Going rogue

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-trump-syria-turkey-kurds-181642374.html
10/16/19: Nancy Pelosi to Donald Trump: "all roads with you lead to Putin"

It is a rare day in US politics when both the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel, a Republican, and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of House, ia Democrat, are on the same page...opposing Trump's pulling US forces from our Kurdish colleagues in northern Syria. This is not the first time there has been overwhelming bi-partisan agreement and that was Congress' appropriation to supplying military aid to Ukraine. Both are national security questions, but Ukraine is entangled in Trump's domestic political support since it has to do with Russia and his bromance with foreign policy goals of Russa and Putin. Russia is seen as a support group for Trump's elections in 2016 and 2020 balanced with concerns for possible Russian involving NATO in a conflict. Aid to non-NATO Ukraine is popular among both parties to stop Russia before they get the idea they have an open road to take over the Baltics, NATO members. Trump has already stated he did not care much for the mutual defense of the Baltics by NATO. Syria is another situation: there is no conflict among GOP Senators about the Syrian conflict because it involves ISIS. They understand the repercussions of Trump's singular policy of letting Turkey wipe out our Kurdish allies. It would unleash ISIS again to re-emerge as terrorists, and maybe reestablish the lands they once controlled as a Caliphate. Perhaps the GOP and devoted GOP supporters are beginning to realize that their President has gone rogue, out of control of even their party leaders, and ignoring the firestorm he has sparked.in even defying them. After the issue had been discussed, leading to the resignation of Gen. Mattis, who could not support leaving the Kurds high and dry without US air support and supplies and special forces skills. In a spur of a nighttime call with Turkey's President Erdogan, Trump ordered the withdrawal and standdown of US troops without any further consultation with anyone, Pentagon, Senate .. Erdogan a near dictator of Turkey, is rumored to running into opposition in his own homeland and may be needing to rally Turks around the flag . We must remember, too, that Turkey has a frightening record of conducting ethnic cleansing, destroying ethnic Armenians. The Kurds are right to fear any movement of Turkish troops will result in ethnic cleansing of Kurds, who Turkey considers terrorists, not US allies.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/16/trumps-syria-expected-condemned-house-vote/3992184002/?csp=chromepush

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/military-officers-trump/598360/?fbclid=IwAR30A4lhDWJpW47rziJErAVCFNH21ZC_B9NbEgQaPV4lZCkS1AgIpuThW80

Trump gives "intelligence" a bad name.

A version of this was published on line at the Sky Hi News, February 5, 2019
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion-muftic-trump-gives-intelligence-a-bad-name/

Aside from reports Donald Trump has a short attention span and poor reading comprehension skills, there is another disturbing meaning to Trump's definition of   "intelligence".  Those who have tried to brief him, including his former secretary of state, reportedly called him a “***moron “. There are recent reports by other intelligence briefers who said he was "willfully ignorant" and he exploded in anger when he was given information that contradicted his public statements and agenda.   Not only is he ignoring and dismissing his own intelligence agencies' conclusions, he is forging US foreign policy based on something other than rational use of any objective real-world facts supplied by his own agency appointees. If our country survives the next two years without a major foreign policy blunder, we can count ourselves lucky.

 He has recently dismissed the conclusion presented in their annual report on threats to national security to Congress by US intelligence heads that contradicted his own assertions. No, Mr. President, ISIS is not dead; no, Iran is abiding by their disarmament agreement, and, no, North Korea will not give up nuclear capability because it is too basic to their regime's survival. The "crisis" at the Southern border did not even register in their list of top ten security threats.  Trump called the intelligence chiefs “naive”, he sent them "back to school”, and now he termed in press remarks their findings are just opinions with which he can disagree, as if these professionals were writing an op ed piece with an ideological agenda.  Thousands of agents risk their lives to gather such facts and awesome technology provides even more information. That gulf between Trump's words and the intelligence agencies' conclusions is enough to make us wonder where he ever got some of his ideas.  Could he be   listening to foreign intelligence service findings whispered in his ear by even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself? He has had several one on one secret meetings with him. After all, he has taken Putin's word over our own services in public before.   Last July in Helsinki, Trump dissed US intelligence agency reports that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections, and instead accepted Putin’s words of denial as the truth.

