Deja Vu All Over Again: From Saigon to Iraq

There's nothing in the street, Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left, Is now the parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play, Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

Don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Who

1968, President Richard Nixon was elected on a promise of ending the Vietnam War.  Nixon coined the phrase Vietnamize the war meaning to turn over the responsibility of combat to the South Vietnamese, to facilitate the return of all American combat troops.  Prior to making good on his campaign promises, President Nixon ordered more U.S. combat troops into Cambodia, which intensified combat further.  This was also followed by increased anti-war sentiments from the already battle fatigued American public.  Nixon was committed to the ideal that America must end the war honorably, which was translated to mean, winning the war.  Congress then repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and halted funding for the war in Vietnam.  Free elections were to be held and the Paris Accord went into effect.  The U.S. agreed to remove all combat troops and they did.  America’s strong arms were no longer there to protect South Vietnam’s democratic infancy and Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese.  By 1975, the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam had collapsed and in the vacuum left by our withdrawal was a resentful South Vietnamese people who were then faced to defend their poorly prepared nation.   Enter the Khmer Rouge, a clandestine murderous Communist backed party led by Pol Pot. After the fall of Saigon, the Khmer Rouge subjected North Vietnamese citizen into a brutally enforced agrarian-based communist society.  Approximately 2 million people were tortured and murdered or starved to death in the wake of the new social engineering of Cambodian society.  Those murdered were primarily the intellectual elite who may harbor ideas that were threatening to socialist ideals.  Children were separated from parents, who were thought to have corrupted their children’s thinking and the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who may be involved in free-market activities.  The Khmer Rouge may have exterminated as many as 7 million people in their reign from 1975 thru 1979.  They have been called the most lethal regime of the 20^th century.  The motto offered to the South Vietnamese people by the Khmer Rouge, “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”

The murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge was definable, and they were visible.  The violent actions were driven by a deep belief that if citizens did not believe as they did, their deaths would be no loss. 

2008, President Barack Obama was elected, among other campaign promises, to bring U.S. combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months.  President Obama said, “The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving.”  Obama pledged to, “seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance.”  Recently after bringing home all but 50,000 support and training troops, Mr. Obama said, “The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course. And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home."

According to an August 2007 paper published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the challenges faced in preparing a cohesive Iraqi Security Force (ISF) are complex and multi-dimensional.  “Success depends on realism and resources. Overly optimistic conceptions of ISF development already have done much to breed a climate of distrust and fuel the pressure to withdraw. There is also a serious risk that both the US and Iraq will rely on false optimism and illusions for very different political reasons. The US increasingly wants

out; the Iraqi government increasingly wants the US presence altered and reduced to support its own internal political objectives. “

Regarding the timeline set by President Obama, Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al Rubaie stated, “to be able to defend Iraq cannot be done overnight, or in months. It will take decades to build an air force and to build a navy.  People are trying to fit or to sync the Iraqi clock to the Washington clock,” when in fact, “we need to sync the Washington clock to the Baghdad clock.”

Retired Maj. Gen. John Landry, a member of the intelligence council, said in regards to ISF preparedness, “Iraqi security forces are so plagued by sectarianism, poor logistics, and weak support capabilities that they would not be able to successfully transition control.” When asked if ISF forces were capable of providing some sort of successful closure to US involvement in Iraq, Landry stated this was “not likely” and that Iraqi military leadership and capability needed “years to develop, not months.”

Marine Commandant General James Conway commented on the problems that exist in the unification of ISF forced in the face of sectarian feelings and the potential that yesterday’s insurgents are today’s Iraqi soldiers. “There’s no doubt about that. More generally, however, many Iraqi Army and National

Police units that were actively in combat in areas like Baghdad had officers with clear ties to the Shi’ite militias and were involved or tolerated sectarian cleansing.

Kurdish units serving the central government also had their primary loyalty to Kurdish leaders, but this has been far less of a problem to date because they have not had to operate in areas with ethnic clashes between Arab and Kurd. In fact, some Iraqi Army brigades that were formally in the Kurdish areas have been among the best performing Brigades in Baghdad. The regular police were almost all more loyal to local leaders, tribes, sects, and their ethnicity than the central government.”

