Fear and Loathing in Benghazi

It seems the hordes of Muslim extremists are at it again. This time they have supposedly responded to an inconspicuous movie, which mocked the prophet Mohammed, by violently protesting outside of U.S. embassies and murdering the U.S. ambassador to Libya. However, as recent reports indicate, the film was not the real cause of the violence. Instead, the attacks were a well-planned terrorist plot, aimed at humiliating the United States on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, responding to the killing of terrorist leaders by U.S. drone attacks, and securing key documents from within the Benghazi embassy.

The violence has sparked a domestic row between the two U.S. presidential candidates. Governor Romney was criticized the administration's response, which initially apologized for the film for offending Muslim sensibilities. He said "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." This was in response to the first statement from the U.S. government which stated that:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

The administration subsequently and sharply criticized the violence. In Secretary of State Clinton's words: "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."

Nevertheless, judging by recent reports, it is apparent that the administration focused on the wrong aspect at the outset, validating Romney's criticisms. By portraying the event as an overly violent response to an offensive video, rather than a planned terrorist attack, the administration's goal was (wrongly) to assuage anger, not thwart enemies of the United States.

While there is an argument to be made about using carefully worded platitudes to calm a potential diplomatic debacle (success in international relations often comes to those who can artfully use words to avoid using action), there are proper and improper ways to wield diplomatic finesse. The Obama administration's initial response made a number of crucial mistakes that, in combination with past errors, display a profound and naive understanding of the Middle East and public diplomacy, shed insight into the president's misguided worldview, and lay a framework for further attacks on U.S. interests and personnel.

The administration's first error is that they seemingly believe that this sort of Muslim violence is a direct response to a Western provocation. Whether it is the recent film, cartoons printed by a Dutch newspaper, or  a Florida pastor burning copies of the Qu'ran, the administration presupposes that the response in the Middle East is understandable, even if its inexcusable (to be fair, the administration repeatedly and publicly condemns the violence as unjustifiable). The logic stems from a belief that if foolish Americans would just avoid such hateful acts, the Arabs now rioting in the streets would have little reason to resort to violence or detest America.

But as the unfolding story indicates, this logic is far from true. There are much deeper animosities, angers, and conflicting worldviews at work in the Middle East. The American condemnation of the film, alongside verbal, diplomatic, and coercive action against the perpetrators of the violence, did nothing to assuage Muslim angst. In fact, riots and protests broke out in Muslim capitals across the globe, directing Islamic wrath at U.S. embassies in a number of countries. Protests were even staged outside the Swiss embassy in Iran (the Swiss represent U.S. interests there) and in Israel. Jews and the "Zionist-American conspiracy" became instant rhetorical targets and some Arabs celebrated the September 11th attacks.

What is truly at work in the Middle East is an intricate and complex set of ideologies and emotions—a respect for and jealousy of the successes of the West combined with a distaste, even hatred, of Western values. These are often coupled with domestic woes—frustration with economic conditions and poor leadership. Finally and most significantly, there is the role of the jihadists, who exploited the film to further their goal of armed jihad against the West. Anti-Islamic films or cartoons are at most a trigger that set these forces in motion.

Obama's advisers presumably understand the complexities of the Middle East, which is why the president's responses are so befuddling. Apologies will not address the real tension between Islam and the West. Nor will they solve the domestic woes in the Middle East or dissuade fundamentalist terrorists. If anything apologies reinforce, to those Muslims who are so imbibed in societies where dictators can control such expression, the image of a malignant West. For those Muslims who understand that the U.S. government has little control, and thus little responsibility, for such publications (however offensive), apologies are simply condescending.

So then why apologize? It seems that the only reasonable explanation lies in Obama's faulty worldview. As has been argued before, Obama sees the world through a lens that can be aptly described as the "problem of the underdog." In a trend that dominates both his domestic and foreign policies, Obama places an emphasis on castigating those in power and bolstering the supposedly weak. The successful, the powerful, the rich, the former imperialist, the banker, Wall Street, the business owner or anyone else "on top" got there by pushing someone else down. All, by the virtue of their position, have a moral inferiority to those who occupy the concomitant underdog position.

As a representative of the most powerful nation, Obama thus has a responsibility to apologize for our supposed sins. His immediate reaction was to address the slight that allegedly sent the Arab street into an angst-ridden, violent frenzy. The gut reaction of the administration was to publicly atone, in the naive belief that self-castigation would dissipate the violence.

But such a worldview is naive. It, as the administration is now admitting, has failed to address the realities of the situation. It treated a terrorist attack like a PR matter, solidifying in many's minds, both in the West and throughout the Muslim world, that it was cruel and provocative Americans who's blasphemy against the prophet instigated the violence.