There are good reasons to suspect Trump has been listening to Putin because the foreign policy he is conducting supports Russia’s goals. Trump and Russia do not support US security policies that have created peace and prosperity in Europe post-Soviet era. Trump's foreign policy initiatives aid Russian actions to expand their influence and control to former Soviet spheres of interest.  Putin's stealth invasion of Ukraine and his Crimea annexation resulted in the West imposing punishing sanctions on Putin’s oligarch friends. Trump just lifted sanctions on one oligarch, and would like to remove all sanctions, period. While repeating Putin’s very words, Trump called NATO “obsolete” and he threatens to pull out from NATO, a mutual defense treaty, which would clear the way for Russia to try Ukraine /Crimea - like takeovers in the Baltics and Balkans without triggering an automatic military response. US pulling out of Syria would leave Russia with greater influence the Middle East.  Trump’s recent pulling out of the IMF treaty will allow Russia to develop their mid-range nuclear capability out in the open. No IMF treaty? No sweating compliance or fearing punishment when or if they have been outed and making this a much more dangerous world.

Trump's disdain for US intelligence services has a history in the Iraq war and   faulty US intelligence verification that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  There were at that time no international inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Saddam cleverly created the fiction he had the capability in order to deter future attackers. The situation is very different in Iran. Thanks to the multinational Iran nuclear deal, that country has been constantly monitored by inspectors on site and shipments of nuclear material into Iran have been subject to inspection and control.  Trump pulled out of the deal.  Some fear Trump may be cooking up a reason to invade Iran, egged on by hawkish advisers.  Destroying the Iran nuclear deal would end those inspections, but fortunately other signators continue the program without us.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-moron-tillerson-publicly-confirms.html

http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-national-security/

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/01/intelligence-chiefs-diverge-trump-main-threats-us/154511/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

How Hillary Clinton could turn the terrorist attacks to her advantage

Spooking the herd...New Jersey, New York, and Minnesota terrorist attacks...could be bad news for Clinton.  It plays into Trump's rhetoric and the fear factor upon which his candidacy has been based. The irony is that Clinton's reputation is that of an interventionist hawk and Trump talks a good game about being the hammer and fist, but has attempted to paint himself as an isolationist and a go it alone reliance on American military strength.  There are very few who do not recognize that the US cannot fight ISIS alone and that it takes a concerted effort world wide of allies, both European and Arab and other Muslims, to get the job done.  A strong case can be made is that Trump will not be able to lead the winning coalition.

Strength is what Trump radiates, but it is brute strength appealing to those who want a solution that is simple to grasp, but it the kind of strength that is blind, a counterproductive lash out.  Recent comments by Robert Gates and revealed in emails from Colin Powell that the world views Trump as a pariah and he insults to all of the Muslim world, dramatized by his stand on the Muslim ban. This makes him unfit to gather the kind of coalition we need and the cooperation we need from US Muslims.

Clinton must make it clear in the debates that she has the strategy to unite the world to defeat ISIS and that brute military strength conducted solo by the US will not work...and what Trump's strategy is doomed to failure because of his campaign of fear and hatred.  Clinton has at least the knowledge and understanding to be effective, while Trump is a bull in a china closet, doing more damage than good and inspite of his heated rhetoric is doomed to failure.

A Saudi awakening?

The Saudis awakening?

One of the key components Pres. Obama says we need to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere is for Muslims themselves to take care of their terroristm problem.  In his recent address to the nation, Obama asked the Muslim world to do more within their own countries and mosques to do that.  Key to US policy is for the US Arab allies to provide the boots on the ground in our war against ISIS.

 ISIS had pledged to wipe out the gulf Arab leaders and the Saudi regime, but until recently, the Saudis had seen the fight against the Shia in Iraq and Iran as their number one concern and had only focused  military action in Yemen against a Shia insurgency.  ISIS in Syria and Iraq had kept the Shias at bay north of them, so in a way, ISIS had a positive value to the Saudis. Besides both Saudis and ISIS are Sunnis.

The irony is that the theology of ISIS, permitting killing innocents and resulting in a virtual dealth cult that gave killing of apostates (both those who did not subscribe to their theology and all non Muslims)  and death in carrying that out a shortcut to paradise, has its roots in the madras schools in Saudi Arabia.  The majority Islamic interpretation of jihad is a fight to better oneself, not to be violent. The Salafists who advocated violent jihad ran those schools inspired Al Qaeda as well as ISIS and other franchises and fellow travelers.   A broad assumption was that the Saudis gave free rein to the Salafists to preach their version of violent  jihad as a Faustian bargain that permitted the Saudi royals to stay in power.  The ISIS and terrorist action had caused the death of far more Muslims than westerners. In the meantime, since ISIS and Saudi's are fellow Sunnis and for the Saudi's to take them on is a shift from the past.  However, ISIS' success may have given them pause that they are indeed a serious threat.


