Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

Deeming the fight between the Western world and ISIS terrorists a "clash of civilizations" distorts what is just a power struggle in the Middle East. Still, as this fight is waged, the West must cling stronger than ever before to its loftier values.



The predictable but nonetheless distressing reaction of many in the aftermath of the heartbreaking weekend Paris terrorist attacks has been to twist the event to fit biased viewpoints. A recurring, deeply erroneous refrain is that the incident represents a clash of civilizations (the West vs. Islam) or a battle of ideologies (freedom vs. terror). This view, undoubtedly appealing to some for drawing ostensibly tidy battle lines, is misleading and dangerous.

The truth of the matter is that the Islamic State (aka ISIS or Daesh), like any geopolitical entity, is motivated by something far simpler: the desire to gain and maintain power. Anything more is a convenient ex post facto justification of actions for a group that bombed Beirut one day before Paris, has killed thousands of Muslims, and is involved in a convoluted civil war against a repressive dictator (Syria's Bashar Assad). Russia's support for Assad is allegedly why Daesh blew up a Russian passenger plane earlier this month.

Next, Normalize Iran Relations

As has been the case with America's failed Cuba policy, decades of fighting Iran economically and via proxy wars have had a high moral, economic, and human cost for both sides and not led to any productive changes.

Last month, President Obama announced his decision to begin the normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba, an acknowledgement that this bizarre policy of the past half-century had failed to produce regime change and had only hurt the Cuban people. The president's reversal of long-standing U.S. policy in this matter was wise, overdue, and will continue to be extremely contentious -- but another decision would be bolder still: normalizing relations with Iran.

A brief bit of history: In 1953, the CIA collaborated in the removal of Iran's prime minster, Mohammad Mosaddegh, concerned about his power struggle with the country's Western-backed monarch Shah Pahlavi and over fears Mosaddegh would align his country with the Soviet Union. An entrenched Pahlavi and his notorious secret police, the SAVAK, became so hated, Iran exploded in a violent, radical (Shia) Islamic revolution in 1979. The depressing chain of events linking the U.S. and Iran since then includes the Embassy Hostage Crisis, the Contra affair, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah bombings of American targets in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. shooting down Iran Air 655, arming (Sunni) Saddam Hussein for a staggeringly bloody fight against Iran (the 20th century's longest war), eventually having to fight two wars against Hussein, and ending up with Iraq today a virtual proxy state of Iran.

No Easy Way

Faced with limited options in dealing with the latest spike in unrest in the Middle East, and the inability to effectively control the situation, the Obama administration is right to have a measured response.

AFP

I've seen the infamous anti-Muslim video Innocence of Muslims, and it's almost impossible to believe that this is the symbolic center of the biggest geopolitical crisis of the year.  It's a nonsensical jumble of scenes that don't form a cogent movie or trailer, and has the production value of an elementary school play.  Actors in cheap Halloween costumes and brownface, their spoken lines badly dubbed over with incongruous voices to spout inscrutable references to Mohammed, and crude allusions to homosexuality and rape -- one would think such a video would be left to languish in total obscurity on a corner of the Internet... and yet, here we are.

But this video isn't really what's fueling the latest round of unrest in the Arab world.  Hardly anyone has actually watched the film, but the masses are appalled at the very idea of their religion being disrespected.  Meanwhile, certain groups have seized upon this video as a pretext to achieve their own goals of whipping up anti-Americanism and fomenting violence.  Protests (albeit of limited size) are currently raging throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia; tragically, last Tuesday the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi.  The attack may have been a calculated terrorist strike that took advantage of the chaos.  Meanwhile, Israel has sounded fresh alarm bells over Iran's progress with its nuclear program, with President Benjamin Netanyahu urging the U.S. to deal with Iran while threatening to attack first himself.  Amidst this maelstrom, the Obama administration has acted with restraint, commendably withstanding the high political pressure and bias toward doing something.

Support Democracy

American interests are best served by promoting the pursuit of freedom and self-determination rather than supporting regimes reviled by their own people.

In the traditionally stagnant Arab world, events have moved at lightning speed in recent days.  The unexpected revolt against the dictator Ben Ali in Tunisia, ignited by the self-immolation of one disaffected young man, has led to region-wide protests by citizens fed up with their own repressive leaders.  Now, the area's most populous nation and most significant power, Egypt, is ablaze in revolution, and the 30-year-plus reign of aging autocrat Hosni Mubarak is on the brink.

