The Fight For/Against Palestinian Statehood

World leaders are gathering in New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly. This year the international community will consider a bid for Palestinian statehood. Although it is likely to fail, the bid refocuses attention on the 63-year-old land fight between the Israelis and Palestinians. Long before 9/11, riots in Tahrir Square and rambling audio messages from Muammar Gadhafi and Osama bin Laden, the original Middle East crisis began on a strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea.

I have always been a fan of history, current events and multicultural affairs. Particularly, I am fascinated by how different cultures interact with each other. Some divisive relationships I can understand better than others - Tutsis vs. Hutus, Turks vs. Armenians, Cuba vs. United States. But there is something about the Palestine/Israel question that continues to capture the world's attention - and I simply just don't understand.

My first real introduction into Middle Eastern politics began in university, where I minored in post-colonial studies. Tom Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem was a book I was required to read in a course on Arab-Israeli cinema. It was a good primer into the conflict, and since its first publication two decades ago, it is still considered a fair assessment of the major players. I also remember after graduation viewing a documentary on female hijacker Leila Khalid which gave me the Palestinian point of view. But the history of the conflict is just too confusing for me to understand.

As for the Palestinian bid, it seems like it is dead on arrival at the UN, although Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has extended an invitation for a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in New York.

Maybe something good could come out of the meeting... Probably not...

Human Rights Day? I think not...

So, apparently today was International Human Rights Day, but nothing about today seemed to celebrate that feeling. President Obama was in Oslo, Norway today to receive his "much-deserved" Nobel Peace Prize. I'm so glad I am not the only person that sees the absurdity in Obama's award.

From Marc Lamont Hill:

...How can a president who is not only managing but escalating unnecessary wars receive an award as an agent of peace? Even more absurd is the reaction from the Left, which has failed to call Obama on the carpet for the very policies and practices for which we lambasted President Bush.

Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy is rooted in a belief that military escalation and indefinite occupation are the keys to global security and the expansion of democracy. Like Bush, Obama has refused to substantively invest in Afghani jobs, housing, and education, all of which are traditional keys to an effective counter-insurgency strategy. Like Bush, Obama has dipped into the reservoir of fear, scaring Americans into thinking that military aggression, even the pre-emptive sort, is the only thing that will keep Americans safe. Yet somehow, despite these and other eerie similarities to President Bush, the anti-war Left has sat on its hands while President Obama operates.

Even more disturbing than Obama’s warmongering is the blatant calculation behind it. Unlike Bush, whose wrongheadedness was at least borne out of a coherent (though perverted) set of principles, Obama appears willing to act out of pure political expediency. After getting public pressure from his generals and bloodthirsty Republicans for his “dithering” (a Bushian term used to mock the President’s audacious use of facts, evidence, and wise council) Obama finally caved to his rivals and sent troops. Then, in order to satisfy the anxious anti-war left, Obama promises a withdrawal date. Sound good? Sure, except for one catch: He never promised a completion of the withdrawal, which hinges upon the ability of a severely compromised Karzai government and woefully underprepared Afghani troops to take over the military reigns. In short, Obama, like Bush, has American troops and innocent Afghani citizens in harms way without a clear or reasonable exit strategy...

All I have to say about this is that if the Dalai Lama doesn't think you are deserving the prize, you know you got issues.

In other news...

Yes, believe it or not, there is actually other stuff going on in the world besides the media circus better known as Michael Jackson's death and the quest to find out who inherits what in the will he left behind. Quite frankly, I'm ready to move on from this story, which seems to be get more bizarre by the minute.

Diana Ross???

WTF...

It's funny how in the middle of Iran imploding and North Korea planning to send missiles to US shores, the media has lost all of its senses and done wall-to-wall coverage of MJ. I just about had it last night when I was watching Entertainment Tonight, and the reporter actually asked Ola Ray (MJ's love interest in the Thriller video) if she had sex with him. Talk about low road journalism...but I digress.

So, here is some other news that has been going on:

Iraq (and its discontents)
American troops pulled out of major cities in Iraq this week. But we all know this don't really mean anything to anyone, right? Aren't the Iraqis free now?

From NY Times:

In BASRA, the mood was generally skeptical.

Haider Muhammed Ali, 31, a communications engineer:
“The withdrawal doesn’t represent national sovereignty because the troops will remain at the airport base and will stay inside Iraq.”

