Pointless allegiance to Israel

Following a smear campaign by pro-Israel groups, Charles W. Freeman, a former U.S. diplomat, has been forced to withdraw from being nominated to be the head of the National Intelligence Council. Article here.

This is really disturbing, and seems to be yet another event proving Harvard professors’ Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis of an ideologically driven Israel Lobby playing a disproportionate role in our foreign policy. Even when it would be better for America, better for the Middle East and even better for the Israeli people, our government stupidly aligns itself with a particular right-wing, Israel-is-the-key-to-all-Middle-East-progress ideology. It’s affecetd all levels of our discourse. This is why a number of Palestinians have told me it is actually much easier to criticize Israeli policy in Israel than it is in the United States.

The worst thing about this is that it shows Obama may not be deeply reevaluating our troubling, uncritical and constant support for all things Israeli — or at least all things that Israel’s American neocon, evangelical and right-wing Jewish lobbyists tell us are pro-Israeli.

As Freeman put it:

It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

Afghanistan: Ain’t no time to wonder why

On a sweltering day at Woodstock in 1969, the band Country Joe and the Fish did something that every Eighties Baby born to hippies knows well.

First, they led the crowd in a rousing chant of the word “fuck”, just for the heck of it. Nowadays, when soft-porn club bangers saturate the radio, the fact that shouting “fuck” was a show-stopper seems downright quaint.

But Country Joe’s second moment of lasting fame—a rousing, angry anthem condemning the Vietnam War—should continue to give us pause today.

“Ain’t no time to wonder why,” he sang. “Whoopee, we’re all gonna die!” Continue reading

Afghanistan: why ask why?

The dedication of 17,000 more troops — with no real explanation about what they are to accomplish, or what the long-term plan for Afghanistan is — is possibly my first real beef with Obama’s policy.

The news comes at the same time that we are learning NATO has killed an astounding number of civilians in Afghanistan in the last year (not to mention Pakistan). In fact, NATO forces have killed nearly as many civilians as the “Taliban insurgents”. If our mission in Afghanistan was not already shaky enough, these facts certainly blur the morality of our presence there even more.

What I want is for people to ask why. Why are we sending thousands of young people abroad with guns to a rural country with a widespread insurgency that we still seem to barely understand? What can we accomplish with bombs in a country that has already been bombed into submission a million times? How can we fight militants who are clothed, fed and sheltered by civilian populations, militants who apparently enjoy some kind of broad support base that allows them to keep coming back? How long will we be there?

What’s our plan for Afghanistan?

It’s time to start hearing some questions like these in our press. We didn’t ask them sufficiently before Vietnam, or Iraq. And look what happened.

How badly has U.S. policy failed Somalia?

“The only people who care at all about Somalis are the people who are working out of mosques. But I’m told that if they’re working out of mosques, they’re bad guys.”

That’s the conundrum that Columbia Professor Richard Bulliet says a CIA desk officer related to him at a conference in Washington a decade ago. Despite that clear revelation in the rank and file of the intelligence community, the United States has spent the 2000s doing everything possible to disable the Islamists in Somalia–even if it meant propping up brutal warlords with no real vision for a Somali state.

Bulliet recalled the incident last night during the event “The Obama Administration and the Middle East”, co-sponsored by the Arab Student Association, Columbia University Amnesty International and several other groups. Panelists–even as they expressed their happiness at Obama’s election–gave a sobering analysis of the limited prospects for fast, fundamental change in American policies in the Middle East. (Other panelists included Columbia profs Gil Anidjar and Peter Awn, CUNY professor Amir al-Islam and ACLU attorney Hina Shamsi.) Continue reading

Sometimes Afghanistan is just like Gaza

‘In a statement, Colonel O’Hara said, “[F]orces exercised great restraint and prevented any civilian casualties at the same time the enemy placed the whole village in harm’s way by operating the way they do.”’

Besides the fact that O’Hara is an unlikely last name for an Israeli colonel, it’s hard to tell whether this statement applies to Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, it’s part of an American response to accusations that U.S. Special Ops killed 13 civilians in a raid on an Afghan village this month.

As the world (rightly) remains outraged at the destruction in Gaza, it’s good to remember that the U.S.A. continues a similar campaign in Afghanistan. The parallels should not be overstated–after all, Afghanistan is not our neighbor as Gaza is Israel’s. But these Afghan civilian deaths seem to take place further from the world’s attention than those in Gaza.