This weakens the United States' global stature. It gives credence to the argument that the United States is the crux of the world's problems. It creates and reinforces a false linkage between the individual acts of American citizens and the positions, influence and control of the U.S. government. But most importantly, it fails to address the real issues at work—the political, social, and economic plight of the Middle East, the ideological incompatibilities between political Islam and liberal democracy, and a passionate fundamentalist force that wants to overturn the West's dominance.

While the Romney camp has certainly oversimplified the issue in order to score political points, the administration clearly mishandled the situation at the outset. It is certainly courageous and noble to apologize when our country does something wrong—such is an act of diplomacy that is unfortunately underused—yet it is quite another to apologize for or even condemn the acts of one's own citizens, particularly when the government has little control over their behaviors.

The administration would do better to hold a posture that does not apologize for who we are as a nation nor fail to defend the values and principles that have made this country great. Instead the president should use the opportunities to not only condemn the violence against Americans but to educate the Muslim world, in its inchoate struggle for democracy, that the principles of America, such freedom of speech and expression, have tremendous value, even if they do come with costs.

Can Muslims Beat the Islamists?

Andrew McCarthy sheds some interesting light on the ever-present debate over Islam and sharia.  In a well formulated editorial, McCarthy outlines the need for continued focus and discussion on sharia's interaction with the state and the tensions between secularism, moderate Islam, and Islamism (eg. radical Islam).  He argues that it is fair to critique radical interpretations of sharia in order to support moderate Muslim ideology.  He writes:

The hope, of course, is that between Muslim reformers who embrace our liberty culture, and the millions of Muslims who are peaceful, moderate people regardless of what their scriptures may literally command, alternative constructions of sharia will eventually discredit and marginalize the Islamist interpretation. It is a tough row to hoe.... But it is not impossible.

McCarthy develops his argument by poignantly, although admittedly imperfectly, contrasting modern Islam's trials to those experienced in the West's own history.  He outlines a few instances where the West had to move past strict interpretations of religion and reject the commingling of religion and state.

Government [in the US colonies] was based on God’s law, loyalty oaths were mandatory, Sabbath observance was strictly enforced, and brutal corporal punishments were carried out: Philip Radcliffe, for example, was whipped and had both ears cut off for “invectives against our church and government.” Others were executed, usually by hanging, for what, in effect, was the preaching of novel religious doctrines. 

Nor would we today recognize the original Virginia settlements as consonant with what we think of as our way of life. In Jamestown, too, religious duty blended seamlessly with civil law. We need not belabor the centrality of slavery to the developing agricultural economy. But for a time, a bachelor in Virginia was permitted to purchase a wife from among the young, unmarried women sent from England in order to make the colony more attractive. The price was 125 pounds of tobacco.

His conclusion is one of cautious optimism.  Islam has the ability to rise above the backwards, anti-liberal ways that are practiced in so many Muslim countries and preached by many fundamentalist scholars.  But this is only achievable if moderate Muslim voices join with those in the West to challenge and criticize the Islamist perspective.

It took a very long time to find the right balance between the sacred and the secular [in the West], and there is good reason to believe that our most serious problems today are caused by too much suppression of faith, not too little. But Islam has to be given a fair chance to strike this balance. We can’t tolerate jihadist atrocities, and we must fight Islamist efforts to erode our freedoms. But it will not do to smirk and say that Muslims have already had 14 centuries to get it together. How would we have done under that test? 

We have had to come a very long way to arrive at what we are rightly proud to call Western culture and American civil liberties. Our current battle is about preserving that inheritance for ourselves and making sure the Muslims in America who want it are free to have it. In factoring sharia into that battle, we need to be as humble as we are forceful.

Chris Christie is Tired of the Crazies

New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie, has come forward with a powerful and, like usual, robust defense of a recent appointment of a Muslim judge, Sohail Mohammed.  When questioned whether his appointment could lead to sharia law in New Jersey courts, Christie went on the attack, declaring that "Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed.... Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all, it’s crazy!"  He went on to exclaim that he is "tired of dealing with the crazies." (See video clip at 2:47.)

Once again Chris Christie manages to impress with his demeanor and no-BS style.  His honesty, candor, and ability to avoid the mudslinging of politics, is laudable - characteristics that other politicians should try to emulate.

