Heard it All Before

The embarrassing praise and adoration that the media is pouring on Obama after his “speech to the Muslim world” in Cairo is proof that liberals no longer have a voice in public policy.

Instead, we are left with a pseudo-debate between the right and the center, with spin doctors trying to convince Americans (and even the Arab press) that what Obama said in Cairo was somehow different from what George W. Bush ever said.

Obama made several key points – most notably about the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the notion of an American “War on Islam,” and Iran’s nuclear program.

But there was nothing new. Nothing that the world hasn’t already heard from Bush.

When Bush made his speeches, some of the media – and certainly the rest of the world outside of the U.S. – screamed and hollered about human rights, fascism, imperialism, and hypocrisy.

Why the sudden change of heart with Obama? Is it our president’s skin color? His family’s religious history? His tone? The fact that our new president hasn’t started any new wars – just continued the old ones?

Or is it the hope that a new president symbolizes in a world being torn apart by polarized ideologies and hatred?

Because Obama’s speech clearly showed that policy hasn’t changed. Just the messenger.

Consider the comparisons…

• On the “War against Islam”:

OBAMA: …America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security – because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.

BUSH: Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for…we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail.
(November 20, 2002 press conference in Prague, Czech Republic)

• On permanent military bases and withdrawal of troops:

OBAMA: Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan…we seek no military bases there…We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case…

BUSH: We won't have permanent bases.
(February 10, 2008 interview at Camp David, Maryland with FOX News)

BUSH: And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America…We will not permit Al Qaeda…a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America…We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk.
(November 30, 2005 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland)

• On U.S.-Israel ties:

OBAMA: America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

BUSH: And the United States will keep its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

BUSH: …America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world. The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul.
(May 15, 2008 speech to the Israeli Knesset)

• On the situation in Palestine:

OBAMA: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

BUSH: It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

• On a two-state solution:

OBAMA: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

BUSH: My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On the Road Map and responsibilities:

OBAMA: The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

BUSH: [W]e reaffirm the path to peace set out in the road map… The success of these efforts will require that all parties show patience and flexibility and meet their responsibilities.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On Palestinian violence:

OBAMA: Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.

BUSH: A Palestinian state will never be created by terror -- it will be built through reform.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: …the terror and violence preached by Palestinian extremists is the greatest obstacle to a Palestinian state.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On the role of Hamas:

OBAMA: Hamas…have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

BUSH: And we will continue to deliver a firm message to Hamas...you must reject violence, and recognize Israel's right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements between the parties.
(July 16, 2007 speech at the White House)

• On Israeli settlements in the West Bank:

OBAMA: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

BUSH: And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion…
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On threats to Israel’s security:

OBAMA: [T]he continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

BUSH: Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

• On Arab states’ normalization with Israel:

OBAMA: [T]he Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict…must be a cause for action…to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

BUSH: And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalization of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: Arab states should also reach out to Israel, work toward the normalization of relations and demonstrate in both word and deed that they believe that Israel and its people have a permanent home in the Middle East.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On U.S.-imposed peace:

OBAMA: America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace.

BUSH: America will do everything in our power to support [the Arabs/Israelis] quest for peace, but we cannot achieve it for them.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On Iran’s nuclear program:

OBAMA: And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

BUSH: Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions…[however] we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.
(September 19, 2006 speech to the U.N. General Assembly)

Meanwhile, despite the rhetoric being exactly the same, some media are attacking Obama as insufficiently supportive of Israel (read: anti-Semitic) by skewing facts and using selective memory. They accuse Obama of “alienating” Israel, of making concessions, or of unfairly blaming one side over another.

Essentially, after repeating almost verbatim what George W. Bush said for eight years, the only criticism of Obama is that he’s not conservative enough.

The lack of a liberal critique in the media – and the complete acceptance of whatever Obama says regardless of content - is an indication of the of malignant conservatism that has taken root in the American foreign policy debate. A true debate – beginning with real journalism – would stimulate discussions about why America is continuing with a foreign policy that has obviously and very publicly failed over the past decade.

It was just a speech – not action – and no doubt it will take more than words to heal the rift between East and West, Christian and Muslim.

But we will never begin the healing as long as the same failed policies and empty rhetoric remain.

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Consulting Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Pick your poison: Use the Share/Save button below to save this post or share it with your friends.

Peace Y'all

Iranian Paranoia or Lessons of Recent History?

After the May 29th bombing that killed 25 at a Shiite mosque in Zahedan, Iran, Press TV (an Iranian-funded news outlet) ran the headline:

Iran mosque blast bears ‘US, Israel thumbprints’

Of course, the two Iranian officials quoted in the brief story didn’t offer any evidence – merely that the attack was “at the behest of the United States and its allies.”

So I guess one could assume it’s just the Iranians being paranoid and blaming that “Zionist entity” that they claim is responsible for so many of the world’s ills.

Others might write this off as just the latest finger-pointing from the same country whose president denies the Holocaust (as well as the existence of homosexuals within his country).

Surely there are plenty of neoconservatives who will just dismiss this claim as ranting from the second act of the Axis of Evil.

Stories from other respectable media outlets were notably less conspiratorial. Jundallah, a Balochi militant group of Sunni separatists from the southeast of the country, claimed responsibility for the bombing. Within two days, three men (apparently suspects?) were executed for the terrorist act.

Balochistan is a region with a reputation; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (he of the 183 waterboardings fame and alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks) hails from the region, as did Ramzi Yousef, the extremist charged with bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

Jundallah has caused problems for the Shiite regime in the past: in 2006, more than 20 people were killed by suspected Jundallah militants in an attack.

In February 2007, Jundallah admitted bombing a bus and killing at least 11 members of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Yet in September 2007, then-Senators Obama and Clinton voted to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. I would have thought the perpetrators – not the victims – of a terrorist act would have been designated “terrorists.”

