47 Republicans who sent letter to Islamic Republic of Iran: A jungle of Inbreeds in an Information Age!

Keywords or Terms: Traitors; Republican Senators; Logan Act; President Barack Obama; US Republican Senator Tom Cotton; Maine Republican State Senator Michael Willette; and Naivity

I hate name calling; however, I hate traitors more. A nation is a representation of multiples and multitudes of opinions. However, that hardly guarantees the undermining of leadership and US Presidency by any constituent group of the multiples and multitudes. What forty-seven Republican senators did last week, does not only deviate from over two centuries of tradition in foreign policy making and international law dynamics; it creates amazement in international arena and justifiable made a laughing stock of the group of forty-seven Republicans who thought they understood US Constitution and their responsibilities and obligations as senators; but failed to realize there are limitations.

Thank goodness, this is America. I know and visited a couple of countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America, where if this had taken place, these senators will be history. Interestingly, the leader of the pack claim to have a law degree from Harvard University. Is Harvard Law now breading traitors and international law hoodlums, illiterate senators without decorum of what constitutes differences of opinions or disagreements, from disloyalty to the union? In case any of these forty-seven is reading this piece, please read the US Logan Act and interpret what it means and what your recent signature to that unfortunate letter constitutes.

President Obama has not only been obstructed by the Republican House, we now have a bunch of primitive senators living in an information age, behaving badly in an international arena with respect  to foreign policy as if they were in the Stone Age. If it had to take a couple of Islamic Republic of Iran leaders to chastise the disloyalty of these senators to their government and the crudity parlance of their action in international law, then America truly has problems: A problem with Republican leadership and ability to govern. Factor out the continued obstructionism of Republicans since the swearing-in of President Obama, Republicans have now constituted themselves to a group of outlaws, whose only focus is to derail, abuse power and fail their oath of office. The forty-seven Republican Senators have done harm, grave harm to this nation; and there must be a price to pay.

In a world where the German Foreign Commissioner for Human Rights, Policy and Humanitarian Aid, Christop  Strässer, and Deutschland  Parliamentary State Secretary, Thomas Silberhorn, are focusing attention on Disaster risk curtailment on the global scale, forty-seven upper chamber of US Congressmen are working to embarrass and insult the office of US Presidency.  In a world where the fear of advances by terrorist groups are challenging the existence of some nations across the globe, a State Republican Senator from Maine, Micheal Willette, is linking the President of United States and his family members to the most dreaded Islamic State Group, ISS? As an American, I am speechless. Nothing more to say about the prolifically racist and bigoted outlaws parading themselves as lawmakers in America!

Tom Cotton, who once questioned the value of the Internet as a teaching tool in the classroom, wrote up a treasonable felony statement for forty-six other US Senators to sign, including former 2008 Presidential Candidate, Senator McCain, and none of them questioned the dexterity, relevance and interpretation from independent observers and governments across the globe? Yes, there is something wrong around American government and until voters fix this, by cleaning house in 2016 general election, we will continue to suffer the humiliation of a few wrong heads in the Republican Party, who hardly understand that the world is changing and everyone around, is watching.

US foreign policy and leadership include working to write rules for the twenty-first century world’s economy where it is much easier for: 1) America to sell goods and services to the ninety-fifth percent of world’s consumers who live outside the United States; 2) encouraging countries who will like to sell their goods on America market signing unto the Trans-pacific Partnership, including enforceable rules and regulations regarding minimum wage, maximum work hours and workplace safety; 3) engaging foreign countries and government to sign-on to enforceable commitment to protect oceans, forests and endangered wildlife; and, 4) advancing American export objectives of small business to help create more middle-class wage income to help alleviate the widening gap between the rich and poor in America. This is global leadership that brings on American interest. An interest that Tom Cotton, an uninformed and half-educated lawyer from Harvard law, is attempting to jeopardize.

Mr. Cotton, Harvard-educated lawyer from Arkansas, this nation is far greater than your myopic, uninformed and self-deprecating piece that you heralded some very naïve, probably well-meaning Republican senators on realm of party loyalty to sign, without understanding the implications! You are only 38; hopefully, with more experience of years on earth, you will understand the implications of what you have just done. The good news is, age is on your side!

What have we really learnt about Counter-terrorism : Scapegoating of the CIA?

Keywords or Terms: September 11, 2001; US; Middle East; CIA ; Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq; President Bashar al-Assad; Nuclear Arms Race; China, Chinese Nationalistic assertiveness ; Japan; Revisionist Principle Arab Spring; North, West, and East Africa;  President Vladimir Putin; Crimean Peninsula; President Barack Obama; Global Counter-terrorism Forum (GCTF)

Back in 2001, in the heat of the most dastardly act of terrorism on US soil, America revisited so many of its past foreign policies, including some that actually portrayed our nation as engaging in nefarious activities that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in the Middle East. Fast forward to 2009, President Barack Obama’s Speech in Cairo alluded to the possibility that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have had a hand  in overthrowing a democratically elected Prime Minister of the State of Iran in 1953. A few foreign policy analysts repudiated the President for acknowledging a debatable assertion; one that is contended or contested by a few CIA head honchos and some of our spy agencies. Some historians, journalists and government officials out of the agency, sided with the President indicating that some of the seething issues that make negotiations with the international community on Iran’s Nuclear Arms race, come out of this past experience of the nation. A few Middle East Experts indicate that notwithstanding the probable culpability of the CIA in the down fall of a democratically elected government in Iran, the issue of the downfall of that particular Prime Minister (Mohammed Mosaddeq) was not as clear cut as the President may have insinuated.

