Yemen, what’s happening certainly in Iraq. And that our best chance at least reducing the scope of those conflicts is for the Saudis and other Sunni states or Arab states to be at least in a practical conversation with Iran that says, `The conflict we are fanning right now could engulf us all in flames.’”

Obama made clear that while the United States is committed to deeper security cooperation with its Arab Gulf allies, those states must also address their own issues of accountability and governance.

“America has to listen to our Sunni Arab allies, but also not fall into the trap of letting them blame every problem on Iran. The citizens of more than a few Arab Gulf states have been big contributors to Sunni jihadist movements that have been equally destabilizing,” he said.

Obama added, “You weep for the children of this region, not just the ones who are being displaced in Syria, not just the ones who are currently suffering from humanitarian situations in Yemen, but just the ordinary Iranian youth or Saudi youth or Kuwaiti youth who are asking themselves, `Why is it that we don’t have the same prospects [as] some kid in Finland, Singapore, China, Indonesia, the United States? Why aren’t we seeing that same possibility, that same sense of hopefulness?’ And I think that’s what the leaders have to really focus on.”

Zarif: Diplomacy with Arab world "most important priority"

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif emphasized the possibilities for regional cooperation in an interview with Ali Hashem shortly after concluding negotiations over the JCPOA in Vienna.

“So now my call to our friends and brothers in the Persian Gulf, in the broader Arab world, is that Iran is ready to engage in good faith with all of them based on mutual respect, good neighborliness and Islamic brotherhood. We have many common challenges to fight, and we have many common opportunities to benefit from, and this is [the] time to start working together, and this [is] my government's most important priority right now. To engage with neighbors, to expand relations with neighbors, to cooperate with neighbors against our most common challenges, and extremism and terrorism are the most important challenges to our region,” Zarif told Al-Monitor.

Zarif had harsher words for Israel, claiming that “peace is an existential threat to them,” and that the deal “will remove a smokescreen [behind] which Israel was standing and hiding its criminal activities against the people of Lebanon and the people of Palestine.”

Netanyahu weighs costs of Iran deal

Ben Caspit reports this week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “will have to make a very difficult decision over the next few days: whether to continue fighting the nuclear agreement with Iran with all his strength and, according to his spokespeople, ‘kill himself’ over the vote in the US Congress or accept defeat and try to leverage something for the benefit of the security of the State of Israel.”

Akiva Eldar writes that Netanyahu, whose opposition to the Iran nuclear deal has contributed to a deterioration in US-Israel ties, “will bear sole responsibility for its failure.”

Eldar adds, “The defeat in the campaign to foil the Iranian plot to destroy Israel, as Netanyahu claims, will bear his name. The man who chose to personally lead one of the most difficult and intricate diplomatic missions that Israel has undertaken since its inception — if not the most difficult and intricate of them all — will bear sole responsibility for its failure. But we will all pay the price for the deep erosion in the estimation of Israel’s international influence and of the wisdom of its leaders.”

Mazal Mualem reports that Netanyahu may alternatively consider the Iran agreement as a political opportunity: “It is possible that Netanyahu considers Israel’s anxiety over the nuclear agreement with Iran as an opportunity to advance a common agenda shared by him and [Isaac] Herzog, and thereby bring the Zionist Camp into the government.”

In another Al-Monitor article, Eldar argues that the agreement should be a different type of opportunity for Netanyahu: “Removing the Iranian threat from the headlines would make way for dealing with the constantly increasing threat of Israel becoming a binational state or an apartheid regime within less than a decade. In recent years, Netanyahu has engaged the world with curbing the Iranian nuclear program, demanding an ever-stricter sanctions regime. In the coming years, the world might be engaged in curbing the Israeli occupation regime and demanding tighter sanctions against the settlements.”

Although Obama said in his interview with Friedman, “I’m prepared to go further than any other administration’s gone before in terms of providing them additional security assurances from the United States,” Netanyahu was not reassured after speaking July 14 with the US president who, according to the White House, “underscored his Administration’s stalwart commitment to Israel’s security and noted that the JCPOA will remove the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, an outcome in the national security interest of the United States and Israel … and that today's agreement on the nuclear issue will not diminish our concerns regarding Iran's support for terrorism and threats toward Israel.”

