My Beauty Best Teacher

Domestic policy results are a mix of both Congress and the President, and so Obama supporters can attempt to say that the reason why domestic policies have failed so badly over the past years is because of the Congress (House under Democratic control 2007-2011, Senate under Democratic control 2007 to today). But the results of foreign policy decisions are almost always the result of actions made purely the President, so these results can not be blamed on former President Bush (2001-2009) or the Republicans in Congress (House 2011+). President Barack Obama is responsible for foreign policy actions of the last several years.

And the latest news from Egypt is that Obama messed up badly and in so doing has led to the people of Egypt being less free, less prosperous, and private property rights being less protected. Via the New York Times:

Egyptian authorities confirmed Saturday that a political coalition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the 84-year-old group that virtually invented political Islam, had won about 47 percent of the seats in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. An alliance of ultraconservative Islamists won the next largest share of seats, about 25 percent....

...Parliament the authority to choose the 100 members of a constitutional assembly, so it may shape Egypt for decades to come, although the military council has sometimes tried to influence that process...

...The Brotherhood has said it intends to respect personal liberties and will focus on economic and social issues, gradually nudging the culture toward its conservative values. By contrast, the ultraconservatives, known as Salafis, put a higher priority on legislation on Islamic moral issues, like the consumption of alcohol, women’s dress and the contents of popular culture.

Among the remaining roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats, the next largest share was won by the Wafd Party, a liberal party recognized under Mr. Mubarak and with roots dating to Egypt’s colonial period.

It was trailed by a coalition known as the Egyptian Bloc. It included the Free Egyptians, a business-friendly liberal party founded by a Coptic Christian businessman, Naguib Sawiris, and favored by many members of the country’s Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of the public. The Egyptian Bloc also included the liberal Social Democratic Party, which leans further to the left on economic issues.

A coalition of parties founded by the young leaders of the revolt that unseated Mr. Mubarak won only a few percent of the seats, as did a handful of offshoots of the former governing party....

There is no way to spin this. Mubarak gave a speech where he said that he would transition power over to groups that were business-friendly, were supportive to liberty and freedom, and would not be radically-intolerant Muslim, and President Obama went on TV and gave a major speech demanding that "Mubarak must go now."

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must peaceful, and it must begin now," Obama declared in his address, and he got his wish- Egypt has now gone from being a moderately bad regime to putting in place a coalition of radicals that support terror and the destruction of Israel- and it happened in under a year. He got his meaningful change for the worse pretty quickly- and it was all on him, the blame was exclusively on Obama, and the results of his actions were bad for millions of Egyptians and America.

Obama said that he turned on Mubarak in order to support the young leaders of revolutionaries in Egypt- the group that won the least from this revolution. The group that got the most out of the Egyptian revolution was the groups that we supported the LEAST- the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists.

Obama messed this policy decision up. Hold him responsible.

My stances on this issue are also on the record- see my posts Obama is Picking Worst of Bad Options in Egypt: Is Obama Getting Advice from Jimmy Carter? and Obama's Egypt Policy Was a Failure?.

Although domestic policy results are a mix of Congress and the President, the results of foreign policy is almost inevitably the result of purely the President. So trying to blame Bush or the Republicans for the results of any major new policy decisions is useless- these results and actions can be laid directly at the feet of the President of the United States and Democratic nominee for 2012, Barack Hussein Obama.

Via Legal Insurrection's post We know who lost Egypt:

Obama’s foolish policy of forcing Mubarak out of office precipitously without giving non-Islamist parties time to organize has resulted in Islamists achieving a sweeping victory in the first round of parliamentary elections. Strength by the Muslim Brotherhood was expected, but the extremely hard line Salafists had a very strong showing.

As reported by The NY Times:

Islamists claimed a decisive victory on Wednesday as early election results put them on track to win a dominant majority in Egypt’s first Parliament since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the most significant step yet in the religious movement’s rise since the start of the Arab Spring.

The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.

Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.