Yet the downfall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the man said to have benefitted from the ouster of the Democratically elected Prime Minister, seems to have called to question initial participation of the CIA; or, probable erroneous judgment that facilitated this foreign policy or act on behalf of the people of our nation. Pundits maintain that misrule of the people led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran; and, America’s choice to look other ways for political expediency, in some instances where and when authoritarian governments abuse power, continue to make the world question our moral compass to adjudicate in instances of political uncertainties across the globe.

Fast forward to 2014, the dangers arising from disputes between US and Russia, the two world’s super power, as each jostle for position in shifting the global order, appears to be moving into a new territory, where achievement of strategic changes across the globe will depend partly, if not wholesomely, on the contribution of the Central Intelligence Agency, KGB and some intelligence agencies in Western Europe. Can the US counter the insurgency fomented by President Vladimir Putin in the Crimean Peninsula without the work of the CIA? Can President Putin’s insurgency in Eastern Ukraine, including the tactics of infiltrating soldiers, weapons and intelligence agents into a convoluted mess be halted if the CIA folds its arms? We are living in changing times and lambasting our intelligence agency for mistakes that, as severe as the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program may be putting it, i.e., as unlatching of our national ethos of acceptable standard of behavior, may not be absolutely an unmatched perception of the world as we now know it, today.

There are outstanding issues in the Middle-East, offshoot of the Arab Spring, including the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a group whose leadership style has resulted in uncertainties for democratically and progressively leaning group of that nation; there is the bloodiest civil war in Syria, where Islamist-extremist militants have actually strengthened the position of an authoritarian leader, President Bashar al-Assad; a President our own President has voiced opposition and questioned his authority to continue in power. The political ramification of taking away any sort of support for our erstwhile intelligent agency in light of the current Senate Foreign Intelligence Report (December 9, 2014), may create a global perception that will germinate leaders with some high profile aggressiveness that may result in further regional instability. With the revisionist principle of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the world is about to witness further escalated regional tension between Japan and China. How about the increasing Chinese Nationalistic assertiveness as a global power with its declaration of Air Defense Identification Zone that covered islands disputed by Japan?  The significant economic size and military capabilities of China may throw a huge wrench in any political policy whiz-kid puzzle; and, or, an unnerving outcome for regional stability in East Asia. How is America going to anchor global security if Asia-Pacific regional stability deteriorates further without the CIA?

I highlight all these issues not to justify CIA actions in circumstances which the nation is in agreement regarding  unacceptable behavior in countering insurgency in our type of democracy; however, I do this in opposition to argument now circulating that some past CIA assets be brought to justice for their action(s) in those uncertain times after September 11, 2001. Having instability across the globe is inimical to democracy here and across the world. Faltering CIA and using a huge hammer to kill a small fly in times like this may not be in the nation’s best interest. Our Congressional leaders have to make some hard choices in light of the current order of the world. Without a common point of reference with respect to our Central Intelligence Agency’s role in fighting counter-terrorism, the goal of maintaining a global world order where America’s interests are not assuaged or marginalized, will be a mirage.

This brings me to a news release this morning by the US State Department regarding the ten things we ought to know about the global Counter Terrorism forum. According to the factsheet released by the Bureau of Public Affairs of the State Department :  “The Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) was created in 2011 with  primary objectives of countering violent extremism and strengthening criminal justice and other rule of law institutions that deal with terrorism and related security challenges. Ten things to know about this body are: 1) it has 30 founding members (29 countries and the European Union). More than 75 non-member countries and organizations have participated in Forum activities; 2) it’s activities have generated contributions of more than $300 million to support efforts to build civilian institutions, including the training of border officials, prosecutors, police, judges, and corrections officials, with a focus on countries in transition; 3) it has six expert-driven working groups that allow for practitioners and experts to engage with key counterparts: the criminal justice sector and rule of law; countering violent extremism (CVE); detention and reintegration; foreign terrorist fighters; capacity building in the Sahel; and capacity building in the Horn of Africa Region. Each group is co-chaired by two GCTF members from different regions; 4) it has adopted a series of rule-of-law based “good practice” documents to offer practical guidance on counterterrorism (CT) and CVE to policymakers and practitioners. This guidance addresses a wide range of topics, including: effective, human rights-compliant CT practice in the criminal justice sector; preventing and denying the benefits of kidnapping; community engagement and community-oriented policing; CVE and education; and prison radicalization and de-radicalization; 5) it members adopted in September 2014 the first-ever set of international Good Practices for a More Effective Response to the Foreign Terrorist Fighter (FTF) Phenomenon: https://www.thegctf.org/documents/10162/140201/14Sept19_The+Hague-Marrakech+FTF+Memorandum.pdf. This document informed the drafting of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 on FTFs, adopted during the 2014 Security Council Summit presided over by President Obama; 6)  Hedayah, the first Forum-inspired institution and first-ever international center of excellence for training, dialogue, research, and collaboration on CVE, was launched in December 2012 in Abu Dhabi; 7) The International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law Center (IIJ), the second Forum-inspired institution, was launched in June 2014 in Valletta, Malta. It provides rule-of-law based training to criminal justice officials from across North, West, and East Africa, as well as the Middle East, on counterterrorism and related security challenges; 8) The Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF), the third Forum-inspired institution and the first-ever public-private global fund to support local, grass-roots efforts to counter violent extremism, was established in September 2014 in Geneva; 9) To support the practical implementation of the Algiers Memorandum on Good Practices for Preventing and Denying the Benefits of Kidnapping for Ransom by Terrorists, the GCTF has developed a set of highly interactive, discussion-based training modules; and, 10) One of the Forum’s main purposes is to reinforce and support the UN Global CT Strategy at the regional and national levels, and to do so in a way that complements and reinforces the work of the UN and other multilateral organizations.”