But, not only is Christie's response commendable, his argument is dead-on.  Far too many Americans are too willing to denigrate good Muslim-Americans just because of their religious beliefs.  Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is one of the most recent examples.  This sort of religious stigmatization is completely un-American.  As a nation, we are supposed to be committed to freedom of religion and acknowledge that an individual's private beliefs do not automatically disqualify him from holding public office.  But even worse, such rampant vitriol against Muslims distracts from real threats and creates false "lines-in-the-sand".  Radical Islamists threaten this country, not all Muslims.  America should be wise to make allies with good Muslim-Americans, not engage in counterproductive fear-mongering and stereotyping.

Cain Repents

Herman Cain has apologized for his anti-Muslim comments.  The GOP presidential candidate had previously claimed that communities had the right to prohibit Muslims from worshiping within the community.  As was argued last week here at ANR, Cain's commentary and understanding of the constitution was not only wrong but "unfortunately damaging to legitimate Republican candidates who have been unfairly linked to this Islamophobic mentality".

Fortunately, Cain has seemingly received the message after meeting with a Virginia-based Muslim group.  Cain released a statement saying:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends.... I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.

Thankfully, his Muslim counterparts believe that his change of heart is sincere.  Leaders from the Muslim group say that Cain was able to clear up some of the misinformation that had been fed to him, enabling Cain to draw fruitful parallels between the plight of Muslim-Americans today and that of African-Americans during Cain's childhood.  This was a linkage Cain had refused to making in his original discussion with Fox New's Chris Wallace.

It is laudable that he realized the errors in his thinking and comments - hopefully it will stick.  America is far too torn by divisiveness for this type of behavior to continue.  Furthermore, Republicans have far too much to accomplish in reforming this country to be distracted by demagoguery that is not only hurtful but far removed from the realm of serious issues.

Cain and Un-Able

Herman Cain should be ashamed.  In a weekend interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, the Republican presidential candidate argued that communities have a right to ban the construction of mosques.  Cain argued that

[o]ur Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.

Cain's interpretation of the First Amendment is undeniably erroneous.  The separation of church and state is meant to both protect religious institutions from undue influence from the government and protect individuals from undue influence from a state religion.  It was never meant to be used as a weapon by communities to persecute or restrict those of another faith.

Even if one assumes that Cain's understanding of Islam is correct - namely that as a religion it is unable to separate its religious doctrines from its conceptualization of the rule of law - his remedy is far from appropriate.  Religions or other groups that profess ideologies that run counter to precepts in the constitution are not to be repressed due to their beliefs.  Every Muslim may want to turn the United States into an Islamic state (most assuredly do not), yet that would not warrant preventing them from practicing or even preaching their ideas. 

Instead, it is the responsibility of the state to disallow violations of the constitution.  The courts, for instance, should strike down laws and regulations that violate the precept of separation of church and state, whether such laws are based in sharia, Christian or Jewish law.  If such checks function properly (and they largely do), from the perspective of the First Amendment there should be little reason to interfere with the religious practices of any group in America.

Protection of minority religions is precisely why the concept of separation of church and state is necessary.  Muslim-Americans should be protected by it not persecuted under it.  Whatever their beliefs may be, as long as they stay within the community and are not being forced upon others they should have the right to worship as they see fit.  Only when such forms of worship cross the line and lead to religiously-based law should the state step-in to prevent such behavior.  A mosque in Tennessee is absolutely acceptable; a law requiring the donning of burqas is not.

Cain's understanding of the constitution and his comments are an embarrassment to all Republicans.  Not that this long-shot candidate was every taken seriously, but his perspective is unfortunately damaging to legitimate Republican candidates who have been unfairly linked to this Islamophobic mentality. Republicans need to disavow such candidates and rhetoric if they hope to be taken seriously amongst the pivotal independent voters.

Egypt Aflame

As Egypt descends into greater chaos, the United States is left in the awkward position that generally befalls great powers when their dictator friends are driven from power. The tension between realist foreign policy and liberal democracy promotion is never starker. Whether to support the faltering Mubarak regime or defend the revolutionary movement’s democratic principles is the question that commands the discussion and astoundingly, in our increasingly partisan climate, has no party loyalty.

The arguments criss-cross the political landscape. For instance, the Washington Post’s liberal commentator, Richard Cohen, has told the Obama administration to “just shut up.” One of Israel’s leading papers, Ha’aretz, criticizes the president claiming “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt.” Alternatively, William Kristol, at the neoconservative Weekly Standard, urges Obama to do more to support the removal of the Egyptian leadership.  Likewise, Francis Fukuyama argues that "liberals had better get organized" to build a new Egypt.