That victory came at the expense of the liberal parties and youth activists who set off the revolution, affirming their fears that they would be unable to compete with Islamists who emerged from the Mubarak years organized and with an established following. Poorly organized and internally divided, the liberal parties could not compete with Islamists disciplined by decades as the sole opposition to Mr. Mubarak. “We were washed out,” said Shady el-Ghazaly Harb, one of the most politically active of the group.

The Times article points out that this first round of elections was in the most liberal areas of Egypt. As voting moves to more conservative rural areas, the Islamists likely will gain an even more overwhelming majority.

This all was very predictable. In fact, I predicted it while Obama was insisting that Mubarak leave ”yesterday,” NY Times columnists were writing delusional columns about the Arab Street and the Arab Spring, and venomous anti-Israeli pundits at Media Matters and elsewhere complained that the “Israel Lobby” was trying to stifle freedom.

On Feburary 20 I wrote The Yuppie Revolution In Egypt Is Over, The Islamist Revolution Has Begun. I wish I had been wrong.

The liberated women of Egypt will be the first to suffer. The Times notes:

The Brotherhood has pledged to respect basic individual freedoms while using the influence of the state to nudge the culture in a more traditional direction. But the Salafis often talk openly of laws mandating a shift to Islamic banking, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curriculums for boys and girls in public schools, and censoring the content of the arts and entertainment.

Obama lost Egypt, and he had plenty of help.

This post echo's my own thoughts on this issue- see my posts The Rising Threat of Fascism: Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Other States or Evidence is Pretty One Sided Against Obama's Foriegn Policy, Don't You Think?.

Last week, President Barack Obama saw the site of the future Ground Zero Victory Mosque (or as it is sometimes called the Cordoba House Initiative Project, or Ground Zero Mosque, or Celebration of the Thousands Killed by Extremist Muslims, or Cordoba Initiative) for the first time, as he laid a wreath at the site of the collapsed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York to pay tribute to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Obama last year gave his blessing to "the right of Muslims to build a place of worship" on Ground Zero and was supportive of the building of a 'victory mosque' on the site of the most successful attack ever on America by Muslim extremists by Muslim extremists, and last week he took time from his busy schedule to view this location before he laid a wreath at the foot of the Survivor Tree, which sustained damage during the attack but was freed from the rubble.

Obama also visited a fire station that lost 15 firefighters during the attack and almost drove within sight of the victory mosque before he stopped by another lower Manhattan police station. One year after he trumpeted that "as President, I believe that Muslims have... the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances", he stopped by New York City to bring meet with people after the U.S. commando raid in Pakistan killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack that bin Laden masterminded, Obama said: `'We keep them in our hearts. We haven't forgotten."

Obviously he hopes that people have forgotten that he supports building an Islamic victory mosque on the same ground that he visited to honor the fallen victims of 9/11- I guess when you are taking credit for killing an evil terrorist it is okay to say that the ground is holy and honor those who were killed on it, but when you are defending Muslims it is okay to say that the ground isn't holy and that anyone can build whatever they want on it, even a victory mosque that celebrates the attack (and also is a house of worship and is an educational center and other stuff too, but mostly a victory mosque).

Earlier last week I was critical of Obama's response to Tunisia's revolution, where it appeared that rather than take an active role in events, Obama's administration simply sat on the sidelines and tried to figure out where Tunisia was (I'm kidding- I heard that he had a 40 minute briefing on Tunisia after the revolution broke out- I'm sure he learned about it then). He is dangerously incompetent, especially on important world events that our President is supposed to be the primary actor on in our political system. The revolution in Tunisia though was just the start of something bigger, something that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has taught us will have repercussions lasting decades, and that is the revolution that is taking place right now in Egypt.