Samir Alwan, 28 years, owner of a mini market:

“They will not withdraw to their homes in their country. They will stay here and in emergency cases they would enter the city. So it is not national sovereignty according to my point of view, and I think the Iraqi Army is only able to control the southern areas. They are unable to make Baghdad and Mosul safe.”

Najim Salim, 40 years, a teacher.

“There is no doubt it is not national sovereignty because they will stay inside Iraq in military bases. The Government wants to convince the citizens that there is a withdrawal of foreign troops, although the Government could not protect citizens in some cities in Iraq even with the presence of U.S. forces. So the Government will fail to protect citizens after the withdrawal, and then the Government will ask the foreign troops to come back.”

Ayman Jasim, 37 years, a photographer .

“ I am happy for the withdraw of Americans it is national day and national sovereignty come back again to Iraq. I believe Iraqi troops will control the city and nothing will happen after their withdrawal.”

The gays vs Obama administration
Meanwhile, President Obama is seemingly throwing the gays under the bus with recent decisions on same sex marriage and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Now I know realistic Obama can't come out supporting gay marriage, as most of the country is still against it. However, most Americans are ready to get rid of the military ban on gays.

I have been thinking about this issue for a while. Do you think the hesitation for Obama to support pro-gay initiatives has anything to do with sustaining the black vote in 2012? This might seem silly, but hang on with me here. With such large opposition of same sex marriage in the black community, do you think the first black president fears losing some of his support from his own race if he is seen as being to willing to give in to gay rights? I actually know a few black folks who have said to me recently that Obama is getting "too soft" on supporting gay people.

Vibe magazine is dead
Vibe, the "venerable" hip-hop magazine, shut down yesterday, due to being "the latest victim of the media recession." But other folks are saying that the mostly white management ran it into the ground (thanks for sending that link, Marcy). I say it died because it simply sucked and wasn't relevant anymore. It's funny, I didn't even know it was still in publication...

Cynthia McKinney is out to save the children
And finally news that can by filed under "Embarrassing Black People"

From Washington Post:

The former controversial congresswoman from Georgia has resurfaced - on a boat in the Mediterranean Sea trying to deliver supplies to Gaza.

Israeli forces arrested McKinney and other passengers on board the ship, according to a group called Free Gaza, which said on its Web site that McKinney and the others "have been illegally incarcerated for their solidarity work with Palestine."

The Israeli Consulate General of Israel in Atlanta, however, accused McKinney and her fellow travelers of waging a "reckless political stunt."

McKinney, who ran for president in 2008 as a Green Party candidate, was defeated in 2006, not long after she was accused of punching a Capitol Police officer who mistook her for a tourist. She had made a brief comeback after being defeated in 2002, at which time her father said he blamed the "J-E-W-S" for his daughter's defeat

The "Free Gaza" website, freegaza.org, quotes McKinney as saying that she and her group .

This is an outrageous violation of international law against us," she was quoted as saying. "Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip. President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey.

She's right about Gaza, but must she be the spokesperson on this?

Okay, now you can get back to the real news: Now who gets Michael's kids? Katherine Jackson? Debbie Rowe? Diana Ross? Madonna? (she'a adopting these days...)

Iraq, Afghanistan and Mexico

So, if you haven't been paying attention to the news lately on the war front, let me break it down for you.

President Obama is "allegedly" bringing the troops home by August 2010, while an additional 17,000 enter Afghanistan.

Yes, I am happy to see Iraq disaster come to some kind of end, but for some reason, I'm not feeling the love like the rest of America.

From Reuters:

American public opinion is broadly on the side of President Barack Obama's decision to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq in 18 months, leaving 50,000 troops behind for stability.

"I think it's time to bring 'em home," said Dallas-area dentist Andre Ellis, 46.

"We can't afford it, that's the bottom line. The country's broke," he said.

The timetable, promised by Obama during his campaign for president, marked the beginning of the end to a war that cost the United States tremendously -- financially and in prestige -- and defined the presidency of George W. Bush. The war has killed 4,250 U.S. soldiers since it began in March 2003.

Withdrawing resources from Iraq will allow Obama to boost troop numbers in Afghanistan, which he has declared central to the U.S. fight against terrorism. He hopes it will also help him slash a ballooning $1.3 trillion (911 billion pound) budget deficit.

Not too fast, America. Because the Bush administration left Afghanistan hanging for so long, it is back to pre-9/11 conditions, with the Taliban being ringleaders. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 17,000 troops end up hitting the ground. And lets not forget Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Somalia are on the horizon.