Maybe the future President and Secretary of State were only “creating their own reality,” to use a term coined by the previous administration. After an April, 2007 ABC News story reported on possible CIA-Jundallah links (along with adamant government denials), someone evidently decided a clear definition was needed for the American public as to who was the good guy and who was the bad guy.

A year later, in June 2008, Seymour Hersh wrote extensively about U.S. covert operations to fund, support, and perhaps even arm ethnic-minority insurgent groups inside Iran to weaken the clerical regime. Among Hersh’s sources was former CIA agent Robert Baer, who specifically named Jundallah among three groups allegedly receiving U.S. support.

Strangely enough, Jundallah is not included on the U.S. State Department’s list of “foreign designated terrorist groups.” Probably makes it easier for the CIA to get approval for operations in the behind-the-door meetings with congressional members.

But that’s assuming any support for Jundallah goes through official channels. It’s just as likely that support could be indirect and funneled through Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or other Sunni sympathizers (that, conveniently, are our “allies”).

Is there any truth to Iran’s claims of U.S involvement in the mosque bombing?

One could dismiss Hersh’s story (after all, he was so wrong about that whole My Lai thing…).

Skeptics could question Baer’s credibility, given that he now writes books about the subject that have been turned into Hollywood blockbusters (i.e., Syriana). But the U.S. government never denied supporting the two other insurgent groups Baer also named.

Patriotic Neocons will likely point out that after the initial ABC News story broke, Pakistan publicly denied supporting Jundallah at the behest of the U.S. (of course, at the time Pakistan was run by an unelected, U.S.-supported dictator).

Realists might simply require evidence from the Iranian regime about their claims of U.S. involvement.

Or one could look to the past.

During the 1980s, the U.S. funded Sunni fundamentalists in the region using Pakistan as a surrogate ATM machine. Many of the same elements that form the Taliban and Al Qaeda today were once “allies.” Saudi Arabia was actively encouraged to funnel money to extremist militant groups that the U.S. couldn’t be seen with in public.

Is it really that far-fetched to think that we might be doing the same again?

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
www.internationalpoliticalwill.com

**************************

Pick your poison: Use the Share/Save button below to save this post or share it with your friends.

Peace Y'all

Imaginary Lines in the Himalayas

At 12,000 feet in the eastern Himalayas, where dirt roads and the occasional jeep gives way to precipitous rocky trails and yak caravans, the notion of an international border assumes a much different meaning.

[...Kangchenjunga is the world's third highest mountain at 28,169 feet...]

Trudging along through the mist and the towering purple and red rhododendron trees, the clouds have blocked my view of Mt. Everest to the west, as well as Kangchenjunga, which at sunrise loomed over the steep ridges and deep valleys. I push on toward the small wooden hut just a few more yards above me, eager to dump the weight of my backpack. Ducking through an open doorway, I see a small family sitting around an open cooking fire, chatting amid the heavy smoke.

[...my trekking guide, Milan, warms himself next to the kitchen fire...]

A weathered older man and a young boy arrive and drop a squawking sack of chickens on the floor. They exchange a few words, leave the chickens, and take a couple liters of kerosene in trade.

I don’t know if I’m still in India or have, once again, crossed over into Nepal.

The family doesn’t care. They know they are Gorkha, they speak Nepalese, yaks are better at this altitude than cows, you can make liquor from rhododendron blossoms, and that the foreigner who just walked into their crude kitchen will pay them 5 rupees for a cup of hot milk tea.

What do they care about an arbitrary, colonial-era line on a map?

[...on a 12,000-foot peak, prayer flags and a shrine overlooks Nepal and Mt. Everest to the west...]

This is a place too remote for politicians to argue over, where short of building a wall, no one will recognize any externally-imposed boundary. There are no barbed-wire fences. There is no agricultural inspection checkpoint. No metal detectors, no heat-sensitive machines to monitor for Swine Flu, no visa checks. There are no vigilante militias watching the border for illegal aliens.

The only sign of the border are the small Indian army outposts every 10 miles or so, manned by a soldier bundled in camouflage fatigues with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder, who is only interested in glancing at the passports of white foreigners who may pass by on the trail. Anyone else (non-whites) move between the outposts with little more than a wave.

The entire area is inhabited by Ghorkhas (or Gurkhas), and culture, language, and traditions are shared across international borders. It’s only the British colonial legacy that left divisions between people, from an age when Europeans deemed themselves most apt to create imaginary lines on a map based on the balance of power in the West.

But people here only care about the lines they can see.

While the Indian state of West Bengal shares an international border with Nepal in the northwest, it is their northern domestic border with the state of Sikkim where the difference is noticeable. This internal border marks whether roads are paved or not, and whether there is electricity or not. This line is not imaginary.

In West Bengal, a small (and dangerous) dirt road, rife with potholes, landslides, sinkholes, and hairpin turns, drops 6,000 feet from Darjeeling to the Sikkim checkpoint in a Himalayan valley on the banks of the Rangeet River. The short distance takes more than two white-knuckle, vertigo-inducing hours in an over-crowded Tata-wanna-be-LandRover.

Yet instantly upon crossing the river into the state of Sikkim, I find myself on a paved road – one of the best I’ve seen in India. Another 34 miles north (and back up 7,000 feet), the road is still paved – and wide enough to allow two jeeps to pass. At night, the steep hills of Sikkim – geographically identical to the same hills of West Bengal just to the south – are littered with electric lights from the small villages and homes. Plastic bags are banned, propane tanks are regularly refilled and distributed along accessible roads, hydroelectric projects are under construction, and public historical parks are well-maintained.