That has led to an announcement from the Saudis to create an alliance of Islamic nations to take on "terorists" .The reason the Saudis gave to begin gearing up against ISIS and the terrorist ilk is that it was giving Islam a bad name.

Whatever was motivating them: pressure from Obama, ISIS becoming a threat to their security,  realizaiton that fellow Sunis were victims of ISIS aggression, or bad PR resulted in an announcement that they would lead an alliance of Islamic nations to join together to launch a coordinated military  effort to fight terrorism.  Shia, Syrians and Iraqis and Iranians were not invited to join in.

What this means is not yet known.  The fight is to be coordinated by the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, but whether it means stepping up to the plate to provide military support to the opponents of ISIS is not known. Key to defeating ISIS is putting Arab boots on the ground and whether those boots come from this new alliance is not at all clear.  At least the alliance the Saudi's announced is a hopeful step.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/saudi-arabia-unveils-islamic-military-alliance-against-terrorism-n480016

  

Our struggle with ISIS is about twenty-somethings taking years to play out

 Many familiar with ISIS and international terrorism call the battle with the rest of the Muslim world and modern civilization a generational one, taking years to play out.  Others claim the Obama foreign policy is a failure because it has been unable to stop ISIS or terrorism within his term in office or he has no strategy. His critics do not have a strategy either that differs much from what the White House is already executing. Instead, they argue over the President’s definition of terms. Semantics will not defeat terrorists. Actions which take into account the long term nature, the cause, and communication methods of this generational movement will.  A new President that does not understand this could even increase threats to our national security.

 What both the San Bernardino and the Paris attacks had in common is that they were carried out by twenty something year olds from a certain generation, Some  will have those violent values in their psyches for years to come. They use special means of communication that can inspire and instruct lone wolves, sleeper cells, and coordinate attacks. Terrorists do not communicate by phone so metadata collection has intelligence gathering limitations in preventing attacks. They use encrypted internet sites and social media. So far the purveyors of those services have taken little action against these hidden methods.

There is a force against ISIS that is also generational. They are uneasy bedfellows over which no government has control. The battle of the 20 something nerds has begun with a group of secret, controversial skilled hackers who work outside the law world- wide like modern Robin Hoods. They call themselves Anonymous and the Paris attacks that victimized mostly 20 somethings mobilized them to focus their weapons on ISIS. They claim they have the ability to crack encrypted messages, and sabotage social media and websites. Unlike Silicon Valley, they have the will to do it.

Some GOP candidates for president try to exude personal power, telling us they will stop the spread of terrorism with domestic policies that make hash of the principles and values of the Constitution.  This is as much of a war against ideologies requiring tactical finesse as it is a physical one.

Lowering ourselves to ISIS’ method of torture and fear or trampling civil rights of Muslims in the US is fighting fire with gasoline.  It puts us in greater danger of turning more young domestic Muslims against us in anger and resentment, increasing self -radicalization and loan wolf attacks.

 We may have the firepower to stamp out the Caliphate within their land borders if we choose to do an Iraq style invasion, but we will not stamp out the spread of their ideology and copycat tactics to other countries. As the President noted, we cannot bomb ideas from these young peoples’ heads.

What we also know is that Western boots alone on the ground only gave rise and continuing fuel to ISIS. . We must undertake a delicate dance of balancing multinational military and police force with ideological appeal to those who just want to get on with their day to day lives and find our values give them that opportunity.

A version of this ran in the www.skyhidailynews.com on Dec. 23, 2015

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/24/technology/targeting-terror-intelligence-isis/index.html?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlarge&iid=obnetwork

Fear is the enemy of rational action 2017

Update Nov 2107  originally published 11/23/15
Thanksgiving is celebrated with remembrance of the Pilgrims founding their colony and surviving.  They were, after all, our first refugee/immigrants from tyranny. Other than Columbus Day, we celebrate few others who arrived later.  We forget that waves of immigrants were often met with scorn, prejudice, or rejection based on fear that they were Papists or socialists or had different traditions. Eventually we absorbed them into the American culture and they embraced our values.

 Ambitious politicians have exploited fear to fuel their rise to power, especially in times of threats from abroad.  Fear is a powerful force that is the enemy of rational action.    Unfortunately, fear sometimes caused us to commit acts contrary to ideals, laws, and Constitution.  Worst of all, because of fear, we may be led to strike out blindly only to repeat failed strategies.