In addition, if you watched Meet the Press this morning, you should also be aware of the madness in Mexico that Washington has to keep an eye on, and reevaluate US-made ammunition that is fueling the war there.

From Associated Press:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. is in the position to provide more help to Mexico in the fight against drug cartels operating near the U.S. border.

Gates says some of the old biases against cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican militaries are being set aside amid the growing violence. He sees the U.S. providing Mexico with training, resources and surveillance and intelligence capabilities.
In Gates' words, the border drug war is "clearly a serious problem."

Gates also praises Mexican President Felipe Calderon (fay-LEE'-pay kahl-duh-ROHN') for taking on the drug cartels. The Pentagon chief says one reason the situation has gotten so bad is that previous Mexican presidents wouldn't deal with the problem head-on.

For more on the war next door, check out this great documentary Current TV did recently.

'Change" in Afghanistan?

I know that I am late on this, but 17,000 more troops on the ground in Afghanistan?

From NY Times:

The order will add nearly 50 percent to the 36,000 American troops already there. A further decision on sending more troops will come after the administration completes a broader review of Afghanistan policy, White House officials said.

Mr. Obama said in a written statement that the increase was “necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”

At least for now, Mr. Obama’s decision gives American commanders in Afghanistan most but not all of the troops they had asked for. But the decision also carries political risk for a president who will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Many experts worry that Afghanistan presents an even more formidable challenge for the United States than Iraq does, particularly with neighboring Pakistan providing sanctuary for insurgents of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Under Mr. Obama’s plan, a unit of 8,000 marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will be deployed in the next few weeks, aiming to be in Afghanistan by late spring, administration officials said, while an Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Wash., composed of 4,000 soldiers, will be sent in the summer. An additional 5,000 Army support troops will also be deployed in the summer.

Antiwar groups criticized Mr. Obama’s decision even before the White House announced it.

“The president is committing these troops before he’s determined what the mission is,” said Tom Andrews, director of the coalition organization Win Without War. “We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”

But does Obama really have a choice here but to send more troops? The Bush administration let Afghanistan fall back to the Taliban while it raged terror in Iraq. No one likes war, but what can you realistically do here?

President Obama has a lot of explaining to do tonight.

What would MLK think of President Bush?

With President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration around the corner, it seems like Dr Martin Luther King's dream may have been realized. With all the good will and racial reconcilation the new administration represents, Obama will also be taking over the crap the previous administration left behind.

It begs the question: has President Bush set back America, and would Dr King approve of his actions?

Lets look back at some highlighted notes I took down over the last eight years:

1. Did Bush have pre-knowledge of 9/11?

2. And why after 9/11 did he enact executive privilege to protect Condi Rice and Dick Cheney?

3. While Saddam Hussein was eventually capture and killed, the Bush administration has sent over 4,000 service men and women to their deaths based on a lie.

4. Collin Powell lost his credibility around the world when he lied at the UN in support of the Iraq War.

5. Why did the Bush administration deny support for stem cell research and climate change?

6. Why did the Bush administration deny support to those in the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina?

7. No Child Left Behind is still leaving American children behind.

8. The ABC Policy is also leaving a lot of other people behind in the developing world.

9. Shouldn't the Bush administration be prosecuted as war criminals for inhuman behavior going on in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, which is the "gulag of our time"?

10. Who thought the Patriot Act and wire tapping made any sense in the first place?

11. During the Clinton administration, the budget had a surplus of more than $100 billion. Why is the fiscal 2009 deficit approaching $700 billion under Bush's tenure.

I don't usually like to predict what the deceased would say about things if they were alive today, but I am pretty sure that Dr King and I would agree that most of the nonsense that went down during the Bush years have just set back social justice in this country by many years.

In hindsight, Mr Bush, thanks, but no thanks for the memories.

So in honor of his last hurrah, here are President Bush's greatest moments, courtesy of David Letterman.

Retro Film Review: Control Room

The American media was hijacked by the administration so as to be used as a leverage for inducing some fear among the American public.
- Samir Khader, Al Jazeera senior producer

The crisis in Gaza has highlighted the problematic media coverage of how Israel is handling the bombings.

From New York Times:

The Foreign Press Association has been fighting for weeks to get its members into Gaza, first appealing to senior government officials and ultimately taking its case to the country’s highest court. Last week the justices worked out an arrangement with the organization whereby small groups would be permitted into Gaza when it was deemed safe enough for the crossings to be opened for other reasons.

So far, every time the border has been opened, journalists have not been permitted to go in.