Understandably, the administration is cautious. The United States’ course of action could have severe implications for the fate of the region and American interests. However, a reluctance to place all bets on one side or the other is not the same as inaction. While in recent days the president has, after Mubarak effectively tendered his upcoming resignation (he will not run for reelection in September), come out in support of a peaceful transition, the administration has failed to develop a successful political stance that will allow the best possible result for Egypt and America’s interests.  Instead, it largely remains on the sidelines, watching and waiting.

The tension between courses of action is clear. On the one hand, there is security in stability. Hosni Mubarak, for all his domestic flaws, is a known entity. He has been a reliable ally and supposedly kept the worst enemies – currently the Muslim Brotherhood – from dominating Egypt. (This is debatable as some argue that he has aided the Brotherhood’s cause in order to have a bogeyman that will maintain America’s support for his regime.) Since the most established political opposition consists of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the fear is that Mubarak’s fall will lead to an Islamist state, reminiscent of the Iranian regime which overthrew the Shah in 1979 and remains in power today. Proponents of supporting Mubarak fear the worst outcome – replacing a friendly, undemocratic dictator with an unfriendly, (nominally) democratic, Islamist state.

This stands in sharp contrast to the principle of democracy-promotion, which emphasizes the spread of liberal values that so many Americans hold dear. These arguments, which come both from the left and the neocon right, argue that establishing true democracy is, in addition to being morally right, necessary for US security. From this perspective, steps should be taken to facilitate and aid the pro-democracy forces, allowing the dictatorship to be replaced with a system that will not only be democratic, but remain friendly to the West.

The US is thus stuck in an uncomfortable position. If it backs Mubarak, it will be accused of abandoning its principles and solidify its label as an enemy of the Egyptian people. If the current regime – with or without Mubarak – maintains power, the US will “win” in the short-run, yet inevitably rack-up indubitable costs to be paid when the regime ultimately falters. On the other hand, if despite US support for the regime, the revolution wins the fight, the Muslim Brotherhood will gather enough fodder to portray the clash as the West versus Islam, all but solidifying their ascent.

Conversely, if the administration completely abandons the Egyptian leadership, throwing its weight behind the revolution, it runs the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. The revolution could turn in favor of the Brotherhood or take a more Western-oriented path to democracy. Furthermore, such vocalized support from America could have a wider effect of destabilizing the regimes across the Middle East. The unknowns are incalculable and potential deadly.

So what is the administration to do? Certainly, it cannot, as Cohen argues, just sit on the sidelines and watch. Instead, it must do what it can to coax the best possible outcome, namely a liberal democracy, while minimizing the likelihood of the worst outcome, an Islamist state run by the Muslim Brotherhood. For better or worse, the middle outcome – a Western allied dictatorship – is no longer an option. Even if the current regime hangs on through this upheaval, it will only be a matter of time before the people rise again.

Practically, the administration needs to express the need for institutionalized democracy. The US (and Europe) must lend support to anyone within Egypt who desires to build democratic institutions. Institutions that provide checks and balances and diffusion of power must be established. This will give structure to an emerging democracy, put the US on the side of the people (as it should be), and limit the power of those non-democratic elements to exchange a Western-friendly dictatorship for an antagonistic dictatorship of Sharia. (To be clear, a government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, even if popularly elected would be no democracy. As Hamas’s election in the Gaza Strip clearly shows, a democracy is much more than simply voting.) While admittedly this path should have been taken years ago, it is not too late for the United States to show that it is willing to help the Egyptians achieve a system based on the noble principles which America represents.

The US need not come out for or against Mubarak. Nor should it back individuals or specific groups with the opposition. There does not need to be an Egyptian Nouri al-Maliki or Hamid Karzai; in fact it is probably better if such an individual does not exist. While Mohammad al-Baradei is weakly touted as the one to fill this role, the US would be wise not to cultivate the next leader of Egypt but to stand with the people and their desire for a new system. The focus should be on encouraging the construction of viable institutions that will lead to a stable democracy in whatever fashion the Egyptians choose to build such a system. The US's approach should not be about individuals or groups; we should not be picking winners or losers for the Egyptians, but about helping them convert the principles that we, and apparently they, value into living, breathing institutions.

Not only will this show the average Egyptian that the US does care about their plight, thus minimizing the rallying cry of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it will greatly contribute to the US’s security. While the transition may be scary, it is far better to have a democracy in Egypt than a dictatorship, which not only commits abuses but is prone to failure (as we are now seeing). The more the US fails to recognize that its security is better served by developing democracy, in a careful manner, the greater the likelihood is that it continues to bolster the very enemies which will one day seize power and stand in opposition to the West. Just as it is in America, power is vested in the people, whether they are temporarily stripped of it or not. By supporting their cause, we silence those who despise us, and achieve both the moral and the secure outcome.