With this, we know a long and inclusive process is getting under way to fight global terrorism relentlessly. When the Global Counter Terrorism Forum was initiated in 2011, I wonder if any of the founding 29 countries and European Union considered how to bring to book, actions and inactions that bordered on heavy-handedness in countering terrorism? I wonder if the intelligent agencies in all these countries and membership subscribe to subjecting their actions to second guessing by outsiders to the union or their agents in the pursuit of terrorists, within and without? I wonder if all memberships’ pursuits of the terrorists are endless and borderless? I double wonder if all actions taken by a government or agents addressing terrorism within the border of one country will be acceptable to all membership’s government. I hope also, that its membership will not waste a monumental opportunity by adhering to principles and policies that may question the complete commitment to outstaring global terrorism based on the objectives of the Global Forum?

Egyptian Uprising II: A New Course for A Restless Nation?

Keywords or Terms: Revolutionary Promises; Mohammed Morsi; Egypt; Fuel  Parliamentary Elections; Shortages; Corruption; Teething Problem; Muslim Brotherhood; El-Sissi; Military Intervention; Role of Religion in Government; and Tahrir Square

The first democratically elected President of the most populous Arab State and probably the most contemporary modern Muslim State in the Continent of Africa was ousted this week. The people of Egypt would now have to lay the grounds for another try at Democracy. Start with – doing away with the entrenched rules from the Muslim Brotherhood and or taking a long look at the place of religion in government. The Islamist movements have lost their credibility before the people of Egypt with the new uprising at Tahrir square. A transitional group led by the Chief Justice of Egypt is now saddled with the challenge of ushering the nation into parliamentary and presidential elections.

Just on Wednesday, Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected President of the State of Egypt had attempted to save his job by crying out through Twitter feed that the ultimatum given by General Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, the Commander-in-Chief and Minister of Egypt’s Defense was tantamount to a palace coup, was hardly heeded. Egyptian people were drowning out Morsi’s chances, even as Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, the head honcho of the Sunni fellowship in Egypt attempted to shore up Morsi’s chances by calling out for cooler heads to prevail. The Egyptian people were no longer impressed by the type of Democracy Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood was attempting to force down their throat. The Egyptian people had had enough so they used the long known and well established instrument of political change to all democracies: the power of the people!

 

The removal of President Morsi was seen as a triumph for the will of the people. While some cronies of the ousted President vowed to use their blood to save a dithering and troubled Presidency, the people wanted him out. While there were some inhibition even here in America regarding the ouster of a Democratically elected President, the Egyptian Progressives insisted that their June 30, 2012 democratically elected leader must go! 

Morsi's final push through the twitter feed that the measures announced by Egyptian Armed Forces represents a coup and must be rejected by free Egyptians was discountenanced. Former President Morsi's twitter feed sounds like an experience of a man drowning in a flood of confusion regarding what Democracy actually means consequent to the Arab Spring. There are those who believe that what ensues from this new revolt in Egypt will likely become what follows in the Arab political world. I could recall in my earlier blog on American Foreign Policy and the Egyptian Uprising, I intoned that bringing Democracy to Egypt, a nation entrenched with huge influence of highly political-religious sectarianism and powerful Islamist rebelliousness is hardly going to be a cake walk. The event of the past month has borne my suspicion out.

What happened in Egypt this week, May or May not follow in other Arab nations that experienced the Arab Spring revolt; however, the experience is more likely to jolt the current leadership in those nations. The fact that Egypt is a trendsetter in the Arab world is one suspect; the reality of the impact of modern-day information technology is another. The pace of movement of revolutionary groups' efforts in bringing down Mohammed Morsi spread like wild fire on the prairie and this is probably a suspect reason, why it is not unlikely that another revolt in the Arab nations that are seeking the type of freedom known in the West, is going to take place. It is just a matter of time. Remember Tunisia?  How about those tree 'huggers' in Turkey?

Contemplate the youthful exuberance of Egyptians at Tahrir Square first time; and; the Tunisian Sucide-by-fire Experience that unleashed turmoil in the Arab world, just before hell broke loose about a year and a half ago? Much as change can be brought about by these forms of revolutionary events, those kinds of exuberance hardly leads to easy and successful democratic governance in a jiffy. Stable Leadership takes a while to develop in a Democracy. There are definitely going to be some growing up and baby steps pains and the learning curve to Democracy may be steeper in one Arab nation than another; however, Democracy is feasible if the people in a nation are willing to sacrifice; or allow themselves to reflect on their effort so far at each interval.

Now don’t get me wrong that Egypt could not make a success of a second run at Democracy; my hypothesis is,  it is going take a long walk; one that is going to need some patience, a couple of hiccups and probably another blood birth before a stable democratic state is born. The Eighteen Century American experience of crafting a document for a stable democracy can hardly be duplicated in current day information and ideas interchange without some crisis. A stable and long running democracy can hardly be duplicated in the current day environment of information and ideas interchange, where there are prior multiple problems associated with religion and the way of life of a people.