On Tuesday, the press association released a statement saying, “The unprecedented denial of access to Gaza for the world’s media amounts to a severe violation of press freedom and puts the state of Israel in the company of a handful of regimes around the world which regularly keep journalists from doing their jobs.”

I just so happen to get from Netflix the great 2004 film, Control Room, which documents the controversial Qatar-based television news service Al-Jazeera and it's coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Launched in 1996, Al-Jazeera broadcasts the war in Iraq to approximately 40 million Arabs. Since then, it has become a punching bag for both Arab governments and the Bush Administration, which has repeatedly called the network "the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden."

The network gained its reputation for blatant reporting and uncensored images of dead Iraqi civilians. In the film you can see how the Bush administration tried to control what was getting out to the media, including the infamous "playing cards" incident.

I think Barack Obama should force US cable news networks to start broadcasting the "real war."

Could you image if CNN or Fox News started showing images of the dead on a regular basis? The war would end immediately.

A few words on Israel...

No news is good news out of Gaza tonight, but we still need to keep prospective on what's really going on here.

From Metro:

...Unrestrained by the rules of international legality, and indifferent to the most elementary considera-tions of morality, Israel is bombing into the Stone Age a besieged, battered and largely defenseless society of 1.5 million people. At the time of writing, it had killed at least 437 people, wounded more than 2,300, and flattened every building in sight. The final casualties will undoubtedly be higher.

How has Israel managed to get away with such behavior? The short answer is that there is no serious countervailing pressure on the Jewish state, neither from a weak and divided Arab world, nor from the European Union, still struggling to become a coherent political entity, nor from emerging powers such as China and Russia. The total absence of any balance of power means that Israel has been able to do as it pleases.

The world is a jungle, largely because the U.S. administration of outgoing President George W. Bush has made it so. Bush’s illegal war in Iraq; his unbridled “Global War on Terror;” his cross-border air strikes; his subversion of the rule of law and of the Geneva Conventions; his license for the use of torture and for detention without trial: All these have given Israel the freedom to do likewise.

Instead of seeking to resolve long-running conflicts and promote peace, the Bush administration has instead fanned the flames of war. The world is praying that President-elect Barack Obama will bring about a sharp and decisive change of direction in American foreign policy...

I can't really put all the blame of Israel's actions on Bush; the Middle East has been a mess due in large part to blind U.S. support for 60 years. Furthermore, one can't honestly expect Obama to really "change" foreign policy towards the Jewish state when he gets into the White House, considering recent statements...

Afghan blogger wins free speech award

While many in the traditional journalism world wonder about the future of its industry, the emergence of new media has created innovative opportunities for reporters who want to go deeper into the stories that would otherwise go underreported. In recent times there have been a surge in journalists from countries where free speech is repressed getting their own blogs to challenge their governments and grow grassroots support.

Afghan journalist and blogger Nasim Fekrat was given an award for the freedom of expression by Information Safety and Freedom (ISF), which was presented to him in Italy last month. Fekrat founded the blog Afghan Lord “to highlight the problems of my society in an independent manner, without fear and in a non-partisan manner in regards any group or political interest in Afghanistan.” He is an accomplished freelance journalist who has been published in the Associated Press and BBC, and created an online newspaper, Afghan Press, in two languages, Farsi and English. He is also the founder of the Association of Afghan Blog Writers, which has created a community of Afghan young bloggers.

“Presenting Afghanistan through [the] digital world is a job for [the] new generation, not for those were involved in war, for those who were involved in massacres, those who plant opium but this the new generation that can tell to the world the reality what they believe and streaming in their live[s] daily,” Fekrat said. “They are the sources of truth and honest, they are tired of war, they are not the generation of suicide anymore.”

Bush and Shoes

Wasn't it President Bush who just said that everything is just dandy in Iraq.

From Al Jazeera:

George Bush, the US president, has had a pair of shoes hurled at him at a press conference during his last surprise visit to Iraq before leaving office in January.

An Iraqi reporter called Bush "a dog" and shouted out "this is the end" at Sunday's news conference in Baghdad, before throwing his shoes at the US leader.

Bush, who had been giving a joint press statement with Nuri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, ducked behind a podium as the shoes narrowly missed his head.

He was reported to be unhurt after the attack by Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadiya television, the Associated Press news agency reported.

The outgoing US leader had just told reporters that while the war in Iraq was not over "it is decisively on its way to being won," when al-Zeidi got to his feet and hurled abuse - and his footwear - at the US president...