To draw on Franklin Roosevelt’s oft quoted words:” We have nothing to fear but fear itself”’, we need leadership that does not deny the feelings of fear nor spooks the herd to panic and bolt over the cliff. We need leadership that addresses and reassures public concerns, and devises plausible, workable strategies weighed against possible counter-productive actions.  That is the rational approach; but we are not getting that from either side of the aisle.

We have some examples of what fear can do.  We have hung our heads in shame, as we did after our realization of the injustice we did to internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.  Fear of weapons of mass destruction was hyped to the public by some members of the Bush administration post 9/11 to motivate support for the ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Invasion and occupation of Iraq upset the balance of power, gave rise to Iran’s regional domination, and created a backlash that gave birth to ISIS and the new generation of 20 something terrorists behind the Paris attacks.

President Obama was highly criticized for his “tone” in response to the Paris events.  He could have reassured scared Americans by indicating he understood their fears as Roosevelt did.  He could have announced he would increase the amount and intensity of what he was already doing. His strategy mostly resembled his critics ’proposals, anyway. He did not. Instead, he played down the threat and derided his critics. That made him appear disconnected from the public and reality and he is suffering in the polls. Fortunately for him he is not up for re-election.

However, sometimes national interests or basic American values may not be in sync with public opinion. Often forgotten was that the majority of public opinion was opposed to taking in Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Pres. Roosevelt, looking at a third term run, read the polls.  Boatloads of the refugees  were turned away from the US .  We need leadership that extolls our values and applies them to current situations even if it is not momentarily popular or vote getting.

Stampeding the public  to start fascist-like registration lists of all US Muslims, or only to admit Christian immigrants in defiance of our Constitution, would fulfill the goal of ISIS, to realize  their religious destiny of a war between the West and Islam, and it would serve the terrorists as a  recruiting tool..

A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News  November 27, 2015

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

The battle of the 20 something nerds has begun: ISIS v Anonymous

The battle of the 20 something nerds has begun. ISIS attacks on Paris were about that generation. The perps, thr victims, the communication technology were mostly theirs. Joining against ISIS is also an ally from that generation...a group of secret, controversial skilled hackers who work outside the law worldwide. Let them get to work. May they out-fox ISIS and do what Silicon Valley will and cannot do.

Anonymous - Operation Paris Continues #OpParis

Anonymous - Operation Paris Continues #OpParis JOIN US: https://www.facebook.com/AnonymousDirect - Connect with Anonymous - Subscribe ● http://www.yo…

The opening salvo:
http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-says-isis-plans-attacks-against-paris-world-sunday-2194926
It appears ISIS may have fought back with a disinformation story aimed at discrediting Anonymous:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/anonymous-op-isis-isis-hits-back-by-publishing-sets-of-anti-hack-guidelines-a6743111.html

While I do not usually quote wikipedia, this may help us older folks  get a better grasp of Anonymous for those of us who wonder.  They are in a sense the Robin Hoods of the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_mask

 I am grateful for my 20 something grandson who tuned me into them.

Why a world view matters

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

                                                          Sun Tzu: The Art of War,  6^th century Chinese Military classic

In passing the other week I heard President Barack Obama criticized for having a “World View”, as if that was proof that he was not American.  My jaw dropped. It is an asset to understand the mentality of multi cultures. This is no liability; it is an asset in our taking on our top foreign policy concerns, Al Qaeda and its barbaric child, ISIS.  So who knows its enemy best? Someone who only knows their local experiences, peer group opinions, and media that justifies their preconceived notions or someone who has multicultural hands on experience? The advantage goes to holders of a world view.

The more extreme opponents of Obama look at knowledge of the world very differently.  Because President Obama has knowledge of the Muslim culture and the religion, he is un American, does not love America, and must have been born in Kenya. Because he understands other cultures by having lived them, they automatically assume he agrees or sympathizes with them. Respect of other cultures and beliefs is not a concept easily comprehended. Or as Colin Powell called it “a dark vein of intolerance” recently. They suspect that he had an agenda that is soft on Islam because he is unwilling to re-enact the Iraq war and he even apologizes about US imperfections. Only a Christian true believer should lead this nation because this is a Christian nation (never mind there are Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and Muslims, and the First Amendment). This is a war of Christianity against Islam.  Some claim all Islam itself is a faulty religion.

 Why this birtherism and citing his different upbringing has erupted again now is likely about the Republican primaries and which candidate is the most conservative. Obama is not up for re-election, but it speaks to the depth of their continuing personalized antipathy toward him.

