[Note from Steve: I hope you enjoyed the series of classic posts on writing.  It gave me a welcome respite from my own writing and some much needed R&R via casual reading—I read four novels, finishing the last yesterday (speed reading and touch typing were my most useful courses taken in high school).  So, it seems reasonable to return to my op-ed posts with a highly controversial topic, the Palestinian situation.  I’ve tried to be very fair here because neither side owns the moral high ground.  Moreover, it’s a freakin’ tragedy that it’s happening.  Read on….]

We’ve seen it in Northern Ireland.  We’ve seen it in Yugoslavia.  We’re seeing it in Iraq.  And it seems like we’ve seen it forever in Palestine.  Some pundits say that old hatreds will die when the old timers who do the hating die off.  Maybe…sometimes.  Other times, it’s best to separate the opposing groups (Iraq shows there can be more than two).  That seemed to work in Yugoslavia after much loss of life and bitterness that still remains.  The U.S. government tends to act cautiously in such circumstances (in Rwanda, it never did), even though many times it’s culpable of participating in their creation.

What’s clear is the following: while the parties doing the hating might migrate to certain fanatical ideologies (the adjective isn’t even necessary, of course, because all ideologies are fanatical—some more; some less; and some reducing to brainwashing) and might attract supporters from non-participating groups as a result, ideology isn’t really the issue.  The heat of the hate is, in fact, in direct proportion to how long that hatred has been around.  While ideologies come and go (they are often debunked by rational people who recognize their severe limitations), ethnic and racial hatred hangs around.

(more…)

Much U.S. foreign policy follows this dogma.  Now Obama wants $500 million—that’s point five billion, in American’s crazy accounting—to help out the Syrian rebels.  Not only is this a 180-degree turn in policy with respect to the civil war there, it’s a bad mistake.  Clearly, Obama is trying to appease hawks in Congress who accuse him of dropping the ball in Iraq—oh yes, the old neocon contingent is piping up there too—and maybe trying to do something in a situation where there is no easy solution.  And Kerry, the ketchup lover of Foggy Bottom, is telling Maliki to hold the country together or else.  Or else, what?

First, the $500 million is too little, too late.  The Syrian civil war has led to radicalization of many rebels so bloodthirsty and murderous that even old al Qaeda wise men denounce them.  Shi’ites are slaughtered.  Civilians—men, women, and children—are slaughtered.  If you want a glimpse of want a Sunni-Muslim caliphate would be like, just look to ISIS.  It would be a bloody theocracy that makes Iran’s Islamic Revolution seem tame.  Throwing a few dollars at the “tame rebels” in Syria will accomplish nothing.

(more…)

[Note to readers: If you notice problems with fonts, spacings, etc, in the next few posts, be assured that it’s neither your eyes nor your computer.  WordPress geeks in their infinite wisdom eliminated the W-button I used to employ to insert post rough drafts from MS Word.  I’ve found a temporary fix, but I’m still exploring work-arounds.  Apparently, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” isn’t a workplace motto at WordPress where they’ve adopted a policy that users are beta-testers, just like Microsoft, the company they hate.  I won’t apologize–they should.]

This question is appropriate when considering Afghanistan.  The good Afghans don’t seem capable of standing up to the Taliban.  The bad Afghans—and these aren’t the Taliban, who are worse than bad—are poppy farmers and the people like Karzai, who, through graft and corruption, exploit everyone and everything.  Karzai bites the hand that feeds him too: he has to know that his life wouldn’t be worth a Russian ruble if the Taliban take over again.  And, let’s face it, the Afghan landscape is more desolate than the moon’s; only Iceland’s is worse.

The recent murders of three doctors is but another instance of why we should write Afghanistan off.  There are good people there.  These doctors were on a mission to help them.  One, I believe, had been doing so for seven years.  The Taliban don’t care.  These doctors were Christians, foreigners, and not supporters of the Taliban’s vicious brand of radical Islam.  The Taliban’s ideology is one of death.  Doctors, a little girl making appeals for the right of women to educate themselves, and many others who dare to work for peace and a better life and naysay Taliban fanaticism, are targets.  They are now claiming they shot down a NATO helicopter (the Pentagon claims this is false—I’m not surprised, because the Taliban would probably take credit if Karzai got a cold).