Official U.S. reaction to the plight of key American ally Mubarak appears to be slowly adapting.  Only a few days ago, Vice President Joe Biden rejected the notion that the Egyptian leader was a dictator, and his comments about the aims of the protests were lukewarm at best.  This morning, in a sign that the Obama administration's position was evolving as Mubarak's position has weakened, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton spoke of "an orderly transition to meet the democratic and economic needs of the people", though no calls were made for Mubarak to step down.

Saddam's Legacy

Just over an hour ago, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging for crimes against humanity. Now that the former tyrant is no more, both the U.S. and Iraq will have to see whether delivering justice to Saddam becomes a milestone toward national reconciliation or serves to further alienate Sunnis (his sect) from the Shiite/Kurd-led government.

The fact that Iraq today remains unstable and faces an uncertain future, three years after Saddam was overthrown, forces us to confront his legacy. In his absence, the sectarian rivalries and various factions vying for power that were quashed under his tyrannical rule have emerged and gone virtually unchecked, proceeding to rent Iraq asunder.

Certainly he was a vile and narcissistic despot who murdered thousands and brutally oppressed his own people. He was also a major threat to regional and world security, and we are better off having eliminated him. Nonetheless, his secular and pro-modernization attitude is one that we should hope is adopted by future Middle East leaders if we want to see strong, secure states emerge in that region. An emphasis on education and economic development, rights for women, and a legal system that doesn't consist only of arcane Sharia law is vastly preferable to the hostile, Islamist vision for the future that is gaining in popularity across the Muslim world today.

More pertinent to the immediate future of Iraq, given the country's ethnic and religious divisions, is the idea of Iraqi nationalism. Unlike many political players in today's Iraq, who wouldn't mind seeing their country partioned for the benefit of their respective groups, Saddam believed in the idea of Iraq the nation (although his belief rested on twisted, selfish notions.) It would not be in our interests or the region's interests to see Iraq carved to pieces, so we should hope for the emergence of Iraqi leaders who will put the interests of Iraq first--not Kurdistan, "Shi'astan", etc. Oh, and they have to do it without all the death squads, imprisonments, brutalities, corruption, paranoia, and self-interest that Saddam employed, thanks!

I Read the Iraq Study Group Report

For the past nine months the ten person, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) of elderly public figures has met, and in the process their much-anticipated report was expected by many to be the last, best hope for fixing what's gone wrong with the war.

Well, the report dropped yesterday, and as can be expected, reactions were all over the place. Some hailed it as a bold acknowledgement of mistakes and a call for change, some were offended by perceived threats, and some yawned and suggested that the report was exactly the kind of thing that would be produced by a large group of people with opposite ideologies who are forces to come to a consensus. That is to say, a painting brushed with broad strokes, a lot of stating the obvious. That is what I was expecting, but I had to read it for myself, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Instead of running out to Borders or clicking over to Amazon to buy the ISG Report for $10.95, you can do what I did and read it online for free. At about 60 pages excluding appendices and surprisingly easy to read, the ISG report is helpful even for those who are not too familiar with the details of the situation in Iraq. The report provides background on the security situation, sectarian conflict, political and religious leaders, legislative and judicial issues, economic implications, and more.

All the news reports have focues on the two main recommendations from the executive summary, which are described below:

1. The U.S. needs to ask its bitter enemies Iran and Syria for help in stemming the flow of insurgents and encouraging Iraqi national unity. This recommendation is already causing indigestion amongst many hawkish conservatives--a guest on the conservative blog PowerLine ridiculed the notion of getting "terrorists [sic] supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism." The ISG also generically recommends diplomatic initiatives to resolve tensions in Lebanon and provide a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute.
   
   
2. "Significantly" more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security, but most American forces in Iraq could be withdrawn by early 2008. I agree with this position, but I know it's bound to draw fire from both critics and supporters of the war. The former will not want to send more men and women to die in Iraq, and the latter will refuse to give up on the mission or abandon the Iraqi people.
   

While the above two recommendations have generated much of the headlines, I found several interesting insights in the background assesment part of the report. What follows is the rather lengthy list I wound up jotting down (all emphases added by me unless otherwise indicated):

• Props for not mincing words and stating the obvious from the get-go: the intro paragraph in the first section says "The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive." To its credit, the ISG denounced "staying the course," an acknowledgement that the war is going badly, and was equally disparaging to the idea of withdrawing immediately.
  
  
• How bad is the security situation? "Total attacks [against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces] in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006...Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month."
  