For the past couple days I have been trying to get a handle on events there, much like our President, and like usual, my reactions have mirrored Obama's. First I first supported the young revolutionaries against the bad dictator, while Obama supported the bad dictator. But now I support the bad dictator over the evil militant terrorist groups who want to take power in Egypt, while Obama now supports the evil militant terrorist groups (he supports them by not saying anything bad about them while saying bad stuff about Mubarak- that's an upgrade over his usual 'voting present' by showing support for the bad guys). Obama is dangerously incompetent again and once again, anyone who voted for him or his party made our nation and world a worse place by doing so.

The best article that I have found to help me get a handle on what is going on in Egypt appeared today in the Jerusalum Post by Caroline Glick called Our World: Clueless in Washington. I am going to pass on some of the better parts of it to you to help you too understand a little bit better what is going on in Egypt...

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.


On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?...

...As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”
 
Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

Two more years remain in President Obama's term of office. Hopefully voters in America will wake up and realize how dangerously incompetent his administration has been and how destructive the impulse to take a flier on this unknown was.

Just got this email from Julie Lindsay with a list of schools coming to the Flat Classroom Conference in Beijing the end of February. This is very exciting!

• Changchun American International School
• Guangzhou Nanhu International School
• RDFZ Xishan School
• International Academy of Beijing
• Hua Shi Yi Fu Zhong High School
• Tsinghua High International School
• Yokohama International School, Japan
• International School Beijing
• Gyeonggi Suwon International School, Korea
• Western Academy Beijing
• Beijing City International School
• Beijing Normal University
• University of Nothern Iowa, USA
• Livingston American School, China
• Al-Azhar Islamic Senior High School, Indonesia
• Dalian Maple Leaf Foreign Nationals School
• American International School of Guangzhou
• Dulwich College Beijing
• Kaohsiung American School, Taiwan
• Shanghai American School
• British School of Beijing -Shunyi Campus
• International School of Tianjin
• International School Yangon, Myanmar
• Cebu International School, Philippines
• Nanjing International School
• British School of Beijing
• The Illawarra Grammar School, Woolongong, Australia
• Nishimachi International School, Japan
• Stonehill International School, Bangalore, India
• International School Bangkok, Thailand
• Shekou International School
• Yew Chung Intern. Beijing
• Harrow International School Beijing
• St Andrew's Cathedral School, Sydney, Australia
• Westwood Schools, Georgia, USA
• Minerva Special Needs School, Australia
• Kristin School, Auckland, NZ
• Vientiane International School, Laos
• Teda International School
• St. Michael's International School, Japan
• Osama Bin Zaid School, Oman
• Senri Osaka International School, Japan 

 There are many schools that understand that what their students need now is not only a world class education where the students know math, literature, writing, reading but also that students need to know this whole new subset of communication skills: technopersonal skills. More than that, they need to know how to relate and work with one another and that we need to have our students working together and co-creating with one another on an ongoing basis.

Our students need so much but they also need each other. They have an uncanny desire to relate. Let's social-network their learning in powerful ways.


I believe that those coming understand that the world is changing and they want to be part of it. In fact, so many of the schools coming are coming because of Twitter, Blogging, and Social networking. Pretty much all of the speakers involved came in to the program through our network.


Project based conferencing as we do it with very very short speeches (when they are given - we call them Flat Learning Action Talks or FLATs) and several projects that run through the conference is still a somewhat "experimental" method of conferencing in the eyes of many. But for those who have seen it in action it is tremendously powerful and transformational.


Wish you call could come - meanwhile, feel free to join the Conference Network and participate virtually. We'll send out instructions through the Ning.

Over the last several days, I have been battling with liberals on the internet who want to score political points with the awful tragedy in Arizona. I have been trolling on many different sites, commenting and battling comments on my comments, trying to communicate that it is wrong to try to politicize this awful tragedy- that it was not a conservative who committed it, that it wasn't Sarah Palin, that it wasn't tea party people, etc. Today, I finally felt that the conversation was changing and that those who had made those arguments had lost credibility and respect such that they would cease and desist with using the killings of innocent people to engage in character assassinations of people they don't agree with politically, and then I read the following article in Slate from Jacob Weisberg that was published today.