Caspit reports, “Many in Israel’s defense establishment think Israel should accept the US offer [of a security compensation package], call a halt to its stubborn and hopeless public fight with Obama and start preparing for 'the day after.' The prevailing assessment in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and other security agencies in Israel is that the nuclear agreement in itself is not terrible and that it does, in fact, defer Iran’s nuclearization for 10 or 15 years, at least.”

Caspit observes that some Israeli officials have received “veiled messages” that “Israel’s continued war against the US administration will ultimately seep into the thriving US-Israel security relations.”

Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon told Caspit on July 13, “On the question of cooperation and everything to do with intelligence, reports and updates, everything is alive and well. The Americans have been busy with the minute details over the past few days, so the updates haven’t been as frequent as they were in the past, but that doesn’t make much of a difference. We have an open debate with the Americans over principles. We think one way. They think the other way. Time will tell who was right.”

_____________________

. . . and the Saudi's impotent, brutal slaughter continues in Yemen, supported by the US and Britain.  The US and Britain are the new Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde.











Thursday, April 23, 2015

The bombing in ¥emen hasen't stopped, and neither have the Houthi


Well, in spite of Obama’s intervention, the bombing hasn’t ended in Sana’a or Taiz and naval bombardments on Aden continue unabated.  The air bombings have lessened in San’a.

For illuminating  tweets from Yemeni collected by The Times, see 


   
If you don’t know Taiz, also on the Red Sea, here are some images.  The bomb bursts are from the last 24 hours.







 


Many more on line.

Bombs bursting at night gave proof to our troops, years age, that American's flag still flew.  Bombs bursting at night give young Yemeni a determination to take control of their government, at any price.  



In Arabic, for my self:

أنا اليمنية [I am Yemeni!]

In German, as paraphrased from Kennedy:

Ich bin ein jemenitischen!

And, damn it,   you and I are also Saudi: kith and kin, no more than six degrees of separation. And yes, Houthi, oo.   

And we also, if born into a  Christian, Jewish, or Muslim tradition, in theory, respect the Holy Prophet Abraham.

Yours for victory in Yemen!  

d

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Persian Gulf Monarchs and the Syrian Tragedy

Below is an erudite and unsatisfactory article on Syria.

It's main focus is on Turkey's felt need for US War on Syria which strikes me as exceedingly odd.  Turkey and Russia are the greatest military forces in Central Asia and each has a much greater interest in the outcome of the Syrian rebellion than does the US; and yet they, and the Gulf Dictators and the Israeli incipient dictator angrily demand that the US undertake Syrian War for them, while they sit on the sidelines.

There are three reasons for a rampant belief that the US has an  oblivion to War on Syria:

••  Bushco's War on Iraq is a president, no matter how badly the War turned out;

••  the US spends more on War and preparation for War than all other countries combined, so we have an unparalleled capacity for War;

•• finally, by proclaiming ourselves as The Preeminent Superpower of the World Beside Which All Others Pale, we invite angry demands when we don't act as our allies' surrogate everywhere.

Relying on the Bushco Iraq Fiasco is misplaced.  And it is high time that the US abandon it "exceptionalist" fantasy,  reduce military spending, and focus on home needs.  The military members who would be put out of work will need goodie it-paying jobs with benefits as generous as the military provides, and we can provide those jobs with a variety of public works initiates  from a Civilian Conservation Corps to executive positions in construction companies.  Close oil company tax loopholes to pay for rebuilding America.

The article below is is well written by Morton Abramowitz,my age, whom you can google, as you can google the publisher, The National Interest, an interesting bunch of mostly nemonic folks who seem to be coming around to a Centrist point of view.   Welcomed indeed.

A note on the refugees:


The US has spent $800,000 on humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees, and has accepted 2,000 immigrants.

The European Union has sent aid worth nearly €1,800 million ($2,430 million) in relief and recovery aid for Syrian refugees from both the Commission and Member States. Making it the largest international contributor to Syrian refugees both internally and externally displaced.  Quoted from Wikipedia.

Many other countries have provide money or asylum.  For a list, see here.

The Villains in the Syria tragedy are these:

Kuwait, so far as is known, has contributed nothing toward refugee relief, and according to reports funnels the largest private donations, totaling billions, to the Sunni Salafi who are determined to turn Syria into a Sunni Salafi state, against the overwhelming wishes of most people who live in Syria.

Qatar's total response to the refugee crisis is sponsoring 42 Syrian refugees as "guests of  the Emir", while it spends more than 2 Billion Dollars supporting Salafi and other rebels.