The former Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim initially refused to accede to the Indian republic at partition in 1947, and was named a protectorate until 1975 when they decided to join India as a separate state. China’s unwillingness to relinquish claim to the small piece of land (tucked between Bhutan, China-occupied Tibet, and Nepal) meant New Delhi had an interest in earning Sikkimese loyalty. The small state (India’s least populous) is tax-exempt, but receives an over-abundance of help via infrastructure projects and development assistance.

Meanwhile, back in West Bengal, the hills are black at night, and Darjeeling’s 100,000+ inhabitants experience regular power cuts, despite being a popular tourist destination for Bengalis from Calcutta. Roads are in poor shape, and many are so narrow only pedestrians can use them. Many villages are completely cut off from modern transportation, with all food supplies and building materials brought in via horseback, yak, or humped in on the backs of villagers.

[...despite being one of the better sections of Himalayan road in West Bengal, our jeep got a flat...]

West Bengal’s ethnic majority – Bengalis (perhaps as many as 60-70 million) – may be the reason for the central government’s partiality. During elections, Calcutta’s 10+ million people easily outmaneuver the mountainous Gorkha community of 1.5 million.

This year, the Indian right-wing political party, the BJP, declared their support for the long-sought after Gorkhaland, a proposed state in carved out of northern Bengal that would allow the minority Gorkhas to gain some political sway in Delhi. Despite widespread support in Darjeeling and other Ghorka areas, the BJP did not win a single West Bengal parliamentary seat in last month’s national elections.

Calls for Gorkhaland did not subside after the elections. Nearly every storefront in Darjeeling is plastered with the sign GORKHALAND or the emblematic Gorkha logo of two crossed khukuri swords.

A rally last week in Darjeeling called for the community to take their demands for autonomy to the ruling Congress party. Yet despite setbacks and disappointment, there is no move toward outright independence, much less violent resistance. In fact, many speakers at the rally followed their calls of Jai Gorkha, Jai Gorkhaland! (Victory to Ghorkas, Victory to Ghorkaland!) with Jai Hind! (Victory to India!).

The Gorkhas in West Bengal have seen the benefits of political favoritism in the neighboring state of Sikkim, and now wonder why they are left with dilapidated roads and daily power cuts. They share culture and traditions more with their ethnic brethren in Nepal than with fellow Indian citizens in Calcutta. If their peaceful calls for Gorkhaland – as a part of India – are not heard now, India risks violent demands for an independent Gorkhaland in the future.

Contemporary India is a country created by 19th century colonialism and the era’s arbitrarily drawn lines and imaginary borders. The major task for India since independence in 1947 has been to reverse the divisions that Britain left behind. But reversing arbitrary divisions doesn’t always mean enforcing arbitrary unity. Sixty years after independence, India is left with the unfinished and difficult task of redrawing those lines with regards to race, religion, ethnicity, democracy, and common sense.

Yet in spite of the tragedy that followed Partition in 1947, a tragedy largely caused by imaginary borders, India is repeating the mistake and drawing new lines of division – this time within its own country.

Back at 12,000 feet, on grassy ridges where chickens and kerosene can act as currency, there is little that divides India and Nepal. On both sides of the ridge that supposedly mark the border, the same lush, forested mountains soar between warm valleys. In both regions, meat is scarce, but eggs, peas, and potatoes are plentiful. People from both countries happily give up seats next to the cooking fire for a stranger coming in from the cold.

Warming my numb fingers next to the coals, I contemplate how long places like this in the world can last, where the influence of politics, power, and technology have yet to impact society.

My thoughts are interrupted by the ringing of a cell phone in a dark corner of the wooden hut and the subsequent Nepalese chatter of a young man with his girlfriend.

I’m still wondering which side of the mountain he was talking to.

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Pick your poison: Use the Share/Save button below to save this post or share it with your friends.

Peace Y'all

Anything But The Real Story

They’re starting them off young.

During an elementary school visit on Sunday, a fourth-grader came up with a question for former NSA/Sec of State Condoleezza Rice. And it wasn’t just any question. In fact, it was the kind of question that should have put so-called “journalists” to shame.

The student, Misha Lerner, wanted to ask: “If you would work for Obama’s administration, would you push for torture?”

But he wasn’t allowed to ask that question.

Because using the word “torture” is a no-no, and any kid with this much promise of one day being a real journalist has to be stopped now before it’s too late and he ends up with…I dunno, ethics?

Lerner’s teacher – supposedly one of those people that shape young minds and challenge their students to reach new heights – “rephrased” the question, omitting the dirty little word.

So instead, Rice was asked: “What did [she] think about the things President Obama’s administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?”

Sounds like the kind of dribble that the mainstream media would regurgitate – still so stuck on 9/11 talking points that they can’t think for themselves.

Poor kid. Only 10 years old, and already he’s been told to drink the Kool-Aid.

But I guess you have to learn sometime. Journalism isn’t about the truth – it’s about distracting people with a shiny object. When it comes to focusing instead on something that divides, isolates, or generates fear, if the media doesn’t do it – our schools will.

Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News was hard at work covering their mess. Monday night’s headline story about the Swine Flu noted that “it may be milder than the regular seasonal flu…” and then referred to it as a “strange” virus.

It’s not strange, you idiots. Just because it turns out (as many said but were ignored) that this isn’t the apocalyptic Ebola-style virus outbreak that the sensationalistic media hoped it would be, doesn’t mean you can now label it “strange.” How about just labeling it what it is – the fucking flu.

But of course, as The News Writer pointed out last week, now that the torture question (oops, sorry, the “methods used to get information from detainees”) is off the radar, the media doesn’t have to own up to yet another failure to actually report the truth.

Even the allegedly “lefty” media – the print media – are in on the “anything but the real story” act. Because if the story isn’t divisive enough to distort on the US networks, the print media will jump in.