In The Tea Party and the Tucson Tragedy: How anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism made the Giffords shooting more likely Weisberg writes:

There's something offensive, as well as pointless, about the politically charged inquiry into what might have been swirling inside the head of Jared Loughner. We hear that the accused shooter read The Communist Manifesto and liked flag-burning videos—good news for the right. Wait—he was a devotee of Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard, so he was a right-winger after all. Some assassinations embody an ideology, however twisted. Based on what we know so far, the Tucson killings look like more like politically tinged schizophrenia.

Let's start with this paragraph. Weisberg first establishes that Loughner has a lot of typical liberal views, such as his belief in wealth redistribution and  supporting free speech over honoring the American flag, to which I could add that the sicko also bought other views associated with liberals like the 9/11 Truther argument and opposition to drug control, and we should probably add to that list that in high school he was characterized as being very much liberal, and apparently enthusiastically supported Democrat Obama in the 2008 election.

But then Weisberg submits as evidence that the sicko was 'right wing' that he read Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard. Is that indeed evidence of 'right-wing' views- the wringings of a libertarian who disliked the traditional social structure and supported abortion? And apparently the nutjob shooter's preference for a gold standard wasn't because he wanted a more stable and solid fiscal system, but was because he thought that elites in the government (likely right-wing elites) really controlled the monetary supply in our nation and he wanted to fight against that. The evidence is not very strong at all that the nutjob was a conservative- the evidence that he is a liberal is considerably stronger. But for now I'm going to be nice and just go with what he registered as and call him an 'Independent'. Let's continue with the article that Slate published...

It is appropriate, however, to consider what was swirling outside Loughner's head. To call his crime an attempted assassination is to acknowledge that it appears to have had a political and not merely a personal context. That context wasn't Islamic radicalism, Puerto Rican independence, or anarcho-syndicalism. It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn't program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.

Here is where the utter derangement of liberal bloggers like Weisberg is demonstrated. Weisberg says that since what was going on inside Loughner's head wasn't important (which I disagree with), we should instead blame what was going on inside of his head. To do so though would be beyond foolish though, because by all accounts, Loughberg was increasingly withdrawing from the world around him (the world that Weisberg characterizes as increasingly conservative) and was focusing more on his dreaming and sleeping and philosophizing and smoking pot. As he became increasingly isolated and along and unconnected to the world around him, the world around him returned to conservative values- based on that information, you could definitively assert that it was not the increasingly conservative views of Arizona that affected him, but rather his past liberal views and the liberal environment of 2006-2009 that shaped and formed him and then left him to float away and disconnect from a world that went conservative in 2010. Let's continue with the article though, since this liberal blogger just gets more and more wrong with each statement that he writes...

At the core of the far right's culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government—a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Then it was focused on "government bureaucrats" and the ATF. This time it has been more about Obama's birth certificate and health care reform. In either case, it expresses the dangerous idea that the federal government lacks valid authority. It is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.

Often the two issues are blurred together, because if government is illegitimate, rebellion is an appropriate response (hence the Colonial costumes). Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous. Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn't the point. The point is that you shouldn't paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.

Did you all follow the logic for this liberal? Oklahoma bombing to birth certificate to climate of violence to assassination of Congresswomen? Really? That's what he is committing to? I would contend that he is simply grabbing unrelated examples that he cherry-picks from history to prove his point, rather than evidence pointing him towards a conclusion.

On a related note, I play a game with my US history students where I ask them to time-travel back to 1776 and pick which side of the US Revolution they would be on- the Colonists or the British. Myself, seeing how much I love liberty and freedom, I'd side with the Colonists. Weisberg and other liberals though would likely side with the British- look at how he constructed his argument above- he thinks that rebelling against government is an illegitimate response to misuse of government power and that the Colonists were examples of this. He's a Loyalist! I'd suggest tar and feathering the guy if it wasn't now frowned on to joke about violence.