The Saudi have pledges but not paid $10 Million as aid to refugees in Jordan, and spends an unspecified amount, estimated in Billions, to support Salafi rebels in Syria.
The National Interest
U.S., Turkey Still Split on Syria 

Morton AbramowitzOmer Zarpli November 6, 2013 

Syria has become Turkish prime minister Erdogan’s albatross. It also continues to undermine American-Turkish relations. 
After sitting on the fence for two years, President Obama has crossed off military options, and focuses on pushing the various sides to the negotiating table. Erdogan, on the other hand, believes that won’t work and persists that Assad must be destroyed no matter the costs if there is to be peace. Closing this gap will not be easy. Nor is it the only gap in Turkish-American relations. 
The costs of the Syrian war and Erdogan’s policies continue to be enormous for Turkey: six hundred thousand refugees and counting, billions of dollars to support them and Syrian resistance elements, increasing sectarian differences in his own country, a trouble-ridden border exploited by jihadists, the apparent emergence of a Kurdish autonomous entity in Syria complicating Turkey’s own Kurdish problem, and the erosion of his favored Muslim Brotherhood parties. Continuing failure in Syria has damaged Erdogan’s decade-long political omnipotence and can affect three important Turkish elections over the next eighteen months and thus his political future. 
Washington and Ankara agreed early on that Assad must go, but that’s about as far as it went. In coming out against his once bosom friend and throwing his weight behind the opposition, Erdogan miscalculated both Assad’s staying power and US readiness to intervene. It gradually became clear that Washington had no military strategy to hasten Assad’s exit or any intent to get seriously involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. Calls by Erdogan and Arab allies to actively support the rebels and create no-fly zones or humanitarian corridors fell on deaf ears. Lack of American initiative coupled with Turkey’s sectarian approach to the conflict put the two allies at further loggerheads. Worse, Erdogan’s effort to hasten Assad’s departure as well as prevent a Kurdish autonomous area by supporting radical jihadists angered the United States and justified its determination not to get deeply involved in militarily supporting the resistance. The split could recently be graphically seen in recent attacks in major American newspapers on senior Turkish officials providing support to jihadist [sic] groups. The Turkish government now declares it is not supporting such groups, but for now that must be taken with a grain of salt. 
The September chemical weapons deal and renewed focus on diplomatic talks hit Erdogan hard. He expected that Assad’s crossing of Obama’s “red line” would lead to a decisive Western action, and he was prepared to hold America’s coat. 
But Assad’s August chemical attack produced diplomacy, not the expected military intervention or greater military support to opposition forces. The US-Russian agreement virtually assured that Assad would remain in power to implement the deal for at least another six months. While the accord significantly reduced the threat of terrorists getting hold of chemical weapons, it also helped boost the regime by averting direct American military intervention and preserving Assad’s conventional capabilities. 
Nor, apparently, did Obama consult with Erdogan before making the agreement. 
Washington’s U-turn and the renewed focus on diplomacy has left Erdogan even more solitary and with little influence to turn the tide. In public, the Turkish government supports the agreement and the planned talks in Geneva, but they and most everyone else have little faith that diplomacy in present circumstances will accelerate Assad’s departure. Erdogan, of course, remains a skilled politician who can change course if events and politics require—he has recently begun to do so in Iraq and made nice (if meaningless) noises with Iran—but Syria offers enormous difficulty. 
Aligning the U.S and Turkish positions on resolving the war will require both partners to review their current policies. Turks may have to accept a political settlement in which the regime will play some role, and Washington will need to recognize that it needs to be more involved militarily to bring both opposition and the government to the table and to make Geneva II a success.  [Emphasis added.]


Images from the Web:

Two million Syrian refugees in Turkey:






















A hundred thousand Syrian refugees in Lebanon









200,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan




Could be Raymondville, Texas, 1945, during cotton season
Excpt we were free.











Syrian refugees in Kurdistan in Iraq

Peshmerga helping out











Some Sunni Muslim fundamentalists -- Wahhabis or Salafists -- would like to advance their world view everywhere, just as some Christian fundamentalists would like to do the same.  Christians have finally given up advancing their cause by the Sword; Sunni Muslims have not.  They need to learn how to live in the 21st Century.  We need to teach them, as gently as possible.  Their urgency hurts lot of people.

It is not for the dead that I cry on these spendrift pages, but for those left behind, to mourn and thirst for revenge.