Tranisitions to democracy always have risks and unknowns. It took the United States over 200 years to build its system and its work is not done. But these risks, in the long-run, are worth it. Where our democracy building has failed is in the top-down approach, rather than benevolent assistance at the grassroots in aiding the development of institutions. However, if we are honest with ourselves and the application of our principles, we need not fear a tradeoff between security and promotion of democracy. In fact they become intricately linked. Allowing Egypt to change its course, does not mean letting a revolution run rampant, but playing an active role in directing its flow. Damming up this energy, as was recently allowed to happen in Iran, will only hurt American interests in the end.

WikiLeaks and a Middle East Peace?

Could the WikiLeaks disclosures, which are causing all sorts of negative fallout for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, actually lead to some foreign policy successes? Regarding most of the leaks the upshot will probably run the gamut from benign, to embarrassing, to trivially detrimental; however, there is one area where there may be a potential, albeit slight, for a constructive outcome.

Two facts, which were previously widely assumed, have now been confirmed. The first is the growing fear in the Arab world about Iran’s expanding power and nuclear ambitions. The second is Israel’s clandestine diplomacy with these same Arab powers.

Regarding the former, leaked documents show a number of Arab states’ unease with Iran’s nuclear program. These documents, as reported in the Financial Times, call for the US to stop Iran’s ambitions, including with direct attacks. This is relatively unsurprising as balancing between the big Arab states and Iran is a constant feature of the region. No Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other two regional heavyweights, want to see a nuclear Iran.

Likewise, the disclosure of Israel’s communications with some of these states is unsurprising. Israel does not have official diplomatic channels with most Arab nations; however, despite public rhetoric they do often have common concerns.

While none of this is surprising to the casual follower of the region, most know that these Arab leaders say one thing in public while another thing behind closed doors. Much of this, of course, is due to the strong opinions of the Arab street and Muslim fundamentalists. However, now the metaphorical cat is out of the bag.

What is done with this “cat” though could have interesting consequences for the region. Most likely the Arab states will attempt to distance themselves from these revelations, brushing them off as distortions or simply ignoring the leaks. However, if the Arab leadership address these facts head-on and take ownership, it could profoundly alter the political map.

As both sets of disclosures prove, Israel and the Arab states are, at least in some issues, on the same side. In particular, Iran represents a growing threat to stability in the region and, at a minimum in Israel’s case, an existential threat. Currently, however, Arab nations and Israel are precluded from working together largely by the Arab street’s political pressure over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamic fundamentalism’s abhorrence of the Jewish state.

While admittedly these place enormous constraints on the Arab leadership, who might very well lose their power if they worked openly with Israel, the animosity towards Israel is increasingly a strategic anchor.  The Jewish state is no longer the (perceived) greatest threat to the Arab world, just as the Palestinian problem is no longer the most significant issue for Israel.

This opens the door for expanded coordination between the Arab world and Israel and, daresay, a potential path to peace. Rather than spurning these disclosures, Arab leaders should attempt to use these revelations of their true security concerns to begin a (yes, slight) redirection of the Arab street’s focus. While a rush to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel is probably premature, the Arab leaders can use the WikiLeaks disclosures as a first hole in the dike which has separated Israel and the Arabs for some 60 years.

Rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states is essential for both regional and individual state security. While domestic conditions certainly make this difficult, WikiLeaks may have helped get the ball rolling. It is certainly too early to tell where this will lead, but ironically someday Julian Assange might be called a hero (okay I doubt that) for lighting the spark that checked Iran’s nuclear rise and precipitating peace between Israel and the Arabs.

Do Muslims Want the Mosque?

While it seems unequivocal that Muslims have the right to build the Ground Zero mosque, there is much room for discussion on whether, out of sensitivity, it should be built.  It seems apparent that, if the goal is really to build bridges it is not going to happen through this manner.  SAIS's Fouad Ajami says this much in a recent Wall Street Journal editiorial.  He further points out that according to a recent Arab poll, 58% of Arabs are against the building of the mosque.

The Secular Assault on Liberty: When Secularism Becomes a Religion

Secularism can sometimes go too far and, in contrast to the notion of separation of church and state, become a ‘religion’ unto itself. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has recently crossed this line by deciding to submit a bill to parliament that would completely ban religious dress, particularly the Muslim burqa, in public. The expressed reasoning behind the ban is that such clothing is oppressive to women, and therefore unwelcome in France.