General David Petraeus commented, “The sectarian character of the police is a significant challenge to force development, “up to 70% of Iraqi police leaders had been replaced because they had ties to sectarian violence.”  Brig. Gen. Pittard reported, “local police were still susceptible to militia infiltration, and that sectarian loyalty still needed to be actively addressed among these units

In Iraq, the American military leaders have tried to instill the Iraqis with a Nationalistic pride.  The problem is however, that there is no unified Iraq to unify.  When Sunni officials are empowered, Shia leaders are threatened and visa versa.  There have always been sectarian beliefs in Iraq and perhaps even before the citizens of Iraq consider the unified Iraq, they must first consider ethnic tolerance.  At a time when the future security of Iraq is based on the level of individual patriotism for Iraq, it remains to be seen if national patriotism can overcome sectarianism and fear.

Historically we have not seen countries respond well to the U.S backed train, fight and withdrawal playbook.  Iraq will present an even greater challenge due to the presence of outside insurgency threatening and already fragile sectarian relationship.  If the U.S. is indeed leaving a poorly or un-prepared Iraq, civil war is an unfortunate certainty.

When compared to the Vietnam War and ultimate civil war, Iraq has numerous complex differences.  In Vietnam, the basic conflicting ideals were that of a socialist dictatorship and a democratic regime.  The two-sides were distinct and defined.  Peace talks could be arranged and agreements, though fragile, were at least a potential.  In Iraq, there is not a clear cut “two-sided conflict.”  Iraq is a predominantly tribal society and as a tribal society, Iraqi’s have deeply divided religious and sociological foundations all of which operate within the Muslim faith.  Given that these sectarian views are first and foremost in the citizens belief system, it will be difficult, if not impossible to expect any unified military or police effort to progress.  The Iraqi people are terrified that when the U.S. presence ends, lawlessness will once again be the rule and any nationalistic alliances forged will be the cause of extreme violence against them.

Vietnam was essentially a strategic block of land where the fights between the Soviet Union and the U.S. could occur on a smaller scale and without nuclear war occurring.  South Vietnam was of no interest to anyone, with the exception of North Vietnam.  Iraq however, is the third largest oil producing country in the world and access to this oil, as well as stability of the Middle East is a strategic imperative.  Today our enemy is not communism, but radicalism.  Al Qaeda is not a definable fighting force, but instead is a pervasive ideal that cannot be attacked with traditional weapons.  There is a war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and as much as the U.S. has struggled to provide a positive image of democracy, we may have misjudged the images that the average Iraqi already has.  If Iraq remains peaceful and free to, chart their own future,” as President Obama has said, then the perception of American involvement will be favorable.  If Iraq is prepared to secure their borders and work together to maintain security and order, then the view of American involvement will be favorable.  If however, insurgents apply pressure through attacks and threats of eventual ethnic retaliation, and the population begins to feel even the slightest degree of insecurity or corruption in the Iraqi government or the Iraqi Security Force, then there will be mass panic heralding in a civil war.  The tragic outcome of a breakdown of this nature is that al Qaeda will be more than happy to exploit this weakness, thus resulting in greater propagation of the myth of al Qaeda and greater weakening of the already weak American self-identity.

August 19^th 2010:  The last combat troops leave Iraq.  August 27^th, 13 Iraqi cities are attacked by synchronized bombings.  56 people are killed and hundreds wounded.  The following day, 6 Government allied fighters were ambushed and killed by insurgents.  Wael Abdel-Latif, a former Iraqi judge and former lawmaker states, “The message the insurgents want to deliver to the Iraqi people and the politicians is that we exist, and we choose the time and place," "They are carrying out such attacks when the Americans are still here, so just imagine what they can do after the Americans leave."

At the end of Vietnam there was U.S. reparations.  To accept that farmers were paid $600 for each banana tree destroyed, while families were paid $150 for a child killed, is beyond obscene.  What then will be the long-term cost of the U.S. or more politically correct, the Multi-National Forces, involvement in Iraq?  It would seem that money is no longer the currency needed to pay reparations, but instead there is a price far greater.  The cost of abandoning the Iraqi people in the event of an actual civil war, or worse, being guilty of weakening the Iraqi’s ability to defend themselves, would lead to a shift in radical Islamic new believers that the world has never before seen.  Just as Hitler was dedicated to world dominance and ethnic cleansing, al Qaeda is also dedicated to devote each and every life in the pursuit of the same goal.  Pol Pot was a murderous brutal dictator and the Khmer Rouge just as dedicated to brutality.  The difference was in leadership.  The adage of cutting the head off the snake kills the snake, does not hold true to the current multi-headed snake that appears to become stronger and bolder with each attempt to destroy it.  It is clear that if political ambition is the deciding factor for the end of combat actions in Iraq, then surely it is a battle we will revisit.