Yes, Obama has his roots in several cultures, but.as he frequently says, “Only in American could he have had the chance to rise to the position he has today.”  That is love based upon experience and a knowledge of another culture.  It is a patriotism that speaks to what makes America exceptional.

 Recently the Obama world view was misinterpreted by some in the US to indicate Obama’s ignorance of the religious nature of ISIS by failing to connect the religion of Islam to violent extremism. It is not ignorance. It is a strategy in the propaganda war against ISIS and done apparently in coordination with our allies since they are now using the same terminology. The King of Jordan in a CNN interview February 27 said Pres. Obama was right in not coupling Islam with violent extremism. The King called ISIS’” outlaws/fringes of Islam” and to attach the term Islam to ISIS gives them legitimacy they seek.  For the interview, visit www.cnn.com/2015/02/27/middleeast/jordan-king-abdullah

Recommended reading:

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2015/03/11/why_we_reject_facts__embrace_conflict_109125.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colin-powell-sees-dark-vein-intolerance-gop/story?id=29482208

Who is in denial about ISIS? It is not President Obama

The US is embroiled in a domestic and foreign semantics war. President Obama explained why he uses certain words of “violent extremists” to describe ISIS in remarks at a White House conference February 18.  He unleashed a firestorm from domestic political opponents who  pounced on the President for not using “Islamic” as part of his ISIS tag.  He was “adrift in denial” per Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. Others questioned his love of country because of his “different” background all because he did not use the same words they did.

 It is not President Obama that is in denial.  Those in denial are the ones  who are blind to the fact  that we are in a war for hearts and minds of the rest of the over one billion Muslims who have not bought into ISIS’s ideology or methodology yet.   His critics are conducting a semantics war on Obama,  but  Obama  understands that the use of wrong  words can hurt our efforts to develop an effective alliance and undermine our campaign against ISIS.

 We depend on Muslim allies such as Jordan, the UAE, Egypt, and the Kurds to be the combat boots instead of us.    ISIS’ interpretation of Islam is not our allies’ and they are beginning to put their abhorrence into military action. February 19^th Obama called on 60 nations, including Islamic religious leaders,  at a meeting at the White House to discuss combatting the ISIS message. Ticking them and our allies off with hostile remarks about their religion is not a sane strategy.

This is how he explained it February 18:   “Al Qaeda and ISIL …are desperate for legitimacy.  They try to portray themselves as religious leaders -- holy warriors in defense of Islam… And they propagate the notion that America -- and the West, generally -- is at war with Islam.  That’s how they recruit….  Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists and we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with those who perverted Islam”.   Those are not words of a person in denial or “clueless about radical Islam”. They are the words of someone thinking strategically.

Where the critics go very wrong is complaining that his words dictate his military strategy. His actions speak louder than words.  Look at what he is asking: war powers to take on ISIS, even at the risk of turning off his liberal supporters. He is planning to put more boots on the ground, limited to special forces, spotters and trainers. The air war is already in full swing.

There is a legitimate debate about whether to give the President the option of  a mass invasion and occupation of Iraq again. If the proponents of a re-enactment of the Iraq invasion and occupation get their way, this time there would be no end to occupation. Twelve years of occupation did not work.  Other than Iraq II, the critics have offered no workable alternative except more of the same he is already doing. They need to do better than just throwing verbal bombs at the President.

A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi News Feb 27, 2015   http://www.skyhidailynews.com/news/15173021-113/muftic-semantic-war-on-obama-misses-target

Peace on earth, goodwill to men sorely needed this Christmas season but so hard to achieve

Peace on earth, goodwill toward men, one of the messages of Christmas, is sorely needed in our troubled world. This year has been less about major wars, but more about individuals gone berserk and sudden rise of terrorist jihadists acting in regions or as lone wolves anywhere.  Modern media has been both the messenger and the tool of the perpetrators that give acts of violence world-wide impact. We have yet to find a consensus for the best response.

 In the United States there are two schools of thought. One is always to meet violence with violence and the other is to search for peace. President Obama seems determined to leave office with a more peaceful world by resolving some nagging conflicts and addressing recent explosions of violence both at home and abroad, but he faces some tough challenges.

 Since he cannot run for re-election, he at least is freed from the consequences of a political backlash if he takes controversial measures. Using his executive powers, he is burying the hatchet with hostile regimes and bringing together those who feel they have been treated unfairly.