A pregnant 20-year-old British woman, Samantha Orobator, faces the firing squad in Laos for drug smuggling. She was arrested last August (that’s 8 months ago – keep it in mind) for possession of 1.5 pounds of heroin. Of course, she denies the drugs are hers.

Human rights activists are all over this one. A pregnant British citizen, being held without access to a lawyer, facing the death penalty?

So story after story is churned out, all of them noting the horrible possibility of a pregnant woman being executed. Or about how she’s been denied a lawyer.

Despicable violations of human rights, no doubt.

But where is the outrage over Orobator’s pregnancy itself? After all, she didn’t get pregnant until December – 4 months after her arrest.

I didn’t know Laos prisons had conjugal visits. Or, I guess, another explanation is that she was raped.

But no, rape is no human rights violation. I mean, she probably asked for it, right? Or maybe it was that prison outfit she was wearing so provocatively. Or perhaps she tricked one of the guards into impregnating her in a ruse to generate sympathy for her release.

The BBC did quote a human rights lawyer in last Friday’s story who duly noted that “nothing that happens in that prison is voluntary.” But this angle was conveniently edited out by the time Monday’s version was published.

Unfortunately, our “journalists” are busy falling over each other to report the sensational aspect of a non-white, non-Christian foreign country attempting to execute a pregnant woman.

So the human rights issue of how she got pregnant in the first place isn’t newsworthy.

Of course, if Orobator was Anglo-Saxon, the story of her being raped in prison by Third-World “Orientals” would be too much to pass up.

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Incitement

A story about a women’s shelter in Afghanistan should be an opportunity to showcase what can really drive progress. It could be a chance to commend those handling the day-to-day operations. It might be an

opening to demonstrate what role Islam plays in women’s lives who, although they have been victims of a brutal misogynist tradition, have not abandoned their faith. It can be a chance to show that, despite our preconceptions, within every women’s group are religious Afghan men.

Instead, NBC Nightly News ignored all these opportunities and simply reverted to western stereo types and fears.

Anchor Brian Williams introduced the “In Depth” story:

“[I]n Afghanistan today, 300 women came together in

a protest march, something just about unheard of there. They were demanding the repeal of a new law imposing harsh restrictions on women’s rights.

But then the marchers were set upon by about 1,000 men, yelling insults, terrible insults, and threats.”

(Sadly, MSNBC.com had an AP internet story the same day about the Afghan men who joined the pro-women march – but this wasn’t worthy of being included in the TV broadcast. After all, Afghan men protesting side-by-side with Afghan women don’t fit our Western narrative of a Muslim male out to oppress women and decapitate the infidel.)

“Though things got better there briefly, women’s rights are again under fire in Afghanistan by Muslim extremists, but some women are fighting back at great personal risk.

The story you are about to see is a tough one, and fair warning, what follows is not suitable if you have little ones in the room.

But we agreed with our chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, that the story needed to be told…”

Thus, in the introduction, NBC has framed the story against a backdrop of Western fear and hatred of Islam. (And if you are a “little one,” the seed has been planted: all you saw was a burqa and heard was that it had something to do with “Afghanistan,” “women,” and “Muslim extremists” before you were promptly sent to your room.)

Engel’s story itself detailed the horrors – the beatings, the forced prostitution, the abandonment of children. He makes one woman hyperventilate after asking about her sons she left with her homicidal husband (he says he “regretted” asking, but kept the shot in the final cut – he couldn’t have regretted it too much).

He even finds one “modern” spokeswoman (with a western accent) from the Women for Afghan Women center who addresses the camera without so much as a headscarf, reinforcing the idea that women’s rights are all about the veil.

Thus, NBC’s “In Depth” was far from deep – it had only two truly Afghan voices, both edited to support the premise that Afghan men are evil and abuse women (unspoken, yet insinuated, is that Islam is the reason).

And of course, there was the obligatory blurb from an Afghan ex-pat that grew up in the U.S. telling us “how it really is in Afghanistan,” because we don’t really believe those people until we hear it from one of our own. That’s how Orientalism works, isn’t it?

Am I to believe that none of these women – when asked “How do you cope?” – ever mentioned their faith? None of them once uttered “I trust in Allah to take care of me?” Even American Idol has gratuitous sound bytes of the winner proclaiming they “just put their trust in God.” But apparently these Afghan women are so secular that they put their trust in…what…? Democracy?

And where are the men? Are we to believe there were NO men at this center? No guards? No lawyers? No assistants? None? Nada? Zip?

I call bullshit.

I’ve spent time with Afghans working for women’s rights. They aren’t secular feminists ready to join the Western tirade against all things Islam. On the contrary, it is precisely their religion that motivates them.

Every women’s center, NGO, and educational group that I visited in Kabul and surrounding provinces relied on men. I asked these men the same question: Why do you risk your life for women’s rights?

All of them immediately gave me the same answer:

Islam demands it.

These Afghans that see Islam as the foundation of social justice aren’t an aberration. I heard it from young teachers, office administrators, lawyers, sharia scholars, and even a mufti. I listened to the same message from students, security guards, and drivers.

Which is why it is impossible for someone to do a story about women’s rights in Afghanistan and not hear the same thing.

Matthew Fisher of Canwest News Services heard them:

The nearly unanimous view on the campus — arguably the most progressive institution in Afghanistan — was that the West should not involve itself in the country’s cultural and religious affairs.

“This is not a good law. Women should be allowed to do what they want,” said Hamida Hasani, 18, a [female] architecture student at Kabul University…“But we do not want total freedom. We wanted it to be limited and to be within Islam.”

…“[Westerners] don’t know anything about us and our problems,” [Hasani] said. “If they faced what we have faced with hunger and war, they’d realize what is most important to fight for here. Before they come here they should . . . experience our difficulties.”