This is not the first time Europe’s intense secularism has come into conflict with the religious immigrants who have yet to fully integrate into Western society. Much of Europe has attempted to browbeat the newcomers into the European mold. France’s newest proposed ban follows a similar restriction, enacted in 2004, on religious symbols in the classroom. While ostensibly targeted at all – Jewish, Muslim, and Christian – symbols, it has predominantly been used to target minority symbols. Likewise, Switzerland recently voted in a popular referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets on mosques.

At the base of all these policies is a deep fear about the changes to European society that may result from the rapid growth of the Muslim population. Not only are waves of immigrants reaching Europe’s shores, but the current Muslim population is growing at a brisk rate while the ‘native,’ Christian European population is ageing. While Europe may have much to fear in the changing demographics, the attempt at forced conversion to the secular religion is a miserable policy.

On the surface, it simply makes Europe look bad. Foreigners correctly perceive these supposed bastions of freedom as intolerant. These policies anger the populations of Muslim-majority countries and create diplomatic stresses with their leaders. Domestically, minorities become alienated, causing them to turn to the very religious institutions that European seculars are trying to eradicate. Rather than drawing isolated Muslim immigrants into the European fold, such policies lead to divisiveness. In response, many find strength in identities that may have meant little to them before their government defined them as ‘the other’.

The fact of the matter is that forced assimilation is rarely, if ever, successful. Individuals do not want to be told what they can or cannot do. This is particularly true when such commands are arbitrary and have little bearing on the well-being of other individuals or society.

However, aside from being poor policy, the ban is a gross encroachment on the principles of freedom. Every individual should have the right to choose his own ways of expression – be it religious or secular. This is true regardless of whether it offends anyone else’s sensibilities. The burqa may be oppressive to women – or it may not. While ANR, as well as nearly anyone else, has its opinions regarding the vestment, it is not anyone’s place to tell another what they can or cannot do. One may attempt to persuade someone through discourse, but never through coercion. [As a point of clarity, the government should not interfere if an individual decides to wear this clothing; however, it should interfere if another (such as a husband) forces one (such as a wife) to wear this clothing against one’s will.]

Instead, Europe should attempt to bridge the gap between cultural differences by opening channels for dialogue. These immigrants should be incorporated into society by being offered the freedoms that presumably brought them to Europe – the freedoms that are not present in home countries. The separation of church and state should be encouraged whether the “church’s” doctrine is the secular, Islamic, Christian, or other. Religious minorities should be brought into mainstream, while allowing their religions to thrive in private. They should be encouraged to have multiple identities, not pushed into choosing between a secular European and an Islamist Muslim. Such a polar choice will inevitably lead some to eschew what Europe has to offer in favor of a dangerous radicalization.

Poisoning at Fort Jackson, SC

Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports that a number of US soldiers have been detained at Fort Jackson in South Carolina for attempting to intentionally poison the food supply at the Army base. Reports indicate that the soldiers may be members of an Arabic translator team.  CBN News reports that the soliders were actually detained in December.  According to Fox News:

The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News.

The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, "there is no credible information to support the allegations."

The suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called "09 Lima" and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim.
Grey would not confirm or deny the sources’ information.

 This appears to be a growing trend of infiltration of the US military by Muslim extremists.

Updates will follow as they become available.

Assault on Free Speech Redux: UC Irvine

Here is a video clip of a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's speech at the University of California - Irvine.  Like the incident where General Petraeus was shouted down at Georgetown, the Israeli Ambassador received hateful and angry interruptions from a rowdy pro-Palestinian crowd.  The University's handling of the situation should be commended.  The representatives of the University not only severely castigated the interrupters, but threatened them with punishment including arrest.  Additionally, Ambassador Oren deserves praise for his response.  He was measured and forgiving.  He refused to be bullied and continued to insist that the disrupters should listen to ideas and engage in discussion.  The protesters insistence on shouting him down shows their own failure to live up to any principles they pretend to support.

Yale Offends the West: The Muhammad Cartoons

The infamous Muhammad cartoons are back in the news again. This time the Danish caricatures that were implicated in the worldwide uproars in 2005 were edited out of a new book by the Yale University Press. Yale’s decision is a despicable display of spinelessness.

Yale offers two unsatisfactory explanations for its actions. First, the university cites fear of violence. This implies that if someone has something controversial to say, one only needs to threaten violence to silence the perspective. This is counter to the very basis of American free-speech. Since when do we silence a voice because one group throws a tantrum? If Muslims respond to the republication of the cartoons with violence they are in the wrong- not the publisher. Using potential violence (even if highly likely) as a reason for non-publication, gives those who wish to silence others an unimaginable power.