Beginning with dialogues with Iran and historic reverse of a fifty year policy toward Cuba, Obama has taken steps to bring Peace on Earth.  Obama had already stopped torture of prisoners immediately when he took office and he is consistent in condemning past torture practices brought to light by a Senate report.

Our country is plagued by riots and police assassinations from Ferguson to the boroughs of New York, heated by racial tensions and angry speech from by both sides of the racial divide. The violence is an accumulative effect of high profile incidents of apparent racial profiling by police  ending in death of Black men and youth.  Obama is threading the needle between empathy with minority communities and finding ways to bring communities and policing together.  It is a delicate balance, but it is a uniquely credible opportunity given he is the first Black president.

The case for peace is as much a matter of pragmatism as it is a moral imperative. Violence begets more violence. One kind of violent action becomes a template used by others who are, or who are not, fighting political causes. Some fueled by personal revenge, hate, or mental health issues copy the latest violent techniques so they, too, can go down in a blaze of publicity.

.

Abroad, we have learned that using military force works only in the short term.  Our ultimate goal should be to win over hearts and minds so that jihadists lose fertile ground in which to plant their flags. Otherwise we will be involved in a never ending or reoccurring warfare. Sadly, Iraqi villagers seem willing to exchange ending strife for ISIS order no matter how cruel and oppressive.  Oppression eventually breeds revolt and a search for a better way. The very difficult challenge for Obama is to craft policies that appeal to the better angels in the long term while helping Iraq halt ISIS’ military advance and doing it without our full military engagement. 

A plea from both Muslims and Christians to protect Christians and other minorities in northern Iraq

The year I went to Berlin for my junior year abroad in 1958, I was under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church. Aside from the group destined for Berlin, another group went to Beirut. Over the years I have been on their information distribution list, primarily organized by the Beirut JYA's. Networks and multi-cultural  friendships have been formed and maintained over the many years.Today I received a copy of  the following letter written by this group of friends, both Muslims and Christians. It is a very moving appeal to the Secretary General of the United Nations and very pertinent given today's air attacks and humanitarian aid drops in northern Iraq. I am reproducing the letter with the group's permission and want to share the contents and the sentiments in it. Felicia Muftic