…“There is change in Afghanistan today,” Riosi [an 18-year-old female student of literature] said. “There is respect for us if we are educated or if we work.

“But westerners want to change Afghanistan for their benefit, not for ours. They have a bad view of our culture. Some of our women imitate their clothes and their ways. Our freedom must come within Islam.”

While loyal readers of the Vancouver Sun can actually be proud that their small media outlet has the ethics to print truth, the media conglomerates of the U.S. continue their propaganda battle.

For NBC to run a story about women’s rights and not have one person referring to their faith as a guiding force for good, or omit any men who defend women’s rights because of their religion, can only be deliberate.

To tell the viewing audience about 300 women protesters without acknowledging that some Afghan men were in their midst is a calculated choice.

To publish an internet article “Key to women’s rights in Afghanistan: men” and not once mention Islam or religion is premeditated.

NBC’s story wasn’t intended to promote more shelters, encourage donations from wealthy viewers, and certainly not to show what role Afghan men, much less religion, could play in Afghanistan’s future. It appears the only purpose was to incite more hatred of Muslims.

Which brings me back to NBC’s claim:

“This is a story that needed to be told…”

What, exactly, is that “story?” Because the only story that NBC ran was propaganda aimed at stirring up anger, hatred, and violence toward “others” that think, live, and believe differently than ourselves. Is that what “needed to be told?” Was the country running low on Islamophobia?

NBC’s “story” about Afghan women served no useful purpose other than to darken the lenses that Americans use to see the “other.”

Misguided and false perceptions of Muslims have persisted for centuries. In a globalized world, where information is exchanged freely and we interact with people from opposite sides of the world, can we afford to continue to be so ignorant?

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

********************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Pirates, Fishermen, and Mercenaries

I thought the U.S. military was funded by American taxpayers for the purpose of protecting our population (yes, rescuing an American hostage from pirates falls under “protection”).

But there is a difference between rescuing a kidnapped American citizen and providing routine sea patrols outside of U.S. jurisdiction – something that sounds more like corporate security at taxpayer expense. Yet a cacophony of voices is calling for the military to begin enforcing its rule over the one million square miles of open sea near Eastern Africa to ward off piracy.

It’s no surprise that commercial shipping companies want free military aid. The civilians that run the U.S. Department of Defense have made it quite clear that our superior military force is only to be used when corporate profits are threatened. The Iraq invasion sent a message to the world that the U.S. military acts at the behest of giant conglomerates like Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, and Exxon Mobil.

So now everyone wants in on the free security services. Commercial shipping companies – who spend most of their time outside of U.S. jurisdiction – now believe they are entitled to military protection.

If ever there was a job for Blackwater and the private mercenary armies that our perpetual state of war have encouraged, this is it. The cost of protecting commercial shipping should be born by the companies doing the shipping – not by U.S. taxpayers.

Hiring mercenaries like Blackwater would do four things:

1. It would create occupational openings for mercenary firms and draw them away from theaters of war like Iraq and Afghanistan. Providing a job alternative for these private armies would fade the image America currently projects abroad with tattooed, gun-happy, testosterone-filled private contractors fighting wars in sovereign nations.
2. It would relieve the U.S. military from the “responsibility” of protecting the one-million square miles of open sea that commercial shipping companies fear (and would thus avoid cost to American taxpayers). An already-stretched U.S. military cannot afford to be spread even thinner.
3. Consider the rules of open sea: for all practical purposes, there are none. Throughout history, pirates have not enjoyed any rights or privileges. They live without rules and, thus, die without rules. Fight fire with fire – mercenaries are the perfect answer to modern-day piracy.
4. It would be nearly impossible for trigger-happy Blackwater contractors to shoot unarmed civilians in one million square miles of open sea.

Problem solved.

Or at least the security problem would be solved. The root of the piracy issue still needs to be addressed, though few people other than Katie Stuhldreher seem interested.

Stuhldreher notes that when Somalia collapsed in the early 1990s, the rich fishing coastline was left with no state control. Foreign commercial fishing operations moved in and pushed out the locals. The first “pirates” were actually local Somali fisherman seeking “compensation” from foreign fishing companies that were profiting at the expense of Somalia.

Stuhldreher goes on:

“The success of these early raids in the mid-1990s persuaded many young men to hang up their nets in favor of AK-47s. Making the coastal areas lucrative for local fishermen again could encourage pirates to return to legitimate livelihoods.”

(Or at least encourage would-be pirates to consider another line of work…)

Stuhldreher’s solution? Fishery protection – either through the African Union, the United Nations, or a coalition of states.

Yet it’s important to separate “fishery protection” from “counter-piracy.” While commercial shipping companies would be responsible for their own private security (via firms like Blackwater), an international body would be responsible for monitoring fishing rights off the Somali coast, allowing locals to return to a profitable business.

There’s no doubt that a rescue operation, like the one that occurred over Easter weekend, requires highly-trained U.S. Navy Seals or Special Forces. But with heavily armed, muscle-bound mercenary guards on commercial vessels, the pirate’s chances of successfully boarding a ship in the first place would be next to impossible. Hostage situations would become far less frequent, local Somali fishermen could return to their livelihoods, and best of all – private mercenaries would have a safe place to operate without ruining America’s reputation abroad.

Any move by the U.S. military to assume the role of corporate security guard in the world’s oceans is a backward step for President Obama and our military.

It’s time for America to move away from the corporate warfare that assures industry profits are placed before human lives. It’s time for the U.S. to start addressing the root of problems instead of playing firefighter. It’s time for new, innovative ideas that create a better world instead of trying to return to an idealized past that has been whitewashed by a fuzzy memory.

How America moves forward on the piracy issue – a centuries-old problem – will determine whether we are moving into a new future, or retaining the failed policies of the past.