(more…)

Even in this age when “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is our foreign policy mantra (maybe it always was?) and Putin seems hell bent on returning everyone to the Cold War (or World War III?), Pakistan lurks as not a true friend and probably a die-hard enemy.  I’ve said this many times before in these blog posts, but let me list the reasons yet again.  You will see that I’m not just being paranoid.  This country takes our aid and military help and basically uses it against us.  Its duplicitous actions have a long history.

The most obvious and egregious sin of the Pakistani government (being Muslims, they should understand sin, right?) is how they support both al Qaeda and the Taliban.  In an article in the Sunday (March 23) NY Times magazine, adapted from The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 (scheduled to be released next month) and titled “What Pakistan Knew About bin Laden,” author and reporter Carlotta Gall presents damning evidence that ISI, the nefarious Pakistani intelligence agency, had a desk whose occupant was bin Laden’s handler.  This confirms suspicions I’ve always had.  No wonder bin Laden felt comfortable living only a few hundred yards from Pakistan’s top military academy.

(more…)

[TANSTAAFL: Do you read this blog?  I’m not asking if you like the posts, just whether you read them!  If so, don’t be passive.  React.  Write a comment—chew me out if you like (no foul language, please).  You can even receive a free ebook—see the bottom of the “Free Stuff and Contests” webpage; or write an honest review of one of my ebooks in exchange for the ebook.  In general, buy, read, and review some of my books.  Your participation motivates me and helps defray the costs of this website and my ebook releases.  Be active.  Help indie authors provide you with inexpensive entertainment.  It’s a two-way street, folks!]

After two lengthy wars in these countries, it’s time to step back and analyze what we’ve gained.  It’s clear what we lost: war casualties—our combatants, their combatants, and innocent civilians; national wealth—billions and billions of dollars; good will in the Middle East; and good feelings among present and former allies.  Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo showed an ugly side of the war on terror that seems to contradict our worship of democracy and democratic institutions—whether you think that non-U.S. enemy combatants can be tortured or not, the fact that we did doesn’t sit well everywhere in the world.

Many Marines who participated in the battles of Fallujah were distraught when al Qaeda in Iraq (or are they from Syria?) captured the city.  They saw compatriots fall there.  The survivors brought home physical and mental wounds from the battles.  They have a reason to ask, “What did we do that for?”  This is a common theme in the Middle East.  No matter the national sacrifice in personnel and wealth, no matter the diplomatic overtures, and no matter the good will of many civilians living in the region, extreme elements come back to haunt us like antibiotic-resistant bacteria reinvading the body politic of the region.

Karzai in Afghanistan is showing his true stripes.  He and his corrupt family and friends have no real interest in turning that country into something beyond an opium-producing state.  Noises are being made about deals with the Taliban.  You can expect that any advances made during our time there will disappear, leading to the horrendous treatment of women and the slavish following of sharia law once again.  This is a tribal society—a collection of warlords and their fiefdoms, not a modern state.  There’s little chance it will ever become one.  Moreover, we might see this relic of the Dark Ages corrupting Pakistan in the future in a major way, leading to terrorists with nukes.

Whatever you have against Joe Biden (ex-SecDef Gates in his new book expresses no love for the man), you’ll have to admit he was right about Iraq (Gates is too stupid to do so).  There are three Iraqi states at least—Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd—and possibly four now with the incursion of al Qaeda from Syria.  The absurdity of this situation is that the Shiite Iranis possibly feel threatened by the al Qaeda Sunnis and other Sunnis in Iraq, which might explain somewhat their recent diplomatic overtures.  But, like in Afghanistan, Iraq’s central government is corrupt and inept and completely incapable of holding all the different factions together.  Syria, Iraq, and Kurdish Turkey are like the old Yugoslavia.  To hold them together, you need a tyrant.  With the tyrant gone, you need multiple nations, one for each ethnic group.