Another stand-off between the led and their leaders are likely to ensue, especially where there are entrenched values of an existing subgroup or religiously nationalistic group as the Muslim Brotherhood. The escalated clashes and tensions in Egypt tonight is not out of the ouster of Mohammed Morsi; rather, it is one emanating from what has been affably referred to in some quarters as a clash of culture; one of what a Democratic State in a Muslim world would take and the other, the extent to which a nation can completely adopt the type of Western Democracy that many nations and peoples of the world, admire of America’s Democracy. This is a tall order! Even the American forefathers had to quarantine themselves to prevent a leak of efforts to wrench power from the crown. 

To ideologues who believe that American type Democracy and stability can come to a nation overnight, or an Arab nation like Egypt, I say think again! Democracy sought by the exuberant Egyptian youths or celebrating and admonishing adults in Tahrir square after the ouster of Mohammed Morsi, may someday look like what obtains in America today; however, in the short run, political observers and nation builders must expect the type of government change in Egypt this past week. Change is hardly easy, not to talk of a political change in a nation that has suffered from brutality of a long standing tyrant. The crisis is not just avoidable, considering the nature of convoluted corruption, power struggles among self- interest groups and instability that has plagued many of the Arab states that went through the Arab Spring. Lest I forget, there are still some Arab States under monarchs and tight feasted leadership or ruler-ship that will venerate the “bad” democratic experiment in Egypt; others may vilify it. The huge work ahead for those Arab nations that went through the Arab Spring revolt will constitute more than writing a new constitution, chopping down the heads of leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood or entrenched factional groups existing currently in many Arab States, it is going to take help from the West regarding possible pitfalls in transitioning into a full democracy.

In the absence of greatly increased commitment from progressive members of the Arab Spring in the transition effort into Democracy, a full blown democratic state as contemplated by them as well as the rich nations of the world may end up being a mirage. A wide gap still exist between the Arab leaders, even those clamoring to transition into full blown democracy and those just chugging along based on the favor of the movement for change in Arab world and the teaming youths in the Arab world. Listen to some observers in the Arab nation of Syria, they are begging to have a group like the Muslim Brotherhood in their nation. The type of perceived disciple among the Muslim Brotherhood that is currently being rejected by progressives in Egypt are being clamored for by progressives in Syria; in their conviction or belief, the current stand-off in Syria people’s effort to ouster their leader would not exist, if there was a group like the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Yet these dichotomies are less inhibiting to a full blown Democracy if a nation is willing to go through the pains. US history to democracy includes an isolationist tradition; maybe the Egyptian or other Arab nations in the spring revolt, may want to go through this process; however, the urge to transition rather rapidly to what America now enjoys must match the circumstance in the various states in the Arab world.

Summoning up the Chief Justice of Egypt to help transition the nation into a new leadership that will deliver the type of governance that will help stop the protracted fuel shortages, sharp depreciation of the Egyptian currency or the depletion of the nation’s foreign reserves, is probably not the panacea to the suspension of constitution and an expedited parliamentary and presidential elections. No one or nation can easily wish away this mired of problems in the average Egyptian life. A new leadership cannot fix all these and other known problems with a teething Democracy; however, the people of Egypt who fought day and night for the ouster of their past President cannot sensibly assume that a new person in the Presidency would solve the current problems with probably the entrenchment of favoritism to a group over others. Arab nations, which went through the spring revolt, and probably others, who are seeking some form of transformation in their nation’s leadership, must address various political, religious and ideological issues in their nation that may prevent a full blown democracy once a leader is identified to see the nation through the steep learning curve to a democratic state.

Murder, Infanticide and Syria: Collective Global Purge of Bashar al-Assad ’s Ambassadors!

Whether Syria is going to degenerate into a civil war if the insurgents are armed has long been an issue of debate. Some have questioned the authenticity of the rebels in Syria; and, doubted the commitment of Bashar al-Assad’s government to the United Nation’s brokered peace right from day one. A few Middle-Eastern experts have restated there is hardly going to be change in Syria unless that spoken about civil war comes or there is military intervention from the outside world.  In the interim, many welcome the kicking out of Bashar al-Assad’s ambassadors from their state capitols by nearly all EU countries, Canada and the United States. What do you do about a leader who has chosen to kill rather than protect his citizens? The newsreel painted a very grim report of the incidents in Syria; and, it does not look very pretty.

The United Nation’s attempted a brokered agreement to speedily ease Bashar al-Assad out of power; however, Kofi Annan’s effort was shredded this weekend as reportedly put: Bashar al-Assad’s government went on a murder and infanticide spree! History will once again document that there are leaders and there are murderous leaders, who will do anything to remain in power. None of the reforms sought by Kofi Annan is going to materialize considering the intentions of Damascus towards the brokered peace. Not a single reform recommended by the former United Nation's Chief was greeted with open arms. To a large extent, Bashar al-Assad saw United Nations as an intruder into the national affairs of Syria; and perceived the west, as controverted nuisance in the ongoing rife in his nation. The need to isolate Syria and her brutal government are inevitable; however, will this solve the problem? Bashar al-Assad government has adapted to the killing of innocent Syrians, age notwithstanding. Bashar al-Assad and his government believe they are in the process of purging all the oppositions; and, will be able to pacify the remainder, if they are able to buy some time. Would the world tolerate that? Would the world continue to stand by, seeing innocent souls wasted? Maybe these questions are best answered by a recent comment from the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan: “There is [ ] a limit to patience, and I believe that, God willing, there is also a limit to the patience in the U.N. Security Council." 