  
• On the sources of violence in Iraq: "Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency...It has significant support from within the Sunni Arab community." The Bush administration, by playing up al Qaeda's role, does not acknowledge the fact that the main troublemakers are themselves Iraqis. To be fair, although al Qaeda plays a small role, "that includes some of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, truck bombs, and attacks on significant religious or political targets." Its goal is to incite all-out war between Shi'a and Sunni.
  
  The main problem, though, remains sectarian violence, which "causes the largest number of Iraqi civilian casualties." Shiite militias/death squads include two prominent groups: the Mahdi Army (which has "as many as 60,000 fighters"), led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is closely tied to Iran.
  
  
• How are Iraqis being affected by the war? "The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country."
  
  
• We have trained and equipped 326,000 Iraqi security forces (police and Army). The Army is making "fitful progress"--it is described as "one of the more professional Iraqi institutions." That said, sectarian divisions run rife even here, and large parts of the Army apparently refuse to carry out their assigned missions. Then there's the whole lack of leadership, equipment, personnel, logistics, and support.
  
  That's at least better than the police, who "cannot control crime" and who "routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians." The police forces are heavily infiltrated by militia members, assasins, and other thugs.
  
  
• The report on the political and religious leaders in Iraq is bleak: Prime Minister Maliki is beholden to Sadr, who has built a political party within government and maintains an outside armed militia in a manner reminiscent of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, the moderate Ayatollah Sistani, wants a unified Iraq, but his influence is declining. Iraq's third major ethnic group, the Kurds, want their own state--their leaders certainly don't care much for the idea of the Iraqi nation.
  
  
• The Kurds already have their own autonomous regious, and the Shiites may press for one in the future. The Sunnis want a unified Iraq, but only with themselves as the rulers. There is no economically feasible independent Sunni state, because Iraq's oil reserves are all located in Kurdish or Shi'a areas.
  
  
• Do these guys make Ken Lay look tame? "Corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that official corruption costs Iraq $5-7 billion per year."
  
  
• Regarding the economy: "Growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent."
  
  
• The cost of war for the U.S.: $400 billion so far. We are currently spending $8 billion each month! The ISG says the final bill could be as high as $2 trillion.

After the report concludes the Assessment portion, it moves on to recommendations. And you know how old people always love to give advice? This panel certainly did--79 recommendations in all, with perhaps the two most important described above.

Of the rest, they range from consequential to mundane, with some maddeningly generic. For example, they call for "significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq." In any case, I'm sure over the next week or two, we'll see more discussion and debate of the specific recommendations. At that time I might have more to say about them.

Defensible Action by Israel

How quickly things change. It was only a year ago that Ariel Sharon was making a historic pullout from the Gaza Strip and it appeared to me that a future peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict was at least not an impossibility. Now, the Middle East is engaged in its worst crisis since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon a quarter-century ago. Just last month I was reading From Beirut to Jerusalem, a history of that conflict--now its deja vu on the front pages.

Surprisingly, many people are blaming Israel for this latest flareup, an accusation I believe is unfounded. I think the U.S. position that Israel has the right to stop terrorist attacks (while not using disproportionate force) is a correct one. The current situation is different from those in the past, when I would generally take a more moderate tone with regards to the players. This time the instigator of troubles is very clear--Iran is fully culpable for fomenting instability in the region. This comes after Israel has shown good faith with its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. This comes after Syria ended a decades-long occupation of Lebanon, giving that country its first chance for democracy and freedom to succeed.

But those signs of progress were too much to stomach for Iran and Syria, of course. Hence their war by proxy against Israel through the extremist groups Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and Hamas (in Palestine). Hezbollah, operating as an autonomous entity in Lebanon, makes a mockery of the institution of self-government in that country, and its actions bring suffering upon the Lebanese people. Likewise with Hamas, who lets it militant wing run unchecked while it neglects the basic operations of running a government.

Robin Wright writes in today's Washington Post that, according to U.S. estimates, Hezbollah receives "$100 million annually from Iran in goods, cash, and arms, including an estimated 13,000 rockets and missiles." That malevolent sponsor also happens to be closing in on attaining a nuclear bomb. Faced with enemies with capabilities like that, I echo David Brooks' incredulity that people think Israel is "overreacting." Israel should sit still and do nothing all this while? Of course not. And let's not act like the U.S. can't pick a horse to back here. The Islamist groups and their state sponsors hate the West and are impediments to the spread of freedom and democracy. Israel's actions against its enemies are in line with U.S. interests.