Here is an important statement from a group of Muslim and Christian Lebanese professionals and academics, including Dr. George Sabra, President of N.E.S.T.  It includes five requests that are important guidelines for our network efforts as we take up advocacy for our brothers and sisters in Syria and Lebanon. Aug. 08, 2014 | 12:09 AM An open letter to Ban Ki-moon on the fate of Mosul’s Christians The Daily Star (Lebanon): A group of liberal-minded Muslim and Christian Lebanese professionals and academics has written an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressing grave concern about the latest persecution of Christians in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul by the “Islamic State.” Here is the text of the letter prepared by the group, which prides itself on embodying the best that Lebanon has produced by way of peaceful pluralistic coexistence and mutual respect among the 18 religious denominations recognized in the Lebanese Constitution. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, We are a group of Muslim, Christian and Druze professionals and academics from Lebanon who are old schoolmates and lifelong friends, some of us since early elementary grades. In all modesty, we constitute a representative sample of the finest that Lebanon’s peaceful pluralist coexistence among various religious sects has produced over the years despite what turmoil the country has been through in recent decades. We have taken the liberty to write you this letter because of our deep alarm at what is happening to the Christians of Mosul in Iraq, and generally to the native Christian and other minority communities throughout the Middle East. In particular, these beleaguered ancient Christian communities of our region are struggling hard as they face mounting pressures and challenges from the same violent and intolerant fanatics. Confronted with forced conversions, or a humiliating life of collective submission, or the sword, Mosul’s Christians have naturally opted to leave just as other Christians in neighboring hotspots have done before them. This time round, however, it is unconscionable that the international community would stand idly by and allow the wholesale destruction of rooted communities solely because of their religious beliefs. The United States in particular bears an important burden in this regard since its actions in Iraq beginning with the 2003 invasion that rid the world of a brutal dictator unintentionally hastened the demise of a good portion of that country’s Christian community. Religious cleansing was not tolerated in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and it should not be accepted in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East in 2014. We do not hold the view that the Darwinian model of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest can be automatically transposed from the natural world of flora and fauna and applied to human societies; this was tried before in the form of Social Darwinism and culminated in the unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by racist fascism and Nazism with devastating barbaric consequences for all of humanity. The kind of open and liberal mindset that defines us as individuals and as a cohesive group we owe to years of osmotic interaction in Lebanon’s fine educational venues as well as through a thousand other occasions for shared experiences and the exchange of uplifting influences within the country’s rich civil society. All this was made possible thanks to Lebanon’s distinctive climate of personal and societal freedoms that has set the country apart in a positive sense from its largely freedom-starved Arab surroundings. In spite of the horrors Lebanon has witnessed in its recent history it has remained a unique repository of that precious commodity – freedom – thanks in large part to the continued existence of an indigenous Christian community with a cumulative centuries-old vibrant tradition of freedom. And this same tradition has played no small part in shaping the emergence of a receptive, accomplished and enlightened Lebanese Muslim elite that is the pride of all Arab Muslims. Other embattled Christian and Muslim communities in the region caught, like the Christians of Mosul, in the vicious crossfire between warring sectarian and tribal factions, or between dictators and religious militants, also deserve a chance to live a free and peaceful life within their own ancestral towns and villages, and to savor the bountiful gifts accruing from such freedom. Lately, we have seen how the terrifying cynicism of certain regimes has been complicit in the spawning of groups such as the so-called “Islamic State” so as to present the world with a spectacle even more horrible than their own familiar modes of brutality. If free Christians and free Muslims die out, or embark under duress on one-way departures from the region, those who remain – both Christians and Muslims – will be the great losers in the long run. Your Excellency, to stop the steady depletion from our region of this rare and sophisticated breed of free Muslims and Christians – the salt of the Arab earth, as it were, and the only guarantee of a brighter future for Arab children – we submit for your consideration the following practical recommendations for action: First, the most effective way to combat outrageous abuses of human rights and human dignity such as what we are witnessing today in Mosul against its Christians is to shine the unrelenting international spotlight of publicity on these grave transgressions, thereby bringing about a global chorus of sustained condemnation of the perpetrators and their despicable practices. We therefore call upon you from the vantage point of your esteemed office to continue to speak out forcefully and to urge other influential figures and groups to do the same in defense of the suffering Christians of Mosul and all similarly suffering communities under comparable dire circumstances in our troubled region. We urge you as United Nations secretary-general to make good on the calls we are hearing to bring those who have viciously emptied Mosul of its Christians before the International Criminal Court to face justice. Second, a long-term plan must be implemented and the required funding to achieve it secured to bolster and promote Islamic moderation across the boardso that credible and authoritative Muslim voices everywhere can openly condemn, and dissociate themselves from, these types of abuses committed under the cloak of their religion.  Such a campaign should also involve both the educational and media sectors of the Arab world that play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and attitudes. This should be done in close cooperation with the regional religious establishments and with independent civil society institutions open to such an ambitious and liberal enterprise. The best way to undermine extremism’s culture of violence and death is to strengthen and celebrate the universal values of human dignity, pluralist existence, mutual respect, religious freedom, reciprocity, acceptance of the different other and minority rights. Third, serious thought must be given to the long-term implications and dangers for the region and the rest of the world of takfiri ideologies of hate and violent rejection in the name of religion gaining a secure foothold in a volatile place such as the Middle East. Effective coordinated responses by the international community designed to nip this cancer in the bud should be contemplated carefully and executed boldly.  Drying up the sources that fund this sort of violent takfirism could be a good start, so those supplying the financial, material and logistical support to these radical groups for whatever geopolitical or strategic reasons should know that inevitably the tables will be turned against them and the fire they have stoked will rebound to consume them. Fourth, a reserve fund should be created under United Nations auspices and with the help of individuals, organizations and governments of good will to address the urgent humanitarian and other needs of victimized persons and groups in the event that prevention does not work and persecution persists. Uppermost on the priority scale should be the security and preservation of actual as well as potential victims in their native lands and homes, and the cessation of demographic hemorrhaging whether in the form of displacements within the region or outright emigration beyond it. The burgeoning and scandalous Middle Eastern refugee phenomenon must be ended. Fifth, everything possible should be done to protect from further erosion those few remaining oases in the Arab world such as Lebanon where freedom endures. The line of steady collapse must be held firm at the boundaries of these oases, and this can best be done by strengthening and supporting those elements and institutions in these oases that are living embodiments of this precious freedom. If the rational and responsible steps outlined above are undertaken under your wise guidance and leadership, your Excellency, the world will once again feel hopeful that the turning of this inhuman tide is possible. We thank you for your time and for the efforts you have expended on behalf of justice and peace. Yours sincerely, Kamal F. Badr, Medical Doctor Amer El-Hage, Consulting Engineer Mohamad Rustom Halwani, Civil Engineering Consultant Atef Wafic Idriss, Food Scientist and Consultant Anthony Iliya, Investment Banker Hania Kabban, English as Foreign Language Teacher Jamil I. Kawa, Engineer & Scientist Richard K. Khuri, Professor of Philosophy Habib C. Malik, Professor of History Robert Moughanie, Businessman Amal Zaroubi Moujaes, Businesswoman Sami Moujaes, Businessman Hani H. Nsouli, Political Writer Toufic Saadeh, Real Estate Professional George F. Sabra, Professor of Theology Janan al-Awar Smither, Professor of Psychology Fuad N. Ziyadeh, Medical Doctor A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on August 08, 2014, on page 7. Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2014/Aug-08/266423-an-open-letter-to-ban-ki-moon-on-the-fate-of-mosuls-christians.ashx#ixzz39m9bcqSy (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Copyright © 2014 Syria Lebanon Mission Network of the PC(USA), All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted to receive messages from the World Mission Office at PCUSA and expressed interest in the Syria Lebanon Mission Network.