The whole Middle East is like quicksand—even when the situation seems favorable, you can start to sink.  Israel isn’t helping either.  Their resistance to a Palestinian state is always a sore point for the most tolerant of Muslims and offers a rallying point for the most bellicose.  Pakistan, long at odds with India, has gone its own way, and the Indian government is showing its backward ways in their unreasonable support of an exploitative diplomat.  Turkey, the only NATO member in the area, isn’t stable and also a fair-weather friend, for both EU and US.  From Istanbul and the SSR Muslim republics to Sri Lanka, the Middle East and from Morocco to Bangladesh, you have unstable governments whipping up ethnic and anti-US sentiments.  It’s hard to find a friend anywhere.  No wonder “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has been the corner-stone of American foreign policy in the region.

Europe doesn’t help.  European governments love to see the US spending money fighting terrorism that they don’t have to spend.  They love to see the US take the foreign policy hits.  The US is the EU’s biggest competitor, of course.  What Europe doesn’t see is that their myopic policies for treating the ethnic minorities providing their cheap labor will become their Achilles heel in the future.  Many of these minorities are poor Muslims—they have no love for the rich Europeans in charge of the economies throughout the EU.  They will place demands on the great socialist democracies of Europe and, if not met, there’ll be hell to pay.

Putin’s Russia is a loose cannon.  While the US and EU are debating same-sex marriage and human rights, homophobic Russia is heading in the opposite direction.  Led by Putin, that dark nation is returning to Stalinism, making a farce out of any democratic inclinations.  There are worse tyrants (the spoiled brat in North Korea is one), but narcissistic Vladimir rules the old land of the czars with an iron hand too.  He’s like the Godfather.  He and his friends form a mafia that is much stronger than any found in the old USSR, and they hide under the cloak of democracy.  Putin and therefore Russia deal with the Middle East erratically, as the contradictions between their support of Syria and their criticism of Iran show.  Again, there’ll be hell to pay because those former SSR Muslim republics haven’t forgotten the heavy boot of Stalin and his successors.

Given that the Middle East is so problematic in general and Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, what are we doing there?  The region won’t ever amount to anything.  Taking the region as a whole, you have a huge, mostly uneducated population that has never learned to get along.  I’m counting Israel here—if not the former (Bibi’s emotional responses don’t show much education, in my opinion), at least the latter.  It’s a strong argument for isolationism, by which I mean isolating the region and letting them settle their differences without our interference.  Becoming embroiled in the disputes in the region hasn’t proven to be a good idea historically.  One can say that “hands off!” should be our foreign policy mantra.

On the other hand, that huge population is a huge market and certain countries in the region provide oil, more to the EU than the US.  I’d suggest that we let the European countries assume the peace-making role.  Let them try to broker the diplomatic deals that might win peace in the Middle East.  They have more to lose.  Unfortunately, Europe has shown that they’re inept in most things diplomatic.  We’ve more or less taken the attitude that it’s a dirty job, but someone has to try to make the different parties sit down and make peace.  I don’t see that ending well.

And so it goes….

We often talk about the flip-side of the coin.  In Thursday’s NY Times editorial, the Times editors, like many people ignoring the flip-side of one particular coin, lamented the civilian lives lost in drone attacks in the Middle East.  The two sides of the coin—at least, in recent experience—are drone and special forces versus “boots on the ground,” lots of boots!  The Times editors either suffered a lobotomy, or, like many pacifist activists with blinders on, have forgotten the perils of massive invasions and nation building.  Many more innocents were killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq when the massive U.S. war machine was launched against terrorists, a small minority hidden among a much larger majority.

Like many people, I think war is hell and would like to see the end of it, but, with respect to terrorism, we didn’t start it…and we have to finish it!  The real choice—and I don’t have a coin for this—is to decide whether we’re going to practice Old Testament policies or New Testament ones.  The problem is that the terrorists don’t give a rat’s ass which one we choose.  If we turn the other cheek, they’ll lop off our heads.  They’ll do that too if we fight—as long as there are terrorists left breathing.  I remember—do you?—an interview where a reporter asks a grinning and dentally challenged Taliban if the fanatic would kill him if he suddenly found himself free.  Remember what the Taliban said?  That sounds like it should be in a fighting song to the tune of Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit”—we should always remember what that Taliban said!  Off with his head, he said!