Let’s keep our eye on them, and keep pressuring Obama to make changes to his policy in addition to his rhetoric.

A president who’s not an idiot

So this is what it feels like. It’s so beautiful that Obama has chosen Al-Arabiya as the venue for the first interview of his presidency (though it is sort of the Fox News of Arab media, in terms of its orientation). And it’s beautiful that he has chosen to use words and language to redefine the way America will deal with terrorism. This is important.

Now, we’ll all be waiting for some changes in policy. Because of course, the way Bush described things was the smallest problem of his “leadership”.

Come on up for the rising! Obama is president

It was insanity. Complete chaos. It took a half hour just to get out of the Metro—in Chinatown, no less, about a mile away from the area to which my tickets supposedly entitled me entry. I didn’t even get to lay my eyes on the man himself, Mr. Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States. (For a full description of the ordeal with the crowd, see my last post.)

But that wasn’t what inauguration was really about. Just like standing in line yesterday for the tickets I barely got to use, it was about being there, being a part of the seething millions who greeted this day together. And even though I didn’t see the man himself (except for his distant image on a jumbotron), I did, in a sense, see the real Obama: all of those people who came to show their support for the change that finally came.

The way I see it, we are Obama. His election is about us, coming together as American people and rejecting the politics of fear and division. Thinking independently enough that we could elect someone from outside any political dynasty, with the middle name of Hussein, with limited national experience and an attitude that, in the end, we’re all in this together.  Continue reading

Inauguration crowd control nightmare worth it to help usher in a dream

Here’s what happened. My aunt, my cousin and I left Alexandria, where I was staying along with 13 family members (the Allens rolled deep on this one—and that’s only about 10 percent of us). We caught the yellow line with the intent of transferring to the blue line, as the instructions on our ticket indicated we should do. But mid-transfer, a perplexed-looking train employee in a fluorescent vest told us that getting on the blue line was impossible. Sure enough, the blue line train was packed to the gills, despite being near the beginning of the line, and we had to get back on the next yellow line train.

It was the first episode in a series of vast crowd mismanagements that would have ruined the day were it not for the attitude—collective, I think—that it was more important simply to be present than to have the personal gratification of getting to see Obama. Continue reading

At the inauguration, solidarity and joy, even standing in line

I’m in Washington, D.C. for the inauguration of President Barack Obama (doesn’t that feel nice to say?), and like about a million other people I spent the day shuffling through crowds in 34 degree weather. It was slow going, with lines for eveything — to get into museums, to get on the metro, to get a cup off coffee.

But the atmosphere was like a love-in. People were smiling at each other, talking to strangers (no one was a stranger, in fact), expressing their happiness about the moment. Strolling around the frozen pond before the statue of General Grant and the Capitol Building — where the inauguration will take place tomorrow — there was a solidarity in the air.

I guess that’s why standing in line for three hours for inauguration tickets at Nancy Pelosi’s office was bearable — even enjoyable. It was all part of the experience. All the legislative office buildings had lines stretching for a block and a half, and Cannon House was no exception. But my dad and I spent the whole time getting to know our neighbors. Continue reading

Inauguration exclusive: the audacity of hoping for a better U.S. policy toward Syria

LGD Note: I reported this piece back in October and wrote it in November for a class at Columbia, with the intention of publishing it on a foreign affairs-concerned website. At the time, the handful of advocates for a better U.S. policy toward Syria were sounding optimistic. Then came the U.S. attack on the village of Sukkariyyeh in eastern Syria, which brought relations between the two countries to an all-time low. It also complicated my story in a way that I couldn’t untangle during midterms. I offer the piece here with the caveat that all comments were obtained back in October before the attack, and long before the Gaza war. But I think there is some interesting food from thought here that is relevant despite all the things that happened since I reported it. What kind of change will Obama bring to our policy with this overly maligned country?

***

By EKA
November 15, 2008

American voters aren’t the only ones celebrating the election of a new president this month. In Syria, which is still reeling from the October 26 attack by U.S. commandos on the village of Sukkariyyeh, people are hoping the new presidency will mean a different American approach to their country. Continue reading