So far, the killings have gone unabated. Saudi Arabia and the Arab world are hardly going to bear arms to fight Bashar al-Assad, if the great old United States does not engage. Washington DC however, has made it clear it is not going to shed another American blood in the Middle East for now. The nation and its people are tired of fighting; especially not in an election year. Except there is a rewording of Democrat’s or Republican's platform at their upcoming convention to accommodate the new reality around the globe, especially in Syria, I can suspiciously tell you, America is not going to fight another war very soon. Our national interest is hardly at stake and credit for another unworthy war is far remote at this time.

The popularity and relevance of America’s might to global stability and peace, are as clear as day and night. Prior intervention of America in some wars, which are now considered as misinformed, is a pointer, why America has chosen to be lukewarm in light of what happened in Syria over the weekend; however, not before kicking the butt of Syria’s Ambassador out of Washington DC. The struggle in the Middle East will continue, both within Syria and around Syria. Unless our national interest is at stake, something like finding our staunchest ally, Israel, in trouble due to events in Syria and or Iran, it is very unlikely that we will get into war in Syria. For now, it is very likely that the negotiated peace by former Secretary Kofi Annan, is all to fall back upon unless the United Nations decrees otherwise; and, call out for military intervention to save ordinary people, who have suffered disproportionately from the Syrian government clamp down. 

Now, on the other side show in the Middle East, with respect to the nuclear ambition Iran, it is safe to assume that Iran will continue to build its nuclear weapon and Israel will continue to emphasis a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for reason of safety. But for campaign bravado, no one sees an election of a “President Romney” with a bold plan to reassert America’s powers in Syria, even though he continues to muddle up foreign policy question, asserting that a cold war still exists with Russia. President Obama on the other hand seems a dove, considering the depth of his apprehension into hurried intervention in wars that do not affect America's interest directly. America is attempting to De-Americanize the remaining time we have in Afghanistan and I don’t perceive that changing, no matter who ends up winning the White House in November, 2012.  For all intense and purpose, what is unknown now is, if the troubles in Syria escalates to the point of no return , will America intervene and end up fighting  a war that may end up benefiting Hezbollah.  We are now in uncharted waters and if you ask me, I’ll say: Your guess is as good as mine!

Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes: One for the Annals of American Presidencies!

Keywords or Terms: Al-Qaeda; Republicans, Democrats; Arab Spring; Muammar Gaddaffi; Obama’s Doctrine; White House Oval Office; George Bush; Barack Obama;  U.S troops; Iraq; and 2012 National Elections

Every American – whether you are Republican, Independent or Democrat – must now give kudos to President Obama with his steady record of successes in Foreign policy: 1) The engagement and killing of several Al-Qaeda leaders, including their crown prince, Osama Bin Laden; 2) The concentration and use of flying drones to engage American enemies and destroy them, including the demise of the American-born Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda #2 Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Al-Qaeda #3 Mustaf Abu al-Yazid, and several henchmen loyal to radical groups in Arabian Peninsula and Islamic Maghreb; 3) The cautious support of democratically minded groups in the Arab world to foster what is now known as the Arab Spring; 4) The reconnection with the World beyond Middle East and Pakistan in foreign policy advancement; 5) Global leadership on non-proliferation, including the crafting of intelligent campaign for non-proliferation in the world’s discourse and a structured  approach to Non-Proliferation Treaty Reviews; 6) The withdrawal of US troops from the middle eastern country, Iraq; and, 7) The ‘hard- to-praise-itself-or-take-credit’, even when the foreign policy success can only be traced to his administration doings. Obama’s subtle enthusiasm for his foreign policy has not only sustained his presidency in time of gloomy economic seasons, it has put his Presidency on a road map of a unique strategy that has hardly been subscribed to in American foreign policy advancements in half a century. Incredibly, it has been magic!

A great number of foreign policy experts have indicated that no President in the past half a century had accomplished so much in foreign policy successes as President Obama had done, with fewer loss of American lives. Some of the foreign policy successes were considered insurmountable given the history of international conflicts and politics, yet Obama has made that shinning light on the hill even more of a leader to respect and follow than to scorn as was the case under the previous Republican Administration; and, he accomplished many these successes leading from behind, or without being perceived as a bully by the rest of the world. Even though he has just been in office for three years, Obama has accomplished what the most recent Republican President, George W. Bush, couldn’t despite his choice of aggressive and impromptu war engagements. Fascinatingly, he has done so through hard work at the State Department under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, National Security Organizations, American Military and private security enterprise; and sometimes, through share luck in a few cases!

Obama’s foreign policy strategy affably referred to as Obama’s doctrine in the Foreign Policy circles has brought to justice three prominent international fugitives and enemies of America within a span of six months: Osama Bin laden; Anwar al-Awlaki, and Muammar Gaddaffi. To underestimate these laudable successes would be tantamount to heresy in American Foreign Policy parlance. What Obama’s doctrine in foreign policy accomplished since the exit of the last Republican President are not only ground braking or breath taking, hardly could they have been taught at Harvard University Kennedy School of Government for senior executives in National and International Security Programs.

Not that this or similar government and security programs at first rate American Universities are not brilliant; but, where on earth could you have taught how to immediately enter into the Briefing Room at the White House to make an historic and somewhat shocking announcement to American people that you were bringing their children home after languishing in a foreign land for nine years in a war that is now considered a mistake and based on unfortunate lies from the executive wing of the American government. Where on earth could you have learned how to make good on a campaign promise to end the Iraq war and bring American troops home, a day after Democratic-Progressive Forces captured and killed Colonel Muammar Gaddaffi, the Libyan strongman for forty-two years, who eluded not only the golden Republican Presidential leader, Ronald Reagan, but remained a pain to successive American Republican Presidents, until a Democrat President, Barack Obama, came along. For everyone’s observation, President Obama accomplished the last feat or trophy without shedding a single American blood!