(more…)

“Want cream or a gun with that latte?”  Starbucks allows you to have a gun with your bad coffee when the gun isn’t expressly prohibited by state law.  While I don’t expect anyone to shoot the barista because the company’s coffee is so bad, allowing guns seems a bad policy.  Of course, it’s bad policy to allow people to carry guns in the first place, no matter where you live (OK, maybe on the edge of Damascus, but they won’t help you against sarin gas).  Only people in special occupations should carry guns.  Period!

Recent cases around the U.S. present good evidence for gun control.  A disaster like what happened in Newtown would have occurred in Decatur, Georgia, if the school accountant hadn’t talked that mental case into putting down his weapons.  She earned my complete admiration.  But she, or anyone else, shouldn’t have to do that.  The crazy dude stole his automatic weapon from a neighbor.  Why did the neighbor have an automatic weapon?  Because he could.  It’s his right to have it for target practice (Why not something more challenging than a target shredder?  Why shouldn’t the range only allow rented guns?) and hunting (Can we equip the deer and other game with something as lethal against humans?).

(more…)

…of what’s wrong with American government.  Who makes the laws of the land?  The lobbyists and special interests, that’s who!  We don’t have single payer health insurance and universal health coverage because of the demands of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies and all the healthcare industry—AMA, hospitals, clinics, doctors, and nurses.  Every special interest pressures Congress, the executive branch, and, increasingly, the judicial system, especially Wall Street and other corporate lawyers.  But the special interest group that screams the loudest, puts its money where its big mouth is, and effectively makes 90% of the American public their slaves is the NRA.

Yes, stats are out: about 90% of every public sector—whites, blacks, Hispanics, women, men—are for at least extensive background checks.  You’d think that would guarantee passage of something.  We just commemorated the death of Martin Luther King.  I saw recently a clip of RFK announcing his death—Bobby died a few months later.  James Brady took a bullet meant for Ronald Reagan thirty-two years ago.  Four months ago, we lived through the Newtown massacre.  Over a span of thirty plus years, America has proven that it’s addicted to guns.  Thirty plus years and no significant change!  If anything, our leaders kiss the butts of the NRA hierarchy now even more as vast sums of money pour into campaign coffers and the Association campaigns against any candidate that dares to attack them.

(more…)

As a writer, I try to imagine what goes on in my characters’ minds, even the more violent ones.  I come to conclusions at times, partly based on observation, and some can make me uncomfortable.  Here’s an example: I think there’s a common thread connecting an arrogant misogynist to a serial rapist and killer.  This common thread is treating women as objects.

Historically, of course, treating women as objects was the same thing as treating them as property.  Our nation started with neither women nor slaves allowed to vote.  For other purposes (census, taxes, and apportionment, for example), each non-indentured woman counted one unit and slaves counted three-fifths.  Moving farther back in time, we find arranged marriages.  At best, there was the woman and her dowry—at worst, a man’s success was measured by how many women he owned along with his cattle, sheep, or goats.

(more…)

[This is a special commentary on the election of the new pope.]

When I was a child I used to naively believe that religion and politics were two different things.  Today it’s almost impossible to believe that.  While Argentines appear to be happy about one of them being selected as pope to more than a billion Catholics, they should tone down their enthusiasm.  In particular, they and Catholics everywhere, as well as those people who left the Church in droves, should be asking:  Why is Timothy Dolan and other right-wing “princes of the Church” smiling?

Dolan not only is smiling.  He said on NBC’s Today, “We got a pope, and we got a darn good one.”  For him and his conservative cardinal buddies, yes, these are probably honest sentiments.  For the rest of us, we should be dubious.  Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now known as Pope Francis, at the very least will most certainly continue the conservative tradition of the Church, dooming it to eventual irrelevancy.  Dolan and his fellow travelers to the Conclave like the first part of that statement and don’t realize that they and their followers will be victims to the second part.

(more…)