And to think: everyone is worried about assasination attempts on Obama, when its Bush who should be worried. Watch the whole shoe incident here.

The truth about Rahm Emmanuel

I know I am bit late on this, but this Rahm Emmanuel scares me. The confetti has not even been purchased yet for the inauguration, and Obama might already be making a mistake with his first hire.

From Marc Lamont Hill:

...Based on recent history, Rahm Israel Emmanuel is by far one of the most conservative politicians on his side of the aisle. As a member of the New Democrat Coalition, Emmanuel and his comrades have been major allies to the Right-wing’s efforts to undermine fair trade, disempower unions, and disregard environmental considerations. For example, policies like the Clinton Crime Bill and NAFTA, which was heavily critiqued by Obama, are directly attributed to Emmanuel’s influence. For a president who got elected by distancing himself from Bush, Obama's selection of a powermongering Lieberman Democrat wreaks of contradiction.

While most Democrats are attempting to responsibly reduce military spending, Emmanuel has repeatedly voted in favor of, and resisted attempts to limit, George W. Bush’s reckless and dangerous military expenditures. Also, Emmanuel was a hardcore supporter of the Iraq war, arguing that he would have supported the invasion regardless of whether or not weapons of mass destruction really existed. Today, Emmanuel continues to instigate military action against Iran by overstating its nuclear capacity.

Perhaps most disturbing about Emmanuel is his stance on Israel. As a fervent Zionist, he is further to the Right than President Bush on all issues related to Israel. From Israel’s assassination policy to well-documented human rights abuses, Emmanuel has failed to offer the slightest critique of America’s most coveted ally. Of course, it is not difficult to find the filial source of Emmanuel’s stances. His father, Benjamin Emmanuel, was a well-known gun-runner for Irgun, a pre-Israel terrorist organization that launched a series of vicious attacks against Palestinians and British civilians. In 1991, Emmanuel himself volunteered for the Israel Defense Forces during the Gulf War...

And there's more:



Change I can't believe in!

At BU, AFRICOM leader talks security, controversy

By Talia Whyte
Originally published in Bay State Banner

Gen. William E. Ward, commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), discussed the newly operational command’s accomplishments and future work at Boston University last Wednesday.

During his keynote speech at the university’s African Presidential Archives and Research Center (APARC), Ward also addressed concerns raised by opponents who are suspicious of the motives for establishing the military command.

Based at the Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart, Germany, AFRICOM is a military headquarters devoted solely to American military operations and security engagement with 53 African nations. The command was activated at an Oct. 1 ceremony held at the Pentagon. Prior to AFRICOM becoming fully operational, U.S. security matters in Africa were handled by military commands in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Some have expressed fears that the U.S. government plans to use AFRICOM to extend the war on terror into the African continent, and as part of efforts to suppress growing economic competition from China.

Not so, said Ward.

“AFRICOM is designed to address new military demands on the continent,” Ward said. “The challenges will require more than military expertise.”

Aiding in the response to those challenges will be a number of agencies that will lend a hand to AFRICOM’s work on the continent, including the Departments of Homeland Security and Commerce, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Agency for International Development and several African nongovernmental organizations.

During his APARC speech, Ward stressed that building “partner capacity strategies” and working as a team will be critical in helping the organization to better support both African military personnel and civilians.

“AFRICOM is a listening and learning operation,” he said. “We will learn about the different cultures and change programs as appropriate. Our goal is to add value.”

Unlike other U.S. military commands around the world, AFRICOM will focus on preventing wars rather than fighting them, according to Ward. When asked about the possibility of U.S. military forces becoming involved in curbing the genocide in Darfur, Ward said that AFRICOM’s intent is not to make foreign policy decisions in Africa, as those decisions are made in Washington, but rather to make sure that AFRICOM’s duties “are in line with the United States and with our African partners.”

Just what those activities will be has become a matter of concern for some in the international community.

AFRICOM has come under scrutiny from activists for more than a year over the United States’ alleged attempts to militarize the continent in order to barricade it from extremists. Also, with China’s growing economic interests in Africa, opponents see AFRICOM as a means of protecting American trade interests, especially crude oil. Some recall Africa’s history as a target of European colonizers and a strategic bulwark during the Cold War, and are concerned that AFRICOM represents another form of imperialism being imposed by the West.

Opposition to the command has come from African government leaders in Mozambique, Botswana, Zambia, South Africa and Nigeria as well as U.S.-based civil society groups like the TransAfrica Forum and the Institute for Policy Studies. They argue that the U.S. government is not being transparent about its intentions for AFRICOM. Last year, Dr. Wafula Okuma, a research fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, testified before Congress about the growing resistance and hostility toward AFRICOM on the continent.