The announcement from President Obama that all US troops will be pulling out of Iraq by the end of 2011 to make good on his predecessor’s arrangement and decisively subscribed to by his administration after long negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malik, was a brilliant feat on its own. The Iraq’s pull out not only surprised critics it dumb founded many of the Republican leaders that all they could offer was: Obama’s leading from behind strategy hurts America’s image. To Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman: “The announcement by President Obama and Prime Minister Maliki yesterday was a statement of failure, not success”. A pronouncement to which avid watchers of American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, understand within the context of where the interest of the former Vice-Presidential nominee lies and the possible interpretation of some strong lobbying groups in congress of the new announcement from Obama’s Administration. In reality, Obama’s announcement sets in motion other variables in the national politics of a somewhat recalcitrant middle-eastern ally.

Who else could describe the withdrawal of Americans from arms way in the Middle East, as a failure, considering where his heart and lobbying money comes from? Who else could described this very important national interest decision from the White-House thus: “A failure that puts at greater risk all that those Americans and Iraqi fought, sacrificed, and in thousand cases, gave their live to achieve: an Iraq that is self-governing, self-defending, and aligned with the responsible nation of the world in the fight against Islamist extremism and terrorism?” Only a Senator who has not only sold his soul to lobby groups from that part of the world but is known to hold brief cases for the insurance companies that have doubly helped to destroy the American economy.

Further, for those Republicans who are romanticizing that their party would have compelling foreign policy argument against the President on Russia, China and Middle East, I’ll say, good luck! Obama’s Administration has been so successful in many of its foreign policy decisions that some of us, who are in love with his style can only wonder, if half what he has accomplish in foreign policy had defaulted to the national economy, won’t we be popping Champagne Bottles in celebration of his guaranteed second term in office.

One more thing, look out Republicans, the sun is shinning on the economy already and come next November, the President who found and killed Osama Bin Laden and campaigned heavily to put teachers in the classrooms, fire fighter, police and emergency personnel on duty, while Republicans fought vehemently to deny him this effort, will be waiting at the debate table to outperform your close to disastrous offing as a contestant for the White-House Oval Office! By accomplishing so much in foreign policy, we believe that the Obama’s Administration successes will translate to other appreciations that will make voters retain the first articulate and probably the most reasonable free-world leader in a complex and dangerous world.

Of Royal Weddings and the Monarchy: why the British Public is transfixed with the fiery tale, again?

Kate and William’s wedding would probably be over before the British wake up and ask themselves: what was the fuss all about? Friday, April 29, 2011, will go down as a date when probably the next king of England and his princess sow the proverbial marriage knot at Westminster Abbey. Just like the royals before the newlyweds, each will take his or her place in the annals of history, one born with the silver spoon in his mouth, the other attaining the silver spoon through marital agreement. While the average Briton lives in challenging economic times, the British Monarch has deem it fit to throw a once in a life time wedding party, costing over eighty million dollars for a Prince and his bride. Bravo, what a way to empty the nation’s coffer while keeping the people in a fiery or la-la-la land! Before I rain on someone’s parade, let me get off here and discuss the political implication of the withdrawal of the invitation to the wedding of the Ambassador of Syria. However, not until I mention the marital power play in royal weddings and compare two royal weddings at the same church, thirty years apart.

The 1981 Royal wedding afforded the upper crust of the British society to smooch with Kings, Queens, Princes, Princess, Presidents and Prime Ministers, Top Military Brasses, Foreign diplomats and leaders of the Church and Businesses. The 2011 Royal wedding would do the same, even if at somewhat of a nostalgic comparison, the 2011 version of the fanfare will be more of a wall-to-wall display of mature interaction between two adults who are in love. The 1981 Royal wedding was probably between a groom who was in love with a different woman than the one he had at the altar; and, a novice 19-year old, who hardly knew, and who ended up being a sacrificial lamb to the monarchy. The 2011 Royal wedding is probably between a man and woman who consider themselves equals or pairs, while the 1981 Royal wedding was between a mature adult and a beautiful teenager trying to find her feet in the world. Frankly, the whole thing about the 1981 Royal wedding was fake, fake to the bone. What a Tragedy! So, for those who are watching the 2011 drama unfold let them understand that a similar drama took place at the same venue thirty-years ago, but with different actors.

Can we ever have equality in a marriage between a king-to-be and a commoner? It depends on who you talk to. If you consult a marriage counselor, she or he, would probably tell you that marriage is a power game! One person is dominating the other party, who wants to be dominated. Within a marriage, is often a power game that if one is unwilling to continue to be the foot mat, the power shifts that takes place, may consummate in the dissolution of the marriage. Much as Kate Middleton may attempt to see herself of equal status to Prince William, the power game and societal perceptions, including the overbearing influence of the monarchy, make it difficult. To prevent Prince Williams from being seen as the domineering one, he may pitch in to clean up at home after his new wife or future children; however, the public still wants him to be domineering! No Briton wants a sheepish or woman’s apron for a King! As sexist as the last two sentences are, they are unfortunately the truth, whenever a royal goes into wedding with a commoner, in a male-oriented or male-dominated society. For example, no one is seeing Prince Williams take the name: Middleton; rather, it is Kate that is submitting her last name to the future king.