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

The Heavily-Armed Elephant in the Room

After the shooting rampage in Binghamton that left 13 people dead, the city’s police chief – the man charged with protecting the citizenry – said in a moment of stupidity:

“If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don’t have the answer how…[to] prevent anything like that.”

Really? Because the answer seems pretty self-evident to me:

Stop letting people just “pick up a gun” like they’re picking up milk and eggs from the supermarket.

The Binghamton massacre was just the latest (and, as of this writing, no longer the most recent) in a spate of firearm homicides. Over the last month in the U.S., 53 people have been killed in mass shootings (that doesn’t include the firearm homicides with only one victim).

There were the four Oakland Police officers who were gunned down by a convicted felon.

There was the Indian techie in Santa Clara that slaughtered his family, his relatives, and then turned the gun on himself. Good thing he was able to purchase two semi-automatic handguns to “protect” his family two weeks before the murders (in a neighborhood that had recently disbanded the Neighborhood Watch because there was no crime…).

There were the three Pittsburgh police officers that were ambushed by a gun-nut who thought Obama was going to take his AK-47 (which had previously been illegal until former President Bush decided that automatic machine guns were guaranteed by a 235-year-old constitutional amendment and let the assault weapon ban lapse).

There was a man outside of Tacoma, Washington, that shot his family of five because his wife was allegedly going to leave him… the list goes on.

Gun violence has become such a part of American life that I think we forget just how absurd the idea of arming citizens really is. Nor do we realize the effect this has on our collective psyche.

A couple of weeks ago, I was inside a DVD-rental store in my neighborhood of Mumbai. As I gazed through the lack-luster selection of titles, a heated argument broke out between a service clerk and a customer. The customer was shouting irately, berating the clerk for God-knows-what (it was all in angry Hindi).

My first instinct was to move away – part of my subconscious was even considering where to duck if he pulled a gun.

And then I realized that my reaction was a product of growing up in America where gun violence is commonplace. We Americans are so used to shootings that when a fight breaks out, our first instinct is to protect ourselves because “who knows who’s carrying a gun.” None of the Indians in the store were worried; in fact, they got closer to watch the argument. Why?

Because you can’t just “pick up a gun” in Mumbai.

Allowing Americans to “pick up a gun” has created a dangerous society – one more dangerous than many of the locations in the world that our own government tells us to avoid with their color-coded terror warnings.

Metropolitan Mumbai has about 20 million people, comprised of all kinds of races and religions. In 2007, Mumbai experienced 228 homicides.

The San Francisco Bay Area, which includes more than a dozen large cities, has about 7 million people. There were 358 murders in the Bay Area in 2007.

That means that Mumbai had approximately one murder for every 100,000 people in 2007. The SF Bay Area had one homicide for every 20,000. Five times higher.

What is the cause? Are Americans simply more violent? More aggressive? Are we, by nature, more murderous than other people of the world? Doubtful.

The simplest explanation is also the most likely: America is dangerous because we have flooded our country with guns – not only at Big 5 Sporting Goods, but in our movies, TV shows, and popular culture. Watch an American action movie and keep an eye out – we revere guns so much that they get a solo close-up in movies so that we can admire them without things like actors getting in the way.

While the U.S. government warns Americans that terrorism is a threat to their way of life, they have effectively distracted us from the real threat. Sadly, we have accepted these mass shootings as a “way of life.” Columbine, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, and so many countless others that we have already forgotten.

When we are so good at destroying ourselves, why would any terrorist even bother trying to attack us?

Then again, maybe the terrorists have already figured this out. After the Binghamton attack, Pakistani Taliban leader Baituallah Mehsud publicly claimed he had ordered the shooting in retribution for US drone attacks. It’s not a good sign when Taliban terrorists are eager to claim responsibility for our own actions.

We are killing ourselves, and we’re only able to inflict such mass casualties because of guns.

It’s not like we are seeing a rash of mass stabbings (yet there are plenty of knives available). There aren’t any epidemics of mass strangulations (everyone has hands). Americans aren’t walking into their places of work and covertly mass poisoning co-workers (yet dozens of cheap household chemicals are available). But with guns, death has never been more efficient - or acceptable.

And yet our leaders look us in the eye and say “If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don’t have the answer how…[to] prevent anything like that.”

Binghamton’s police chief knows the answer. But in America's culture of guns and violence, it’s just not politically acceptable to say it.

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Distortions Of Progress

All too frequently, the media sensationalizes non-stories as they attempt to whip up anti-Islamic fervor in the name of ratings. FOX News ran a story headline Sunday: “Islamic Law’s Influence in America a Growing Concern.”

What exactly is the concern? Apparently, some taxi drivers in the U.S. decided not to carry passengers with alcohol, a university installed taps for Muslim worshippers to wash their feet before prayer, and a company decided to give their employees a holiday on Eid.

Yeah – real issues to worry about – I don’t know what our free country is coming too when taxi drivers can choose their passengers, a public school helps guarantee freedom of worship, and a corporation acknowledges all religions. That certainly isn’t why our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.

This perception of Islam has distorted what the American public views as progress. The media has over-simplified our goals, presenting the idea of a Muslim woman who removes her veil as “progress.” That’s not progress. That’s just a different culture.

I was once propositioned by a woman under a powder-blue burqa on the streets of Kabul. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the veil that was keeping her in a state of prostitution.

Progress would be if that woman had access to affordable medical care. Progress would be if her children had access to free schools. Progress would be if both she and her husband could earn a living wage. Progress would be if their villages weren’t in danger of being bombed by U.S. drones or held hostage by Taliban insurgents.

Progress would be growth. Progress would be peace. Progress would be a future. Who gives a shit about a veil?

President Obama’s “new” Afghan/Pakistan strategy has the same simplistic view and lacks any fresh ideas as to how we can combat the roots of extremism. Instead, his “new” strategy is simply super-sizing the mistakes of the past 8 years and attempting to reframe the issue with new euphemisms.