“Many think the U.S. is very nervous of Chinese economic penetration into Africa,” Okuma testified. “America’s concern is that the Chinese are trying to control the continent’s natural resources and gain influence over it. The U.S. is also worried that radical Islamism is a dangerous idea that could germinate in poorly and badly governed states of Africa … AFRICOM is being sold as an answer to these threats.”

Some opponents have even suggested that African hostility toward the military command is the reason AFRICOM is based in Germany rather than on the continent.

A coalition of activists staged a protest against AFRICOM in Washington, D.C., on Monday during the conference of the International Peace Operations Association, where opponents believe contractors will discuss opportunities for making money off the Pentagon’s new military venture.

“The principles of imperialism on which AFRICOM stands are unmistakable,” said protest organizer Tsetsi Kgama in a recent e-mail message. “With a history marked by the traumas of slavery and colonialism, Africa deserves a foreign policy that respects self-determination and self-governance. Now is the time to dismantle AFRICOM and to condemn U.S. military presence in Africa.”

Responding to these concerns during last Wednesday’s speech, Ward said that “there is no hidden agenda” behind AFRICOM, reiterating that the command exists solely to assist the United States’ African military partners, and assured attendees that it is not being used to fend off Chinese advances.

As for AFRICOM’s home in Germany, Ward said African resistance is not the top reason for making a location decision and that while Liberia has offered to host the command, the command will be based in Germany for the “foreseeable future.” The Kelley Barracks site is near the United States Europe Command, also known as EURCOM, allowing staff from both commands to work together during the transition.

Ward said he has high hopes for AFRICOM’s prospects.

“We are making a difference,” he said. “We are improving security on the continent.”

Many audience members were still uncertain about AFRICOM’s prospects but were glad to see the general make himself available to address the concerns.

The Rev. Richard Clarke, a Liberian and pastoral resident at Roxbury’s Charles Street A.M.E. Church, said that while some Africans support the AFRICOM venture, the U.S. government will have to prove opponents wrong by working to reverse its negative image on the continent.

“If [AFRICOM] survives, it will have to be truthful in its nature,” Clarke said. “America shouldn’t enforce its views on Africa, but rather work with Africans.”

Iraq veterans speak out online

The Iraq War has become a stinging issue among anti-war activists around the world. The Associated Press reported recently that nearly 4,200 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began in March 2003. An estimated 1 million Iraqis have also died as a result of the conflict, according to survey work conducted by London-based Opinion Research Business. The war’s financial costs to the U.S. also continue to rise, now standing at more than $560 billion. October 11 marked the sixth anniversary of Congress’ authorizing the invasion of Iraq, and anti-war activists see this as an opportunity to galvanize voters during the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW) was founded in 2004 to serve a growing number of active U.S. duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to not speak out. IVAW uses its Facebook group to explain their top ten reasons why they are against the war, as well as post videos and share information about their efforts.

“Soldiers and veterans that oppose these wars run huge risks and neglect, and deserve all my admiration,” said Chilean Facebook member Pablo Lobo, “It takes real courage and strength to stand against such a beast! -- Your cause is a huge player in the many other causes for peace! Keep on and I hope more people will wake up and listen to you!”

Blogging about Muslim Life

The tragic events around the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the July 2005 London bombings, as well as the growing number of Muslims living in Europe and the United States, has brought forth some attempts by many in Western nations to better understand the Islamic faith. Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, recently launched Ramadan blog, which is run by three Muslim bloggers who are giving different perspectives on their daily lives throughout the Holy Month.

In recent years, there has been growing tension between Muslim immigrants from Africa and the Middle East and generally progressive Swedes, who lately have turned their attention to right-wing groups that support anti-immigration policies. From religious intolerance to the increasing number of supermarkets selling Halal foods, Ramadan blog gives viewers an alternative window into what it is like to be Muslim today, with the hope of bring peace and reconciliation in the Scandinavian country.

Corporate America Sucks

In case you missed it Friday night, Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibibi was on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss corporate America's real agenda in this year's U.S. presidential election and what is the status of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

America's Next Top Vice President

“There is too much theatrics and not enough reality in politics today.”