Enough of bad blood, let’s get to the real discussion about the politics of first invitation, then, no invitation. Almost about a month ago when the invitation to the wedding between Kate and William went out, the Syrian government, through its representative in London, the Syrian Ambassador, probably felt the British Monarchy and government are according her equal disposition and recognition in the committee of nations. The coveted invitation to the wedding of Prince William and the St. Andrews University’s Art History degree holder was probably the talk of town in the diplomatic circle. Then came the spring of the Arab world, and so many given started to give way: major crackdown of Democratic seeking people led to irresponsible killings of the innocent souls yearning for freedom, after over forty-years of one party and one family rule over a people of Assyria. Muslims and Christians in Syria saw and experienced the brutality of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The world saw a man who once called for peace in the Middle East in 2009 in the presence of King Abdullah of Jordan; unleash terror on his own people.

In addition to the terror in the outskirts of Damascus, the Syrians saw the other side of a leader who is willing and bent on destroying those he swore to protect and lead. A leader, who continues to weaken political moderates among its citizens, sent out a network of terror machines to the outskirt of the capital of the nation of Syria, to ensure there are no dissenters. With over four hundred and fifty Syrians reported dead from the hands of a tyrant, the extensive support that Assad had received from the Arab world, started to dwindle. The world was dismayed and under somewhat of a tight fist, began to see what Tyrant Bashar al-Assad, is willing to unleash on his people. Not to be reckoned as accomplices, many leaders in the west started to talk about sanctions and the possibilities of closing the financial conduit to al-Assad government. The west, which have often preached representative constitutionality and pledged equality of groups in their domain, saw no room to wiggle out, but to use all instruments within their power to send a clear message to Damascus that their brutality will not be overlooked. Just as President Obama was announcing that his government is looking into all possible means to impact the government of Syria, the British Monarchy, yanked the invitation to the Royal wedding from its ambassador. Good radiance to bad rubbish, I can hear from 10 Downing Street!

Although this invitation withdrawal seems to create a unified front from the west against a government whose actions have gone beyond civil, the worst violence and probably the most harmful ones are still to come. Two days ago, just as the United States government was threatening sanctions against Syrian government and the United Nations drafting statements condemning the violence in the nation, over 4000 strong military and security forces equipped with tanks, moved into the Southern city of Daraa, Syria, early in the morning, mowing down their citizens, indiscriminately. The new assault from President a-Assad was probably meant to scare some people or destroy the nation’s psyche from any effort to gain their freedom. Now, how about that for a man who held hands with other members of the Organization of Islamic State, to preach peace among Arab states and the rest of the world?

By default, the withdrawal of the invitation to Kate and William’s Royal wedding is a political statement or development telling the President of Syria that, no one is willing to accommodate his barbarism; and, is meant as an encouragement to the citizens of the nation, that the rest of the world is watching. If the international community’s effort does not yield any result, at least it is on record that as Britons celebrates the marital bliss of one of their princes with another commoner, the plight of the underclass, are not overlooked. Those advocating for a Republic in Britain had better watch out, there are times when the monarchy that is perceived as being very offish and inconsiderate, do have a soft and compassionate flair and love.

So, as we celebrate the royal wedding with Prince William and Princess Kate, let us remember that there is a nation out there, whose invitation to the royal wedding was withdrawn; and, which probably is contemplating killing its own people as the British and their monarchs eat caviar, drink sweet wines, top them with royally lofty cakes and sing the Union Jack! Long Live the Queen and Kings, to come!

Obama’s Speech, the Arab world and the changing face of America’s Political intervention

Keywords and Terms: Military Intervention; American Allies; Libya; Internal Strife; Skeptical Americans Public; Massacre; Moammar Kadaffi; Zinga-Zinga.

While engaging in a civil war may not be the essence of the United States intervention in Libya, Obama’s constructive and forceful argument for intervention gives a new definition for being sympathetic to the course of democratically yearning people of the world, especially in the Arab world. The statements of the President, no matter what fence you sit on, shows a President actively engaged in positioning the country properly in the upcoming changes in the Arab world and probably the whole of middle east. The blog tonight looks at the president's argument for intervention; and the quick withdrawal of leadership of the intervention in Libya.

Libyans and probably secretly, many leaders in the Arab world, subscribes to the leadership role taken by the United States in this instance in the Arab world. A few political observers in the Arab world, probably wished the US could have done the same in some of the more despotic countries of the region, a few of which are currently having faint echoes of progressive democratic group inkling. The fact that the intervention is circumspect, both by liberals and conservatives, would probably convince any observer of the politics of Obama’s Administration, that it is accomplishing the objectives it has set for itself since the November 2010 election results: Go Centrist!

The conservatives are concerned that the President's action came a little too late and liberals found the action probably unacceptable in light of the fact that the country is already engaged in two foreign wars. Be as it may, the nature of the current intervention does not represent the determinism of the White House for all countries that may be yearning for political freedom; as you may deduce from this administration’s action with respect to Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria. Instead, the current Whitehouse believes that its intervention in Libya remains a compassionate action to save thousands of lives that might have been lost, with Kaddafi’s promise to root out oppositions, ‘Zinga-Zinga’!

While the President overwhelmingly subscribes to the view that it is our responsibility as a nation to protect helpless Libyan citizens, very few people believe that a threat to our national interest was evident in his choice. Indeed, many Americans internalized close to a universal belief that the American military and or might, was being stretched too thin with a third intervention in less than two decades. Maybe the President’s comment: "In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners," convinces the skeptics that this intervention wasn’t going to be a one-man show and was necessary on humanitarian grounds; or wouldn’t be for too long or too costly for the nation to bear.