The next parts of his editorial are simply reasons why the government should take our guns from us- we'll skip over that for now and simply go to his conclusion-

Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening. It was in criticizing writers on his own side for their naivete about communism that George Orwell wrote, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot." Today it is the right that amuses itself with violent chat and proclaims an injured innocence when its flammable words blow up.

Again, in his editorial that was published by Slate he didn't write any even slightly convincing arguments that connects the Tucson tragedy with anything related to conservative politics, the tea party, the right-wing, or anything related to those. Orwell's quote is a great one to bring up here, because much of what left-wing Weisburg wrote was simply baseless accusations that sounded good (ie, fire) being thrown around by someone who don't even have a clue what they are writing about.

These wikileaks may have revealed something important- that foreign policy of the liberals is based on false narratives and extreme naive, whether the liberal be a lame-duck liberal Bush or a lame-democrat liberal Obama. Via Powerlineblog's post Deadly fictions I saw this link to a post by Lee Smith, who analyzed the wikileaks and realized several points:

1. While the Israelis are deeply concerned about Iran's march toward a nuclear program, it is in fact the Arabs who are begging the United States to "take out" Iranian installations through military force, with one United Arab Emirates official even proposing a ground invasion. Calling Iran "evil," King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the United States to "cut off the head of the snake" by attacking Iranian nuclear installations.

2. It is not just Israeli leaders who believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reminiscent of Hitler; U.S. officials think so too, as do Arab leaders, who use the Hitler analogy to warn against the dangers of appeasing Iran.

3. North Korea, an isolated country that enjoys substantial diplomatic and economic backing from China, is supplying Iran with advanced ballistic missile systems that would allow an Iranian nuclear warhead to hit Tel Aviv--or Moscow--with a substantial degree of accuracy. Taken in concert with the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria, it would appear that North Korea--acting with the knowledge and perhaps direct encouragement of China--is playing a significant and deliberate role in the proliferation of nuclear equipment and ballistic delivery systems in the Middle East.

4. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a model Middle Eastern leader who has found the right admixture of religious enthusiasm and democracy, as U.S. government officials often like to suggest in public, but "an exceptionally dangerous" Islamist. U.S. diplomats have concluded that Erdogan's anti-Israel rhetoric is not premised on domestic Turkish electioneering or larger geo-strategic concerns but rather on a personal, visceral hatred of Israel.

5. Tehran has used the cover of the ostensibly independent Iranian Red Crescent--a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, whose pledge of neutrality allows it access to war zones--to smuggle weapons and members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force into Lebanon during the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, and into Iraq, to fight against U.S. soldiers.

6. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman are more worried about Hamas than about Israel and are staunchly opposed to the expansion of Iranian influence in the region.

7. The Amir of Qatar is a dubious ally, who plays Washington and Tehran off each other. "The Amir closed the meeting by offering that based on 30 years of experience with the Iranians, they will give you 100 words. Trust only one of the 100."

8. America's Arab allies do not believe that the Barack Obama Administration can separate Syria from Iran through any foreseeable combination of carrots and sticks. According to one cable, the UAE's Sheik Mohamed Bin Zayed "showed no confidence that Syria could be separated from the Iranian camp" and quoted him directly as saying "If you want my opinion ... I think not." He advised that Syria would continue hedging on key regional issues (Iran, support for Hezbollah, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) for the foreseeable future.

What comes through most strongly from the Wikileaks documents...is that U.S. Middle East policy is premised on a web of self-justifying fictions that are flatly contradicted by the assessments of American diplomats and allies in the region. Starting with Bush's second term and continuing through the Obama Administration, Washington has ignored the strong and repeated pleas of its regional allies--from Jerusalem to Riyadh--to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the documents is the extent to which both the Bush and Obama Administrations have concealed Iran's war against the United States and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states, even as those same allies have been candid in their diplomatic exchanges with us. U.S. servicemen and -women are being dispatched to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan where they are fighting Iranian soldiers and assets in a regional war with the Islamic Republic that our officials dare not discuss, lest they have to do something about it.