Yet it is important to remember the many, many innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who are victims of this war. What is sad is that they are paying the price for the terrorists that operate from their land. These terrorists know full well the consequences their actions will have on their innocent countrymen, but that doesn't matter to them--only jihad does. Their destructive behavior dooms the people on whose behalf they claim to be fighting.

In this conflict, there is much suffering on both sides. When I see pictures of bombed out buildings and bridges in Beirut, I feel terrible, as I do when I see rockets landing in Haifa. That doesn't change the fact, however, that there is a clear right and wrong. Israel has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens by targeting its enemies. Those enemies aren't just Israel's enemies, they are the enemies of progress and a peaceful future in the Middle East, and everyone would be better off without them.

Is it possible that we can achieve that? Yes, but not with missiles and artillery shells. David Ignatius wrote in Friday's Post about the basic steps needed for a proper resolution to this mess. First of all, this conflict must not be the U.S. and Israel versus the Muslim world, because we are trying to bring the silent majority of moderate Muslims to confront the extremists in charge. The weak central governments that are being eclipsed by the non-state actors must be strengthened: a strong and responsive Palestinian Authority must exist so that it is not hostage to the Hamas militia, and an already pro-Western Lebanese government led by Fouad Siniora must be helped so that it can rein in Hezbollah.

The U.S. should provide assistance in this endeavor, because we--the U.S., Israel, and the Lebanese and Palestinian people--share a common enemy: the extremists. Once they are defeated, then we can look forward to a more hopeful future in the Middle East

Defending Bush on the Ports Deal

Richard Cohen emerges as another unlikely Bush defender over the UAE ports deal. (His Post colleague David Ignatius and the New York Times' Nick Kristof have also written columns this week taking a similar stance.) I cut out the article and highlighted the following few paragraphs to show to Muslim friends:

The politic thing for a president with a dismal approval rating (about 40 percent) would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal, which was the fault, now that he thought about it, of pointy-headed bureaucrats, Democrats and the occasional atheist. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns, ordering a symbolic retreat -- more study -- but continuing to back the deal.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. As a bigot he leaves a lot to be desired. He has refused to pander to anti-immigration forces, and shortly after Sept. 11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government were waging war on an entire people.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," Bush said back then -- and he has since repeated this message over and over again. That very year -- in November 2001 -- Bush invited 52 Muslim diplomats to a traditional Iftar dinner, breaking the daily Ramadan fast, and he has occasionally cited purported racism as the reason some people doubt the Muslim world will, as Bush so fervently wishes, make progress toward democracy. They think people whose skin is "a different color than white" are incapable of self-government, he has said.

Muhammad Cartoon Craziness

It hasn't been the greatest couple of weeks for blogging. School and work have made deep cuts into my free time, and the leading stories in the news of late haven't struck me as all that fascinating.

I refrained from commenting on Dick Cheney's hunting accident, because after all, what more was it than a tragic incident for the attorney shot and ripe picking for the late night comics? After I found out that the Veep wasn't drunk or otherwise negligent when he filled Harry Whittington with buck shot, I lost interest.

Then there's the current flap over the UAE port deal, which looks to me to be a cheap excuse for the Democrats to try and run to the right of President Bush on a security issue. Everything I've read about the deal indicates that the Dubai company has a great track record and that their taking over six American ports will not jeopardize our security.

The other big story to dominate the news this month, of course, is the storm over the Muhammad cartoons. I finally tackled the controversy in a column for today's Diamondback, though by now I hope this will serve as a retrospective and we can finally stop reading about burned down embassies.

Regular blogging to commence next week, or that's my intention at least. In the mean time, check out the following links that helped shape my views with regard to the cartoon controversy.

Recommended reading:

• Overview of the controversy on Wikipedia
• "Drafting Hitler"[$] by David Brooks (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Editorial: Cartoon Wars" by The Economist (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Why I Published Those Cartoons" by Flemming Rose (Feb 19, 2006)

More Myths for Ahmadinejad

It's hard to believe that it was only this past summer when the U.S. was worrying that the new Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had participated in the 1979 Hostage Crisis. Since he took power in August, Ahmadinejad has worked quickly to make himself perhaps the most controversial head of state in the entire world. In October 2005, it was a speech he gave at a conference entitled "The World Without Zionism" in which he channeled Ayatollah Khomeini in calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". This month, he has made repeated comments about Israel and the Holocaust, suggesting that the country should be relocated to the European continent and that the massacre of 6 million Jews during World War II was just a "myth".