This is a quote I heard from a caller to a local radio talk show Saturday morning in reference to the way presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s handled the announcement of his vice presidential choice, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

I have to agree. For one thing, why was the announcement dragged out for a week, only to be announced to Obama supporters via text message early Saturday morning? This whole “veepstakes” feels like a reality show if you ask me…

For a moment last week I thought Tyra Banks was going to make an appearance on a stage with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden:

Tyra: I now have one photo left in my hand. The photo is the winner of America’s Next Top Vice President.

(Pause and shows the photo)

Joe Biden, you will be America’s Next Top Vice President!

(Joe Biden starts to jump for joy. Hillary Clinton tears up and hugs Joe Biden. John Edwards, Bill Richards and other VP contenders come out of the side and hug Joe Biden. Queue closing music.)

All this excitement over Joe Biden? If Obama is running a campaign to change hands from Washington’s usual suspects, why did he choose an old white man who has been in the Senate since 1972 and has a tendency to make inappropriate remarks? Furthermore, the reality of Joe Biden is that he supports the Iraq War.

From Foreign Policy In Focus:

Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama’s supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration’s transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq’s war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.

In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein – severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions – somehow constituted both “a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security” and was an “extreme danger to the world.” Despite the absence of any “weapons of mass destruction” or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, “That’s right, and I was correct about that."

McCain is no better when it comes to the theatrics either. His campaign released a commercial – early Sunday morning – trying to ride on the hostility between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But if the rumors are true about who McCain will choose for his number two, I am sure the Democrats will use and abuse the caustic relationship between McCain and Mitt Romney.

On this very topic, I was speaking to a Republican acquaintance recently, and he told me that many Republicans are now saying that they will not vote for McCain if he doesn’t selected Romney as his VP.

Now, everyone knows how I feel about Romney. If the Republicans are so in love with Romney, why isn’t he the presumptive Republican nominee right now? The reality of Mitt Romney is that he brings nothing to the table - except nice looking hair. But I guess in a world that trumps theatrics over reality, nice looking hair is a must.

Life After Musharraf

Now that Pervez Musharraf has resigned, a new question has come up for the U.S. presidential candidates: Will America change its policies towards Pakistan? Will there be a true investigation into Benazir Bhutto’s assassination? If you ask me, the answer is a resounding no. But new polling from Pakistan might force the U.S. State Department to rethink this issue.

From Foreign Policy In Focus:

A poll conducted at the end of May 2008 by the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion for the U.S. groups Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation revealed the intensity of public opposition to American policies. The poll found that 60% of Pakistanis believe the U.S. “war on terror” seeks to weaken the Muslim world, and 15% think its goal is to “ensure US domination over Pakistan.” About one-third of Pakistanis now have a positive view of al-Qaeda, twice as many as think positively of the United States.

The poll revealed that 44% of Pakistanis believe the United States is the greatest threat to their personal safety (India is a distant second at 14%). The Pakistani Taliban, who are now organized into the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (the Taliban Movement of Pakistan) and by some estimates have up to 40,000 fighters, are seen as a threat by less than 10%. Al-Qaeda barely registers as a threat, slightly surpassing Pakistan’s own military and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

Similarly, when asked who was most responsible for violence in Pakistan today, the poll found that over 50% of Pakistanis blame the United States. About 10% blame respectively India and the Pakistan army (and ISI). The Pakistani Taliban was blamed by less than 5%.

In April 2008, the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center reported that Pakistan suffered 1,335 fatalities from terrorist attacks in 2007; other estimates are higher. Half these attacks came in FATA. In 2008, these attacks have continued and spread across the North-West Frontier Province. One attack in January killed over 50 people and wounded almost 150 while they were praying in a mosque. Taliban fighters have captured towns and villages and threaten Peshawar, the provincial capital. They have sought to enforce their version of Sharia law, setting up courts, carrying out public executions, blowing up girls’ schools, harassing women, destroying video shops, and even threatening barbers who offer shaves.

Pakistan’s elected government is struggling to deal with a crisis that it has inherited from the past seven years of U.S. policy and military rule. It has tried to talk to and fight the militants at the same time. But the repeated breakdowns of cease-fires negotiated with various militant groups and the bombing in the heart of Islamabad on the anniversary of the siege of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) show that this strategy is not working. There are also suspicions that elements within the Pakistan army and ISI are still sympathetic to the militants.

A way forward is not clear. But the first step must be for Washington to consider how its policies in the “war on terror,” in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan have failed and now feed public animosity in Pakistan toward the United States and support for the Islamist militancy. For its part, Pakistan needs to have a national conversation on what kind of future it wants, whether it wishes to become the kind of savage and ignorant society that the Taliban offer, and if not, how to confront the Islamist threat.