The so-called “war on terror” (now renamed, in true Orwellian fashion, the “Overseas Contingency Operation”) continues to view civilian deaths – collateral damage – as acceptable. We continue to fund Pakistan’s military despite knowing that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence forces are supporting Taliban insurgents.

Meanwhile, America keeps trying to convince Afghans, Pakistanis, and other Muslims in developing countries (or occupied territories) that we are just trying to help; yet we refuse to let them help themselves. Islam is always seen as part of the problem – not part of the solution. For nearly a decade, we have attempted to justify our own failures and distract those working for global development by pointing a finger at Islamic piety.

And this is where we have doomed ourselves to failure.

There are so many partners that could help with real progress, but too many of them have been labeled as “too Islamic” and thus a potential enemy. Islam is (like all major religions) built on charity, and there are institutions within many Muslim societies that can act as a partner if given the chance. Unfortunately, our fear has kept us from trusting anything that looks, talks, smells, or even hints at being “Islamic.”

The Indian state of Gujarat is an example of what Islamic organizations can provide if given the opportunity. The city of Ahmedabad was torn apart in 2002 by ethnic and religious riots. (I won’t get into who started it, because like so many other conflicts, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a small event escalated and thousands of people were affected.)

After the riots, some of the Muslim population in Ahmedabad was left without homes. Islamic charities stepped in to help. Even orthodox political institutions, like Jamaat-i-Islami, the Pakistani Islamic party with links to militant groups, came to the rescue of the displaced community. They helped reconstruct old homes, set up new schools, and built new communal housing for resettlement. The underlying fear in the Indian government was that the Islamic influence would filter down and create a more conservative, rigid community.

Seven years on, Jawaharlal Nehru University anthropologist Dipankar Gupta writes that fears about rising Islamic fundamentalism have proved to be unfounded. The Islamic institutions have not tried to implement their brand of fundamental religion, but have simply worked to better the lives of Gujarati Muslims.

“Did the [Islamists]…place conditions of a religious nature before they let people into these [resettlement] colonies? None, as far as the residents could recall…[N]obody was tested for orthodoxy before they were allowed in…

The truth is that neither Jamaat-i-Islami nor [other Islamic institutions are] keen on advocating fundamentalist lifestyles. They have no interest in sponsoring madrassas that teach only Arabic and the Quran. Instead they have set up schools that provide secular education…These schools are not a ruse for Islamic organizations, or clerics, to pump religious fervor into Muslim kids.

On the contrary, these Muslim institutions are clear that they want the boys and girls in their care to learn secular sciences and skills and heave themselves out of parental poverty. The curricula in these schools are so designed that they conform to the requirements of the state education board. There would be some religious instructions in these institutions, but they would be on the side, and a minor matter…

The accent is on turning out successful Muslims who can negotiate confidently in a secular world…

Where then is that fundamentalism that is supposedly breeding in the smoldering slums of Ahmedabad? In fact, if anything, it is just the reverse…”

The Obama administration has similar ready-made partners for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America (or NATO) cannot do it alone – and nor should they. Afghans and Pakistanis – and the religious values that are a part of them – need to be integrated into the very institutions that are seeking to help. We need to heed a lesson from the reconstruction of Ahmedabad and stop being afraid of utilizing Islam in development.

But gaining support for such an idea first requires something from the media. We need a media that focuses on true progress instead of culture. We need the anti-Islamic fear-mongering to stop.

We need a media that presents Islam for what it is and what it should be – part of the solution.

Now that would be a truly new strategy for the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Moving Obama Forward

I’m still tentatively problamistic about President Obama – not optimistic, not pessimistic - just assuming the most probable outcome. I won’t say I’ve become disillusioned yet, but Obama is definitely not bringing the kind of change we voted for, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama’s policy on Iraq is virtually identical to what Bush’s was at the end of his term last year: we’re gonna keep some troops, we’re gonna secure our “interests” (read: oil), and we’re never really gonna leave entirely.

But it is in Afghanistan that Obama has really screwed himself. And it seems only now is everyone beginning to realize it. The decision to keep raining airstrikes on Afghanistan and Pakistan in hopes that we can bomb an insurgency into submission is finally being questioned (although many pundits seem to be questioning only “Obama’s decision” to bomb – seeming to ignore the 7 years that Bush first decided it was a good idea). But let bygones be bygones. We’re talking about now – the future – and the way forward.

I first said our policy of airstrikes on villages was doomed for failure last October. Then again here. And here. And also here. Professor Juan Cole alluded to the problem on January 26, just days after the inauguration. Newsweek opined on the issue in late January. The Scholar’s Stage analyzed the issue as well. And a former Pakistan CIA case officer wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last week saying the same thing.

Is anyone in the Obama Administration listening?

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the progressive spiritual magazine Tikkun (check out Tikkun’s wonderful piece on the positive role of Islam in Afghanistan), appears to have some constructive ideas about how we can get Obama’s attention (reprinted in part from an email and available in the March/April 2009 issue).

…[Obama’s] decision to double U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a moral and political disaster. He has neither clearly articulated goals nor a plausible exit strategy, he continues the intellectually incoherent and morally perverse “war or terror,” and he guarantees the death of innocents…

Yet how do we [criticize Obama]?

…[F]or some the answer simply is: “keep quiet, be patient, and in his own time he’ll do all the good things liberals want.”

But that is not how Obama works. It’s obvious from his appointments and his policies that Obama responds more to those outside his camp who make a ruckus of criticism than to those whose support he takes for granted.

To be politically relevant, spiritual progressives have to become visible critics where that criticism is morally required. Yet we must do so in a language that embodies our genuine respect for Obama and our genuine belief that he can be called back to his own highest values.