Given that the current intervention sought an international coalition of the willing, who are willing to take on the responsibility of leading the war, as the US shuddered the burden of being the prime leader, no one in the skeptical group completely believes or buys into the President’s assertion that the country has an important strategic interest in preventing Kaddafi from overturning those who oppose him. While the President made somewhat of a convincing case for intervention, the better news from the administration probably came from Secretary Gates comments to CBS’ Bob Schieffer on the face the nation program, last Sunday: "I think the military mission has gone quite well...I think we have been successful a lot. You know, there was never any doubt in my mind that we could quickly establish the no-fly zone, and suppress [Qaddafi's] air defenses." Coupled with the following from Secretary of State Clinton: "we've already seen quite significant progress on the ground;” one can believe that our voyeurism in Libya is temporary. In other words, we are done with our immediate assignment and we are getting out in a jiffy!

Many in the Arab world may subscribe to the notion that the conflict in Libya has the tendency of spreading beyond the country’s border, however, very few of them share the conviction that clamping down on Libyan’s oppositions by Kaddafi will endanger democracy movement in neighboring countries as Egypt and Tunisia. With progressive forces fanning democracy across the Arab world, just as the manhandling of the conflict in Libya by Kaddaffi may spread to other country, so also can the wave of complete conviction in breaking the chains of oppressions and abuses spread across the Arab world. In fact the latter assertion is already taking place, whether other despotic Arab leaders know it or not. The reality is that some leaders in the Arab world are so brutal and more disposed to doing the same thing Kadaffi is accused of, and probably are presently doing same discretely. A few of them are more worried about the political implication of America’s intervention in terms of their own long term survival, with the wave of democratic forces upheaval within their border, the repeated regime changes that has deluged the Arabian world, and the uncomfortable theater of political instability that is now developing with many Muslim countries. The Arab nations are geopolitical different as is well known and the progress already made in the democratic movements in the Arab world, with changes in Tunisia and Egypt being somewhat unique and germane to each of the country because of the geopolitical arrangement within the borders of each country, the coming changes and the US administration’s reaction to each, is a toss up. Indeed, change is already in the Arab world and no one out there can actually say what to expect with the roaring change and clamor for democratic principles in many of these nations.

If the President’s outlined doctrine for intervention in a situation where there is a repressive regime is to hold, the question that ought to be addressed then is, why haven’t we done the same in China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, North Korea and a host other countries known for repressive regimes? The truth is there is no general agreement regarding why we intervened in Libya, even within the Democratic Party membership. Some critics of the President’s failure to quickly act or ‘slow to act’ choice before intervening in Libya may want to stress the inequality in his doctrine of intervention. Different treatment of nations regarding when to intervene or when not to intervene, when there is a likelihood of a repressive regime in power, exhibits the follies in the intervention doctrine as espoused by the President tonight.

Even though the President believes that a failure to act in Libya would carry a far greater price for America, objective assessment of the action taken so far with respect to Libya, differs from what happened with similar upheaval in China, Bahrain, Jordon and Yemen. Because of our failure to act in a nation like Yemen, a country where Al Qaddai is known to flourish, even though we believe in the lukewarm approach of their leader in the so called war against terrorism in that country and the recent action from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with respect to what was going on within the borders of Bahrain, calls to question our conviction in the President’s doctrine of intervention.

When the upheaval began in Yemen, we had the opportunity to intervene and actually root out any of the clowns/clans and madrasses in that country known to be propagating hatred for America and the west. We had the opportunity to clandestinely cleanse that country of people known to want to kill us, who populate that country. Tyrannical and despotic leaders are still in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, North Korean, Zimbabwe and many more. Women, who cannot drive or go out singularly in Saudi Arabia, will tell you their repressive regime ought to be questioned and so far, we have refrained from doing that while going after Libya. In fact, it could be argued that the only reason why we have not taken similar action in Bahrain, a country where a minority group leads a majority group, is because of our understanding of the differences in the geopolitical power tussle in many Arab nations. Repressive regimes still exist in the Arab world and we know many of them, Saudi Arabia, being number one. Our intervention in Libya does not justify intervening in those countries; however, justifying intervention in Libya with the premise that the cost could be higher, hardly holds much water.

As of today, the United States has taken the extraordinary step to halt the aggression of Col Kaddafi on his own people. President Obama said the US and its allies faced a choice between taking military action and letting the despot massacre civilians in an act that could have stained the conscience of the world. Apprehensive political observers however, reject the discriminatory doctrinal principle advanced for justifying the intervention because we know other despotic countries exist in the Arab world, and elsewhere as we speak, and our doctrine has not been invoked regarding their administration of their nation's affairs; or, clamping down on democratic progressive forces within their border. Moreover, evidence reveals that because of the delayed intervention or the ill-defined purpose of our intervention, our doctrinal strategy at this time, may suffer a setback, if the rebellion in Libya could not take over Libya from Kaddafi. The President has effectively said that the US wants Kaddafi out. If we are unable to achieve this, then our nation’s reputation is on the line. If the rebellion cannot overcome the power of Kaddaffi, there is no way we will not have to commit ground troups in Libya to accomplish the President’s pronouncement of wanting Kaddafi out. Anything less, will be an affront to our integrity as the leading nation in the world!

NB:
Despite my criticisms, I defer to the President on this one because of the articulation of his presentation. He believes in his arguments and presented them in a more aggressive fashion than in the past. The speech was well delivered and carried an allure that is a departure from earlier speeches of the President. Mr. Obama, you are worthy of that office and I enjoyed your presentation!