Second, Yale claims it does not want to offend. This is patently absurd. How many books have been published that offend someone, somewhere? Is it even possible to find a book that is agreeable to everyone? The publishing of any quality piece of writing is bound to offend someone. If literature, journalism, or research were uncontroversial they would seek to have an appeal. Yale’s decision to avoid publication soothes the egos of radical Islam by offending the sensibilities of the free West.

Yale’s dastardly editing speaks to a deeper seeded problem. The West is being brow-beaten into disregarding its own founding principles. Muslim leaders and countries attempt to argue that incidents, such as the publishing of the cartoons, should not be allowed. They perversely argue that blasphemy is discriminatory against Muslims and repressive of their freedoms. Rather than rightfully challenging this warped view, many in the West are conceding to these demands.

This poses a number of problems. First of all, it gives dangerous powers to groups to oppress minority views. Religions are entitled to believe what they will; they are not entitled to demand global orthodoxy. As The Economist points out, those attempting to limit ‘defamation’ of religion represent the antithesis to individual and human rights. These arguments are often couched in the language of freedom, but they serve the opposite aim. Instead, by tiptoeing around the supposed sensitivities of a group and preventing individuals to voice their dissent, we are creating a system that allows repression and forced conformity.

Second, by acceding to this perspective Yale is helping the reactionary forces of the Muslim world demolish years of Western progress. Yale is implicitly replacing the individualism that has defined Western culture with a foreign collectivism. This is a small piece in a dire threat to Western civilization. Western society is built on the individual. If we cannot support the individual in some of the more innocuous facets of life, it is only a matter of time before the assault on our core beliefs begins.

While some may dismiss this event as insignificant, it is anything but. It is a sign of the weakening spirit of the West. Yale’s cowardice is inexcusable. Their actions have granted the enemies of the Western society an easy win.

Can Ahmedinejad’s Win Help the US Make Real Changes in Iran?

The outcome (so far) of the Iranian election is unsurprising to say the least. Ahmedinejad’s supposed landslide victory was too easily predictable in the authoritarian and cleric-controlled nation. The fact of the matter is that the sham of an election is only another indication of the backwardness and intense hard-line nature of the ruling Islamist elite.

Mousavi, a reformist only by Islamist Iranian standards, was doomed from the beginning. The ruling clerics who control the media and military forces clearly had no desire for open, free elections that could potentially divert the nation from their laid out path. The deck was heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent; even if, by all Western media’s indications, there was a dramatic increase in reformist minded voters, particularly students.

The state used every means to quash the challengers. The ‘failure’ of the text messaging services so relied upon by young reformist voters and the prevention of Mousavi supporters from entering polling stations are objectionable, yet unexpected, abuses of the electoral process. Even with these steps, it still appears that the electoral officials had to release bogus results to maintain Ahmedinejad’s dictatorship. It is foolhardy to even refer to Iran as a proto- or semi- democracy.

The US has to use the current unrest in Iran to its advantage. There is much upset with the fraud of an election. Students are protesting and rioting. Now is the time for the world to take steps to make real positive change in Iran. Since the US has been bold enough to thus far reject the results (See MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31342541/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa) it must capitalize on the situation. By allying ourselves with the anti-clerical and reformist movements in Iran, the US can gain a foothold to squeeze the clerical elite. While a toppling of the Islamist movement may not be feasible at the moment, the popular dissent may be useful in wringing greater concessions from the true leaders of Iran. America can lend support to the oppressed Iranian population and take steps to reduce the threats posed by the rogue nation. It is pertinent that we use this opportunity before Ahmedinejad is able to retrench himself and increase his power.

Winning hearts and mind is all well and good, but it needs to be supported with action. For every grandiose speech given, the United States has to make moves on the ground. We can’t simply just speak eloquently and hope everyone becomes friends. While America’s image may now be better in the eyes of the average Muslim than it was two years ago, this election has proven that this matters little. The people in these countries have little say over their rulers and their lives. America now must prove that it isn’t just a nice voice and a beach body, but a determined country that will act.

Obama Speaks to Islam - Part II

The second major issue with Obama’s speech (See the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/) was his over-the-top criticism of Israel. As he did with his discussion of the West’s relationship with Islam (See yesterday’s entry http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-speaks-to-islam-part-i.html), he again pretended to portray the situation as one of two equally culpable sides. Obama used the same format in this discussion. First, he outlined historical grievances, namely the Holocaust, experienced by the Jews. Thankfully, his discussion here was correct and appropriate and took direct aim at Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial.