Kate Nkansa writing in Feint & Margin:

I often listen to Africans speaking and boasting about how many European countries they have been to, they however fail to mention one African country they have visited. Have you ever heard of anyone mentioning that they have been saving for a trip to visit Timbuktu in Mali, which was a centre of Islamic learning from the 13th to the 17th century...We travel to France to get a taste of French bread and wine; Italy to experience their pasta and pizza; and Switzerland for their cheese and chocolate. What cuisine are African countries celebrated for having?

More here
via Kabissa

Leo Igwe writes:

...the Islamic faith is associated with the use of Juju, charms, and amulets-another practice very common in Africa. Muslims and Africans believe these fetishes and concoctions scare away evils and misfortune, to kill one's enemies, and to enhance one's progress and success in life. In Nigeria, Muslim spiritualists are reputed for their extraordinary feats in Juju and the production of talismans.By sanctioning many traditional African practices, Islam, unlike other alien religions, has been very instrumental in the continuation of these customs. Islam is one of the greatest obstacles to the efforts to eradicate harmful and inhumane traditional practices in Africa

More here

Not sure if you followed this recent story, but a Reverend Terry Jones, the leader of a tiny Florida church, had been planning to burn a bunch of Quran's on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, extremist Muslim terrorist attacks. He has a tiny congregation of only 50 people and is not considered to be a leading authority or leadership figure in the wider Christian church. When word got out that he planned on doing this, a lot of people decided to write about it and advise him not to, including President Barack Obama, who urged him to listen to "those better angels" and give up his "stunt." Liberal bloggers and Democrat activists jumped out of the woodwork to condemn this pastor, and liberal talk radio was filled with criticisms and caricatures of him and 'crazy nut Christians'.

Reverend Jones prayed about what to do and probably listened to what people were urging him to do, and after all that the crazy nut decided that it was probably a better decision to not go ahead with the Koran burning. In the end, he made the correct decision and did the right thing for society. One other reason that he gave though was that he was promised that be calling off this inflammatory stunt, another inflammatory stunt would also be called off- that be cancelling his Koran burning, he says he was promised that the Ground Zero Mosque would not be built on Ground Zero but would be moved somewhere else.

Let's connect these two events, and compare the building of the Ground Zero Mosque to the Burning of Korans.

Liberals, Democrats, and liberal talk radio was filled with people defending the building of a mosque on Ground Zero because it was 'someone's legal right to do so' and that by Americans letting it be built would be a good demonstration of how tolerant our nation was. And yet those same radio stations, Democrats, and liberals were criticizing, mocking, and rejecting Jone's plan to burn the Koran, even though that is an even more clear example of First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that by letting him burn those Korans, it would be giving Muslims a great chance to demonstrate their toleration. It appears that these people pick and choose who they feel should get First Amendment rights, and they choose the opposite people than I would choose (if I could choose, which I can't). It appears that these liberals and Democrats are all about forcing America to show that it is tolerant and nice and welcoming to Muslims, but fearful and afraid that if Muslims are given the same chance that they'll demonstrate that they aren't tolerant, peaceful, loving, or welcoming in turn. The difference in liberals and Democrats feelings on these issues was striking.

For example, look at the reaction of the leader of the Democrat Party, Barack Obama, to the two planned events. Both building a mosque on the site of Ground Zero and burning Korans on 9/11 are inflammatory stunts designed to bring publicity and raise intense feelings. Both were destined to turn out badly- tying the mosque to 9/11 by building it on that location will increase anti-Muslim feelings in our nation, and burning the Koran will make Christians look intolerant and could lead to increased casualties in our War on Extremist Militant Islamic Terrorists. But Obama and the Democrats came out and supported the building of the mosque, but tried to put a stop to the building of Korans. This difference in reactions is troubling- why is Obama and the Democrats willing to cause damage to our society and inspire bad feelings in one situation, but unwilling in the other situation? I'll let you answer that question in your own mind.