Iraq: the neocons are the definition of insanity, but others are delusional about the alternatives.

  Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, attributed to many including Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein.    So, the neocons want   us  to do a repeat of our involvement in the Iraq war and expect the same results.  Yesireee.  How do we like that outcome today?

Let us face it: We are and have been involved in a centuries old Shia v Sunni civil war ,whether we intended to do so  or not. We had cast our lot with the Shia except when we harnessed a Sunni uprising  to win the war against Saddam Hussein . Such religious based conflicts are  far beyond our control, but  we  played the factions off to suit our own single minded determination to find WMD, protect oil interests,  or get regime change.  Policies set in motion by the Bush administration and  the subsequent  Obama administration’s attempt to extricate ourselves from it have now come to bite US interests in our posterior. The threat is worse than Saddam ever was.

If we do not repeat the previous Iraq strategy, what are  the alternatives? All bad. Obama is making some tough decisions and whatever he does will be criticized. Leaving ISIS (the advancing Al Qaeda extremists) in position to do us real damage is no option .

 Ultra  Obama critic  Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-SC) called  Pres. Obama delusional as he himself  skirted a call  to put boots on the ground. Graham  deludes himself. Graham on CNN Sunday AM  advocated  to get involved with Syria, blast ISIS  with air power, and   get rid of al-Maliki, forcing a new government to be inclusive, as if ISIS  already at Baghdad’s gate would want to accept a deal while they are ahead..

  Iran  will likely  enter the civil war because there is  an  opportunity  to realize their long standing desire to dominate  the entire middle east. Graham’s solution? Sit down and ask Iran pretty please not to take over Iraq. Give me a break.  Iran will do what Iran wants. We have few

 bargaining chips.

Involvement in Syria? The reason the US did not intervene fully in Syria was precisely fear our aid would land in the hands of ISIS, who had hijacked the opposition to Assad

The danger with air intervention is that ISIS imbeds itself with the  local population. One mistake causing civilian collateral damage  and we would turn the entire Sunni population against the US forever, destroying our ability to make peace..   The unintentional US air  strike killing friendly Afghan troops  this month should be instructive to the starry eyed. .Mistakes will happen.

  Short term, there are  some steps that make sense:   turn Baghdad into a fortress  as  Iran and the Kurds  get involved, pretty please or not.  It may be a risk we have to take. Long term, ISIS could overplay its hand, imposing extreme Sharia law on a culture whose traditions are  so  secular.

  

 The very best  outcome  could be  a  long,  bloody stalemate, or even a  fear of it , that  could motivate  a  political settlement. One was  first proposed by then Senator  Joseph Biden in 2007:  partition the warring groups in a federal system, similar to the Bosnia solution. 

This column was published 6/15/14.  Thomas Friedman's NYT column 6/18/14 takes his thinking in the same direction.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-conundrum-of-a-unified-iraq-and-a-unified-syria. What is discouraging is that Bosnia has not yet gotten so desperate, it has unified in spirit, though in name it is still one country. Bosnia, too, was ruled 500 years by the Ottomans and then governed after two world wars by Tito, a dictator, whose death left  a vacuum, followed by the bloodiest conflict in Europe since WWII, that was only ended by NATO intervention and the Dayton Accord, that divided Bosnia into 3 ethnic states with a federal government, now corrupt, gridlocked, and ineffective.  As imperfect as it is, it is better than the alternative of continued bloodshed..  

A version of this  post appeared in all editions of the www.skyjhidailynews.com  June 20, 2014