Obama then proceeded to give the Palestinian side of the coin. He spoke of all the suffering the Palestinians experienced at the hands of the Israelis. He said,

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations-- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

This is the hub of a huge disconnect. The display of ‘two-sides of suffering’ compares supposed Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis with Jewish/Israeli suffering at the hands of Germans. Only at one point does he mention the constant attacks Israel suffers at the hands of the Palestinians.

While understanding the historical context of Israel and the Holocaust is essential to comprehending the Jewish and Israeli psyche, it is not appropriate to pass it off as the sole story of Jewish/Israeli suffering. This is the story that the anti-Israeli Arabs want the world to believe; a story that the Iranian despot Ahmadinejad all too often tries to tell. This ‘poor me’ story roughly goes along the lines of “Well, the Germans hurt the Jews, so now the Jews hurt the Palestinians. The Palestinians have done nothing wrong!” By structuring his speech as he did, Obama willingly, or unwittingly, lent credence to this false argument. This way of thinking completely misinterprets the Israeli position. The Holocaust is a background story that may help to explain Israeli fear. However, today’s problems with the Palestinians stem from a long history of Arab desire to destroy Israel along with current antagonism and continued attacks. Regrettably, Obama fails to see this as he ignored Israeli suffering at the hands of the Palestinians and reduced the Israeli position to one of historical fear.

In his desire to be the ultimate moral relativist, Obama failed to accurately portray the Israeli side of the story. Perhaps he was just pandering to his Muslim audience. More frighteningly, he is backtracking on years of American support for one of our most staunch allies- and the only free democracy in the Middle East. Whichever it is, it is unfortunately feeding unnecessary fuel to the incessant fire of hatred directed at Israel.

Obama Speaks to Islam - Part I

Earlier today, President Obama spoke to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. (See the White House for full transcript http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/). In many ways he should be commended for his speech. He appeared to achieve his primary goals of assuaging mainstream Muslim anger towards the US and opening a ‘new’ dialogue between the West and Islamic world. He spoke tactfully to address mutual issues and brighten the Islamic world’s view of America. Furthermore, his discussion on democracies made some very strong points. To be intellectually honest, his successes must be praised.

However, there were a number of instances where his previous foreign policy gaffes and his harmful and misguided views of international relations seeped through. There were at least three major areas where his language was most unfortunate. First, Obama continued his regrettable apologetic tone and America criticism. Second, he was overly critical of Israel. Finally, he reemphasized a poor nuclear policy. These three issues will be discussed in the following three blog entries.

As he has done in the past, Obama overplayed America’s supposed mistakes and wrongs. While he was certainly not as intense as in past speeches, his words were embarrassing and degrading towards America. Throughout his speech, Obama claimed that he wanted to paint a picture of America and Islam on equal footing, as two brothers that had a shared and sometimes painfully history, but ultimately needed and wanted to work together. This is a fair and just goal and one that is appropriate if properly executed. However, Obama frequently appeared to put greater emphasis on the West’s alleged mistakes and misdeeds than Islam’s. For instance he began to address the historical relationship between Islam and the West by expounding on historical misdeeds completed by the West.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

He then seemingly attempted to show the Muslim harms committed against the West. He said,
“Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.” It is important to note that this is explained only as violent minority. Obama’s attempt at painting a picture of two equally culpable parties fails. In his eyes, the West, as a whole, has harmed Islam; while only a few members of Islam have harmed the West. This unfortunately continues the slamming of America in order to appease the world community.

He continued to disparage America in his discussion of Iraq. As compared to his discussion of Afghanistan, Obama portrayed Iraq as an unfortunate disaster that should never have happened. This streak of self-criticism continued with his discussion of post-9/11 policies. He stated,

The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

For some reason, Obama thinks it is prudent to consistently point out polices that he, alongside his new anti-American, and Islamic friends dislike. He seems more interested in being popular and liked, than doing the right thing. Even if he is right (which he isn’t) regarding Iraq or Guantanamo, continually harping on them does no good. He has recognized this to some degree by thankfully deciding not to release the latest rounds of photos. However he continues unhelpful and unnecessary discussion and disparagement of the US.

All of this leads to a world view of America as weak and morally reprehensible. If Obama truly thinks that there are mutual misdeeds, then he should equally outline them both (or just avoid saying anything). However, by stating the message that both parties are to blame and then only displaying one side’s supposed wrongs sends a drastically different message. It reeks of regret and weakness, and fails to truly talk openly as supposedly desires. The job of the President is to protect America, not to criticize and undermine our world position. Unfortunately Obama can’t seem to help himself.