And in the end, it was the crazy nut small time Pastor of some backward town in Florida who made the correct decision and decided not to go ahead with his plan, and it was the well-respected and esteemed Imam who is being paid by the US State Department to travel around the world as a spokesman for tolerance or something who is rejecting as 'radicals' the 70% of the nation who feels it would be wrong for him to build his mosque on that location in spite of the consequences. This demonstrates something else- one person made the correct decision and decided not to inflame the situation further, and another made the wrong decision and decided to inflame the situation further. Both of course had the legal right to inflame as much as they wanted to, both had the right to demonstrate which religion was more tolerant and accepting, but in the end, only one person decided correctly that just because you have the legal right to do something and just because it could send a message, that doesn't mean that you do it.

Pastor Jones eventually made the right choice, the Ground Zero Imam is making the wrong choice, and anyone who supports anyone who believes otherwise needs to really think about the choices they are making in their own lives.

Time travel back to 5 short years ago. The Democratic Party was frantically doing everything possible to pull our troops out of Iraq. Leaders in the party demanded an immediate withdrawal from the unwinnable war. Political lines in the sand were drawn, reputations were staked, bitter battles were fought, all by Democrats who were all against the War in Iraq. Our President, supported by angry demonstrators, regularly shouted about how bad the War in Iraq was. So what happened?

This question has importance, and is not asked simply to dwell on the past. It speaks to the credibility, the experience, the ability to accurately judge and predict events, of our current leadership. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Peters- they all had the same position on Iraq, and time has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that on that very very important issue, they were very very wrong.

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote a great article called So What Happened to Iraq? that analyzed this very question:

Six years ago, the conventional wisdom was that Ayad Allawi, then prime minister of the appointed Iraqi Interim Government, was a puppet of the United States. Last month, though, the Allawi-led Iraqiya alliance won, by a narrow margin, more parliamentary seats than any other coalition in national elections -- and he may become the country's next prime minister.

The secular Allawi successfully campaigned on the message of curbing religious interference in government -- countering the often-argued charge that the U.S. has created a radical Islamic republic in Iraq.

Indeed, as we look back at our years in Iraq, almost all of what once passed for conventional wisdom has been proven wrong.

Yes, there is still terrorist violence in Iraq -- especially recently as the leadership of the country's next government remains in doubt. And, yes, there are still around 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. But in the first three months of 2010, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq was about equal to those murdered in Fresno, Calif.

Meanwhile, Iraq's democracy has for some time now proven itself independent from the U.S. -- and that old anti-war accusations that we entered the war to control Iraqi oil were false. Last June, the representative Iraqi government held its first oil auction -- featuring transparent negotiations in which no American oil company was awarded an oil concession.

Instead, Chinese, Russian, British, French and other national oil consortia were given the awards. These were legitimate contracts, too -- not the sweetheart deals Saddam Hussein used to make with other governments in exchange for international political cover.

After the U.S. removed the monstrous Saddam, many argued that we were only empowering neighboring Iran -- and thus that the U.S. and the region were better off when he was in power. Putting aside the morality of playing one dictatorship off against another, has theocratic Iran really benefited from the emergence of a constitutional democracy in Iraq?

Currently, the Iranian theocracy is far more unpopular among Iranians than the Iraqi democracy is among Iraqis. Ending Saddam Hussein's reign in the short-term might have been welcome to the ruling Iranian mullahs, but a nearby functioning secular constitutional state -- with a Shiite majority -- is becoming its worst nightmare. Millions of restless Iranians must now wonder, "If Iraqi Shiites can talk freely on television, why can't we?"

Given Iraq's progress these last years, it's hard to find anyone who still argues -- as the current troika now directing U.S. foreign policy, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, once did -- that President Bush's 2007 troop surge was a mistake.

To a then-Sen. Clinton, the surge's purported success required a "suspension of disbelief." But, as we now know, the surge saved Iraq and provided a blueprint of sorts for operations in Afghanistan.