A good friend of mine is a Shi'a Muslim who is unfortunately an unapologetic supporter of Ahmadinejad. I hope to convince him otherwise, and by using Al-Jazeera as a source for the president's comments, show that it is not just a case of Ahmadinejad's utterly loathsome remarks being misinterpreted by the Western media. I think Friday's column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times lays out the best case against Iran's would-be hero, with Friedman in this excerpt addressing a couple of real myths:

But since Iran's president has raised the subject of "myths," why stop with the Holocaust? Let's talk about Iran. Let's start with the myth that Iran is an Islamic "democracy" and that Ahmadinejad was democratically elected.

Sure he was elected - after all the Iranian reformers had their newspapers shut down, and parties and candidates were banned by the unelected clerics who really run the show in Tehran. Sorry, Ahmadinejad, they don't serve steak at vegetarian restaurants, they don't allow bikinis at nudist colonies, and they don't call it "democracy" when you ban your most popular rivals from running. So you are nothing more than a shah with a turban and a few crooked ballot boxes sprinkled around.

And speaking of myths, here's another one: that Iran's clerics have any popularity with the broad cross-section of Iranian youth.

This week, Ahmadinejad exposed that myth himself when he banned all Western music on Iran's state radio and TV stations. Whenever a regime has to ban certain music or literature, it means it has lost its hold on its young people. It can't trust them to make the "right" judgments on their own. The state must do it for them. If Ahmadinejad's vision for Iran is so compelling, why does he have to ban Beethoven and the Beatles?

And before we leave this subject of myths, let me add one more: the myth that anyone would pay a whit of attention to the bigoted slurs of Iran's president if his country were not sitting on a dome of oil and gas. Iran has an energetic and educated population, but the ability of Iranians to innovate and realize their full potential has been stunted ever since the Iranian revolution. Iran's most famous exports today, other than oil, are carpets and pistachios - the same as they were in 1979, when the clerics took over.

Sad. Iran's youth are as talented as young Indians and Chinese, but they have no chance to show it. Iran has been reduced to selling its natural resources to India and China - so Chinese and Indian youth can invent the future, while Iran's young people are trapped in the past.

No wonder Ahmadinejad, like some court jester, tries to distract young Iranians from his failings by bellowing anti-Jewish diatribes and banning rock 'n' roll.

(Emphasis added by me.)

Damn, that was harsh. Ahmadinejad's jingoism and belligerence may work as a distraction to Iranians today, but it's not in their best interest to buy into it. And it's not in the best interests of the U.S. to just dismiss him as an idle talker. Charles Krauthammer recently sounded the alarm about Ahmadinejad's messianic ambitions, but it's more than just a neoconservative pundit's shrill cry involved here. Head nuclear watchdog Mohammed El-Baradei, chief of the IAEA and recipient of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, announced earlier this month that Iran was just "a few months" away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. "Slam dunk" intelligence or not, in the hands of a guy like Ahmadinejad, there's a WMD I'm worried about!

Future of Terrorism Determined by Muslims

We're all very aware that a sizable portion of the Muslim world does not like the West and what it stands for. Even so, the vast majority of the Muslim world is moderate and sensible. They reject the extremism of the terrorists who act out in barbaric ways that subvert the values of an entire culture. Unfortunately, terrorists continue to believe they have the moral authority to act on behalf of their people. This is because, for the most part, their people are not being emphatic enough in their rejection of terrorism.

The sight of an angry mob in a Middle East country burning an American flag is commonplace. Compare that to the number of times you see a mass demonstration of people in a Muslim county voicing their disapproval of al-Qaeda in such stringent terms--never! This unwillingness on the part of the Muslim world to "police their own" has been disastrous. Writing in Friday's New York Times on the day after the London bombings, Thomas Friedman says that this has got to change. "If it's a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution", he warns, or else the alternative is an irreversible schism between the Western and Muslim worlds.

It doesn't have to be this way. But it will certainly continue to be this way unless the mainstream Muslim world becomes more vocal in its denunciation of those who would hijack Islam. The twisted ideology that fuels terrorism cannot survive once the environment it breeds in turns inhospitable. It is only then can our current "war on terrorism" truly be won.