Kureishi on Islamic Radicalism

My hero, postcolonial literary genius Hanif Kureishi was featured in last week's New York Times about his new book, Something to Tell You.

I fell in love with Kureshi's work while I was in college, when I was first introduced to his book, The Buddha of Suburbia. Being of Jamaican ancestry, in a way, I was able to identify with Karim's experience of "otherness." This book, as well as Kureishi's other famed novella, My Son the Fanatic, were also ahead of the curve on discussing Islamic extremism, which he discusses in this article.

From The New York Times:

...Although Kureishi recognizes the sense of powerlessness and sting of
racism that have helped push many young British Muslims toward radicalism, he is
intolerant of such intolerance. “The antidote to Puritanism isn’t
licentiousness, but the recognition of what goes on inside human beings,”
Kureishi wrote in the title essay of “The Word and the Bomb.” He added:
“Fundamentalism is dictatorship of the mind, but a live culture is an
exploration, and represents our endless curiosity about our own strangeness and
impossible sexuality: wisdom is more important than doctrine; doubt more
important than certainty. Fundamentalism implies the failure of our most
significant attribute, our imagination.”

...As if it weren’t already clear, Kureishi isn’t a moralist. In one
conversation, he was adamant that he’s “not advocating anything,” just
observing. (He did, however, say he was opposed to Muslim women in Britain
wearing the veil, “because of what it symbolizes: a part of Islam that’s deeply
oppressive to women.”) At the reading in London in March, Kureishi was
dismissive of rhetoric about British national identity and the notion that
immigrants should become more integrated into the society. “I don’t think
there’s any obligation for anyone to integrate,” Kureishi told his audience.
“They are people entitled to live as they wish.” Besides, he added, why are only
immigrants or their children asked to integrate? “The royal family don’t
integrate,” he said. “Prince Philip doesn’t integrate.” Kureishi mentioned Rainer
Werner Fassbinder’s 1974 film “Ali: Fear Eats the Soul,” in which a German
woman is reviled by her neighbors after she marries a Muslim guest worker.
“Everyone hates them,” Kureishi told me. “He says: ‘I’m trying to integrate
here. If we don’t integrate, they say we’re isolated. If we do integrate by
trying to marry your women, you hate us even more.’ The guy can’t win.”

Media Blackout on Vincent Bugliosi?

Speaking of books...

A Canadian investor wants to support the film version of Vincent Bugliosi's controversial book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, which has now reached the New York Times Bestseller List, although the newspaper has not reviewed it.

From The Winsor Star:

...it has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media in the U.S., said
Peter Miller, Bugliosi's literary manager.

"We were blacklisted from the media for about six weeks," said Miller.

"We didn't have one blurb or quote on this book, nor did we have one review. It's extremely unusual, particularly in regard to someone of Mr. Bugliosi's calibre."

"So he's not a left-wing nut -- he's arguably the most famous prosecutor in America with the greatest track record."

Bugliosi's publicists "had arranged originally for Vanity Fair to do a story on this, and Vanity Fair dropped out," said Miller. "Then Newsweek was going to do an essay, and at the last minute they dropped out. The New York Times has not reviewed this book -- there's an obvious blacklisting because Vince is a force in publishing."

Thanks in part to liberal bloggers, this book was able to take off.

Al Hurra is a joke

Sunday night 60 Minutes, in collaboration with ProPublica, did an excellent report on Al Hurra, the Bush regime's propoganda channel in the Middle East. Check out the video here.

So just a round up of what is wrong with this channel:

1. Al Hurra is broadcast from Springfield, Virginia. The last time I checked a map, I don't remember this place being anywhere near the Middle East.

2. Most of Al Hurra's employees are Lebanese Christian.

3. The channel got off to a bad start in 2004. After Israel assassinated the founder of the militant group Hamas, Al Hurra stuck with a cooking show.

4. Poor use of money, especially with vendors

5. Al Hurra claims to be a network dedicated to free speech, so long as it aligns with US foreign policy.

6. Who the hell takes three hours lunch breaks these days without getting fired?

7. Not only is no one in the Middle East watching Al Hurra, apparently the Al Hurra executives aren't watching it either.

8. Apparently no one doesn't need to know how to speak Arabic to work for Al Hurra.

9. There is no control over what anyone says on air, even if its anti-Semitic

10. The Bush regime has not figured out that the Middle East hates US policies.

Where's the US taxpayer outrage?