Finally, there was the assertion that anti-war protests were all genuinely based on opposition to the American presence in Iraq rather than fueled, in large part, by partisan politics. But since January 2009, when Obama was sworn into office, there have been almost no anti-war demonstrations against the still-sizable American presence there. Popular demonstrations in the U.S. now oppose excessive government, not the war.

And Hollywood has ceased making its usual, unpopular anti-war movies like "In the Valley of Elah," "Redacted," "The Kingdom," "Rendition," "Lions for Lambs" and "Home of the Brave."

Many on the left no longer oppose the Bush-Petraeus plan of slow, graduated withdrawal from Iraq, as this strategy is now sanctioned by President Obama. In the words of Vice President Biden, Iraq may well become one of the Obama administration's "greatest achievements."

It's true that many original supporters of the three-week removal of Saddam Hussein underestimated the ordeal of establishing a constitutional state in his absence. But it's also evident that many who damned the war did so mainly to embarrass then-President George Bush.

We see all of this mostly in hindsight. Dire assertions about Iraq did not come to pass. Anti-war passion cooled once war-critic Barack Obama was no longer a presidential candidate but became president -- and commander-in-chief. And, most importantly, a successful democracy finally did arise after the fall of Saddam.

In the Guardian, art of the Ife Kingdom:

This is an exceptional exhibition, even by the high standards the British Museum has established in recent years. It is extraordinary because it brings together such a large number of masterpieces that have rarely or never been exhibited outside Nigeria before – and when I say masterpieces, I mean artworks that rank with the Terracotta Army, the Parthenon or the mask of Tutankhamun as treasures of the human spirit.
For European artists a century ago, African sculpture was powerful precisely because it did not conform to the smooth idea of beauty that Picasso's generation had been brought up on – ideas that went back to classical Greece. But they had not seen the art of Ife, a medieval city state that flourished from the 12th to 15th centuries in West Africa, trading across the Sahara with the Islamic Mediterranean world.

More here

In CSIS Richard Downie writes

The threat posed by Islamist militancy in Nigeria is first and foremost a threat to Nigeria itself. This is a large, chaotic, and badly governed country split along ethnic and religious lines. A predominantly Muslim north and a predominantly Christian south coexist in a permanent state of tension. Furthermore, the north is chronically underdeveloped and home to a mass of unemployed and restless youth, who, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, tend to be vulnerable to extremist messages. Nigerians might be right when they dismiss the Abdulmutallab case as a one-off, but they would do well to guard against complacency.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• You: Scores killed in Nigeria clashes (guardian.co.uk)

Markus Virgil Hoehne writes about a classic case of blowback in African Arguments

Somalia has made international headlines for almost two decades now, first as a state of civil war characterized by clan warfare and humanitarian catastrophe, then as a failed state, and finally as a potential safe haven for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to the assumption about ‘black holes’ and ungoverned spaces voiced by politicians and some academics, the Harmony Project of the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point has recently shown that the absence of a government in Somalia did not automatically provide fertile ground for Al Qaeda terrorism.

More here

Robin Yassin-Kassab reviews The Crisis of Islamic Civilization By Ali A Allawi:

The economic news is worse still. For all the oil wealth and untrammelled capitalism, the 57 member countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) account for 22 per cent of global population yet generate only 6 per cent of world GDP. An Islamic alms tax (zakat) of 2.5 per cent on the sovereign wealth funds of Gulf countries would produce an annual $75bn wealth transfer to the poorest Muslim states, but this isn’t on the agenda. Key Islamic values like justice, fairness and education have been ignored. Meanwhile, an illusory counter-movement to the collapse has been led, in the Sunni world, by Wahhabism. This puritanical reform movement is painfully literalist, unimaginative, and viciously sectarian. As anti-intellectual as it is anti-mystical, it rejects the flexibility of the traditional schools of law. Its influence has been projected far beyond the central Arabian desert by oil money and the ungodly Saudi-US alliance. The result is a schizophrenic response to the west—passivity and collaboration on the one hand, nihilistic terrorism on the other.

More here
via 3Quarks daily