Serious About Syria

"You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish."
-- President Bush (on Wednesday)

The Prez means business! OK, so he sounded more like a frazzled soccer mom scolding her kids for misbehaving in the minivan, but the point still stands. It turns out that the latest fad to hit the Middle East is--no, not John Mayer, though I wish we could get rid of him somehow--scaling back on repression. Elections in Saudi Arabia (however meaningless), the promise of elections in Egypt (Hosni, you know how to tease us), and now the resignation of the pro-Syrian puppet goverment in Lebanon. Wow, the only way this scene could be more riveting is the sudden discovery that the late Prime Minister Hariri was assasinated not in a bombing but by dioxin poisoning! Then we'd have ourselves a bona fide feel good story.

Folks, in a few months time we'll see jubilant Lebanese dancing in the streets, holding up purple-stained fingers in celebration of their vote. This momentous triumph of freedom will--ok, ok, slow down. I guess the feel-good moment is getting to me. Still, I'm interested in seeing what happens next. I always get this excited when I see freedom on the march bravely limping forward.

Who's going to come out on top in this one--Assad, Hezbollah, or Good Democracy? There's almost enough possible outcomes to start a "March Madness" bracket! Root for your favorite from the comfort of your own home. If you're a true fan of freedom, you'll hang this on your bedroom wall:

(Click to enlarge.)

Occupation: Mullah, Blogger

Proving that blogging has indeed become a worldwide phenomenon as an "online information bazaar", I just stumbled across the weblog of Mohammed Ali Abtahi. Mr. Abtahi is a Shiite cleric who recently served as Vice President of Iran under Khatami. Surprisingly enough, he also happens to run an independent site designed to provoke debate among his readers, which is not exactly what one would expect from a member of the Tehran theocracy.

If there are more voices like Abtahi's in Iran today, the prospects for that country's future are better than we think. In his online profile, Abtahi declares that "the only way to salve Iran would be to bring about reforms that would fully democratize the Iranian society." Make no mistake, while Abtahi is very much a part of the repressive regime that rules Iran, some of his comments are quite encouraging. In an interview with the AP after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Abtahi voiced his support for a secure and stable Iraq and that country's self-governance. A recent post of his addressed human rights concerns in Iran; Abtahi's response was that "real Islam devotees [need to do] as much as they can and try hard for the real achievement of human rights."

These are all encouraging sentiments coming from a leading political figure in a country whose leader has in recent weeks provoked condemnation and consternation in various international circles. Abtahi's voice comes as a welcome voice of moderation. "Let me be myself," he writes, "regardless to my official and government status." One hopes that this cleric-politician's demonstration of free expression will serve as an example to his countrymen and contribute to a better future for Iran, and consequently the world at large.

UPDATE 2/24 (6:19 PM): As a political and religious figure, Mr. Abtahi apparently enjoys a greater degree of freedom than than the average Iranian to express his thoughts online. The BBC has been covering a recent clampdown by Iran's government on citizen-bloggers. Just yesterday, it was announced that one blogger was sentenced to fourteen years in jail by a revolutionary court. Check out the website of the "Committee to Protect Bloggers", which is raising awareness about this case and the plight of other bloggers who run afoul of their local authorities.

The World in 2020

On Friday, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) presented "Mapping the Global Future" (full text), its latest report offering predictions for the state of the world in 2020. Among the highlights:

- Asian Ascension

In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21'st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

• China and India become major economic powers
• Japan challenged to reevaluate its role
• North Korean crisis has come to a head
• Russian influence important but limited

- The Global Economy

Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.

• World economy 80% larger than in 2000
• Average per capita income 50% higher
• The U.S., though still the single most important power, will lose ground to China and India
• China's GDP will exceed every Western country except the U.S.; India's GDP will equal or exceed all European countries

- New World Order

Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas, hawalas, and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements; alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

• Political Islam has significant global impact
• Democracy in former Soviet Union and Southeast Asian republics could be undone
• China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan issues could lead to one side taking preemptive military action and resulting in all-out war
• Al-Qaeda has been replaced by a numer of equally dangerous splinter groups
• Bioterrorism is the biggest security concern

The NIC considered four possible "futures", each having the potential to be realized:

• "Davos World" - globalization and the growth of China and India lead to a world not dominated by the West
• "Pax Americana" - the U.S. weathers global changes and maintains its hegemony
• "A New Caliphate" - a political organization of Islam challenges the West
• "Cycle of Fear" - concerns over security cause "large-scale intrusive security measures...possibly introducing an Orwellian world."

* * *

What does this all mean? Well, despite it being easy to get lost in gloomy speculation, the good news is that the rise to prominence of Bollywood will inundate the globe with sappy, melodramatic love stories full of song and dance. ("An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia.")

Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!

Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.

The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."

We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!

Further Reading:
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)