Our task is to use this extraordinary moment in history…to provide a detailed vision of an alternative…Without that vision of an alternative, progressives and liberals are forced back into the old ways of thinking…

The “something new” is already there…in our religious and spiritual wisdom, but today it must be fleshed out and applied…to build a new global system. That is our challenge, and that is our major project in the months ahead.

There is no question that the United States is a thousand times better off with Obama than his criminal predecessors (one of whom seems unwilling to let go of the fear…ehem, I’m talking about you, Darth Cheney).

We made a huge step forward last November when we elected a person like Obama. Unfortunately, the last eight years left us little room for mistakes. We can no longer afford two steps forward and one step back.

So the question we are left with is: What is the most probable outcome? Will Obama suddenly shift to a new foreign policy paradigm that advances international coexistence between East and West, between Muslim, Christian, and Jew, between rich and poor?

Or will Obama continue his drift toward hypocrisy, appeasement of the conservative right, and repetition of the failures of the past?

Progressives like Rabbi Lerner believe our duty as citizens only began last November. The future is up to us.

**************************
Stumblers:
Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below.
Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

¡Viva la Depredador Aviones!

Why aren’t we bombing Mexico with unmanned Predator drones?

If the Obama administration truly believes that dropping bombs from remote-controlled aircraft onto villages on the Afghan-Pakistani border is a good idea to combat the Taliban, why not do the same to fight the drug cartels in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez?

It seems that Mexico - where the drug war killed three times as many civilians in 2008 than a real war did in Afghanistan - is a perfect candidate for expanding Project Predator.

There are a number of similarities between the two regions:

Both the northern Mexican states and Pakistan are perilously close to becoming failed states, rife with corruption and lacking any entity that can enforce the rule of law.

Both countries are fueled by narco-terrorism and violence as they each try to export their illegal drugs to Western markets.

Both countries routinely see decapitations used as a method of terror, like these unfortunate Mexican police sans heads.

The threat of kidnapping is prevalent in both countries.

Neither Mexico nor Afghanistan/Pakistan attacked America on September 11, 2001.

There is actually more evidence to support the bombing of Mexico rather than Pakistan:

More people were killed in Mexico in 2008 (6,000+) in drug-related violence than died in Afghanistan (2,100+).

Unlike Afghanistan/Pakistan, the violence in Mexico actually is spilling over directly into American cities.

Phoenix is the kidnapping-for-ransom capital of the U.S., with 366 incidents in 2008 (police estimate twice as many may not be reported). Phoenix also has a murder rate that is twice the national average (unless it’s all those senior snowbirds that are responsible for the homicides).

The southern New Mexico town of Columbus has seen a trend of drug lords from south of the border moving into their small neighborhood:

“Several residents of Palomas [across the border in Mexico near Juarez] have bought property in Columbus recently, paying cash…new Cadillac Escalades, and cars with thousand-dollar chrome rims, have appeared suddenly, in a town without a single traffic light.”

More than 200 American citizens (15 of them minors) have been killed in Mexico since 2004, largely in border cities like Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, and Nuevo Laredo. Another 75 Americans are still missing. Most of these cases are unsolved.

In fact, despite what the politicians and their mainstream media lapdogs attempt to convince us of, drug violence in northern Mexico is a bigger threat to American security than any Taliban insurgents. Though we have effectively scared Americans with color-coded fear factors and visions of wild-eyed Mohammedans who want to kill us for our freedom, it isn’t the reality. Americans are much more likely to die in drug-related violence – directly tied to the northern Mexico smuggling routes and cartels – rather than at the hands of a Muslim suicide bomber.

Given the facts, I can’t understand why we aren’t already using Predator drones south of the border. It seems to me that drug lords would be pretty easy to locate in their lush villas, and then we can just drop a bomb or two via remote control – their families be damned. We don’t care about collateral damage in Pakistan – why should we care about it in Tijuana?

If we aren’t worried about addressing the root of Afghanistan’s problems with any real infrastructure or reconstruction, why are we even bothering to try to solve the underlying drug problem in the U.S.? Forget social programs and rehab centers, stop funding the Narcotics Anonymous meetings and anti-drug programs in schools, eliminate that wasteful spending on the DEA. If we can just bomb our way out of a problem, why bother with all that bleeding-heart liberal nonsense?

And if Pakistan’s sovereignty doesn’t deter us from crossing the border and bombing villages, why should Mexico’s sovereignty be any different?

Of course, there is that one underlying factor that makes our politicians think twice when taking a human life – religion. Those drug lords in Mexico are, after all, Catholic (as in, not Muslim).

But we get no help from the Catholic Church. The Vatican can’t even decide whether or not they should excommunicate these drug lords (yet we complain about Muslim leaders not doing enough to speak out against terrorism). Though the Catholic Church seems to be quick to deny communion to politicians who support a woman’s right to her own body. And at least they take a tough stand on real crimes against humanity, like being gay.

President Obama decided – within hours of taking office – that having a robot kill people (thus removing the human conscience from the equation entirely) was a good way to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

Now he thinks he can reach out to “moderate” Taliban insurgents. How can we possibly know who is moderate and who is extreme when our only contact is through an infrared camera attached to a remote-control plane thousands of feet above the ground?

However, Obama is the commander-in-chief, so I’ll assume he’s is correct in killing 15 civilians in hopes that one of them is a mid-level Taliban leader (who will be replaced before the sun sets).

But if we’re going to use this new sophisticated technology, I want to go all in. I want Predator drones used in any situation where they might be remotely possible (pun intended) to help us protect our country. I know it’s only a matter of time before we are using Predators against our own people (Great Britain already is considering it).

Let the bombing of Mexico begin.

Will Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will

**************************

Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine with a quick review when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below.

Peace Y'all