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

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

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

Camels & Christians

Due to an extremely busy week, I have been unable to spend any quality creative time on blogging. So let me take you back to December 2007...

If there is a city in the Arab world that would seem to be safe for Americans, it is Dubai.

The events over the past decade have made many Americans uneasy about traveling in the Middle East. Much of this fear is based on media propaganda that needs to demonize the “other” in the so-called “war on terror.” But the less communication and contact that the Middle East and West has with each other, the more stereotypes fester and grow, and the more media plays on people’s fears. The image of the “Muslim terrorist” is ingrained in many Westerners’ subconscious; conversely, many Middle Easterners only know the image of a materialistic and war-mongering American.

Yet there are places in the world where interactions between cultures are breaking down these barriers.

Dubai is a city of immigrants. Nearly 4 out of 5 people on the street hail from other countries - primarily South Asia and North Africa. The few Emiratis you see are usually cruising in their plush Toyota SUVs that match their white gutrah headdress and long flowing thoub, with a Middle Eastern beat thumping through dark tinted windows. Wealthy tourists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Kuwait, Iran, and other countries in the region come to Dubai for vacation; it is known as the Las Vegas of the Middle East.

Yet despite the immigrant nature of the city, Dubai (and the United Arab Emirates) is visibly Muslim. Five times a day, the uncountable muezzins call out for the city’s faithful to pray. On Fridays, stores are shuttered and the streets teem with laborers and construction workers enjoying their day off. Alcohol is forbidden; yet the five-star resort hotels skirt the law to serve their foreign clientele, an arrangement of convenience between law enforcement, businesses, and the Sheik.

The “news” in the UAE is centered on the Sheiks; who they visited with, what they said, what events they hosted, and what words of praise other world leaders had for them. Any notion of a “free press” is only a facade. Pictures of Sheik Mohammad bin Rashid al Maktoum, the UAE’s prime minister, vice president and Dubai’s ruler, adorn buildings, lobbies, and every business. A taxi driver originally from southern India brags about “seeing the Sheik walking this very street once.” The Sheik enjoys more than celebrity status; he is, well…king.

It is the Sheik’s rule that demands tolerance in the name of economic growth. The meeting of cultures and religions in one place is possible, in part, because of the Sheik’s desire to make Dubai a world-class city.

Yet Dubai is an exception on the Arabian Peninsula. How far into the desert does the tolerance and respect that all people are afforded extend?

Beyond the glitz and glamour of Dubai is desert, and eventually, the oasis city of Al Ain on the border with Oman. The 90-minute trip follows a first-class, two-lane paved highway surrounded by sand as far as the eye can see. The only plant life visible is the lush palms and bushes that line both shoulders and the median. A sprinkler system of tubes and hoses keep the roadside vegetation lush - literally “greening the desert.” Electricity is no problem for the oil-rich state, either; street lights illuminate the highway at night, geometrically placed along the median every few hundred feet.

Still largely functioning on immigrant labor, Al Ain feels more conservative and obviously doesn’t see as many foreign tourists. Not only a physical oasis of trees and water in the middle of the Arabian Desert, it seems an refuge for Emiratis seeking to escape the bustle of Dubai or the nearby financial and business hub, Abu Dhabi.

It is in this noticeably more conservative city of Al Ain that I admit to harboring doubts about how I will be treated as a westerner - more specifically, as an American.

We find a jovial Pakistani taxi driver who tells us in very broken English, when he’s not spitting rust-colored betel juice out the window, that he can take us to the Camel Souq, or market. A twenty minute drive away from town takes us back into the desert. In the middle of nowhere, pens of dozens of camels are arranged in the sun, with SUVs parked haphazardly between.

We are immediately surrounded by the camel traders. Their dress and skin color suggests many different nationalities - Sudanese, Egyptian, Saudi. They are excited to see westerners at their camel souq and greet us with gratuitous “A salaam Alaykums.”

Each one wants to show us his camels (as if I look like I’m going to buy one). They want us to touch them, pet them, feel their “strong legs.” I’m wary; it’s the first time I’ve seen camels in their native environment and I don’t know if they are going to bite, spit, or shit.

We walk along the stalls, and one camel trader appears to have “won” the competition - he has managed to secure our undivided attention and we walk off to see “his” camels. Dressed in a long robe and sandals with a weathered kaffiyeh wrapped loosely around his neck, he keeps his arm around my shoulder. As we walk, he asks one of the questions I had been dreading.

“Where are you from?”

“California. America,” I say. I had briefly considered lying and saying I was Canadian.

“Ah. America.” Then comes an even more uncomfortable question. “You Muslim?”

It is one thing to consider denying your country. It’s another to deny your faith. Though I don’t consider myself part of the organized Christian religion, I was raised Christian and my belief system today is based on the teachings of Jesus. I will always identify myself with Christianity.

So I answer truthfully. “Christian.”

I hold my breath and await the fury of the Muslim terrorist who will likely behead me for being an infidel, or torture me and hold me hostage, sending videos of me in an orange jumpsuit over the internet demanding that Americans accept Allah and ride a camel to work or I will be killed.

In the past, I have often heard a saying that many people “don’t hate Americans, they hate American foreign policy.” Based on experiences in the UAE, Afghanistan, and India, this still holds true.

But I wonder for how long we can continue claiming an inability to control our own country’s foreign policy? How long will we enjoy the goodwill and hospitality that the rest of the world is still willing to offer us?

The camel trader in the desert smiles and squeezes my shoulder.

“Ah. Christian. Good Christian. Come, see my camels.”

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

Peace Y'all