August 28, 2010:

The Islamic State of Iraq, a coordinating group for al-Qaeda militants, posted a statement taking responsibility on its Web site taking credit for attacking "the headquarters, centers, and security barriers of the apostate army and police" with assaults that were "the wings of victory sweeping again over a new day,"

A Peaceful Iran, A Democratic Iraq, and Other Misnomers

A Peaceful Iran, A Democratic Iraq and Other Misnomers

Today we stand upon the ledge of a nuclear precipice.  In less than one week, the much-discussed Bushehr plant will become a full-fledged nuclear energy installation.  Our friends from Russia will be donating the Uranium fuel needed to kick-off this radioactive keg party on August 21, 2010.  Although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently declared that the Bushehr plant will be used to generate, “peaceful atomic energy for the people of Iran,” his inconsistencies are nothing new.  In less than one-month, the Bushehr plant will be online to provide electricity.  The Islamic republic’s nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi commented last week, “The event will be a thorn in the eye of ill-wishers.”

Iran contracted with Russia in 1995 for the $1 billion dollar Bushehr plant.  After years of delays, primarily political in origin, the plant is nearly functional.  An August 13^th 2010 AP report sates, “Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays. But Bushehr has also been an ideal way to gain leverage with both Tehran and Washington.  Delaying the project has given Russia continued influence with Tehran in international attempts to have it stop uranium enrichment — a program Iran says it needs to make fuel for an envisaged reactor network

But, which also can be used to create fissile warhead material. The delays also have served to placate the U.S., which opposes rewarding Iran while it continues to defy the U.N. Security Council with its nuclear activities.”

With so much at stake, it is disheartening that politics seem to rise above reason.   Russia has agreed with the previous four seemingly ineffective sanctions against Iran, but now seem to have taken the, “if you can’t beat’em” approach.  Russia believes that providing the Uranium that Iran needs, will not only allow a “watch-dog” of reason, but will force Iran to abandon Uranium enrichment, a needed step in nuclear weapons development.  Russia has some concern however, since it has continually refused to honor the 2007 agreement to sell Iran the sophisticated S-300 surface to air missile system, which would, “significantly boosts Iran’s ability to defend against air strikes.”

Iran has refused to sign on to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which would make Iran subject to international monitoring of its atomic safety standards.  The Busherh plant has been closely supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a United Nations supervisory group however, the IAEA’s role is to monitor that all nuclear fuel is accounted for.  The IAEA has a long history of problematic relationships with Iran.  November 27, 2009, IAEA declared that, “Cooperation has reached a dead-end.” According to a WSJ article, German Ambassador Rüdiger Lüdeking told the governors that Iran's "disregard" of its obligations toward the IAEA "cannot be ignored" because the IAEA's outstanding questions presented to Iran "relate to possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program."  In August 2006, Russia threatened to “immediately halt any further construction” of the Bushehr plant if IAEA inspectors were denied access.  Nuclear program chief Ali Akbar Salehi stated that the IAEA inspectors were refused entry to Iran after they, “filed a false report about Tehran’s nuclear program.”  Salehi also complained, “The two inspectors had leaked information about the Islamic republic’s atomic work before it was due to be officially announced.”  The IAEA’s latest report apparently raised fresh doubts about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program.  Salehi then apparently demanded that “two others be sent” to replace the IAEA inspectors that were refused.

The United States and European Union’s sanctions have failed in a step-wise fashion.  The Security Council applies sanctions and they seem to have little effect.  Iran is not only the second largest oil producing country, but sits atop the second largest fuel reserves as well.  Despite the large oil reserve and natural resources, President Ahmadinejad justifies Iran’s nuclear energy ambitions as, “preparation for when the oil reserves run out in 50-60 years.”  It would seem that if Iran’s intentions are truly peaceful, why promote distrust in the world through confrontations with IAEA inspectors, allegations of spying, and the most aggressive move to date, testing the new surface to surface missile named Qiam-1, just one day before fueling of the Busherh site began?

Once again we find ourselves asking if we could be wrong about the motives of one who so often professes a peaceful co-existence of all mankind.  Once again we find ourselves at a frightening realization that ones motives are as easy to evaluate as ones words and actions, yet we seem to have doubt even when face-to-face with the stark reality.  Perhaps we have some intrinsic need to believe in redemption, so that we may find it ourselves however, in the case of Iran becoming a potential nuclear power… We are betting our humanity. 

July 28^th 2010, Iranian television

Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

“Let me start with felicitations on the anniversary of the birth of the Mahdi. I congratulate all of humanity, all the people in the world, because it is the climax of mankind’s inspiration – the fulfillment of the rule of the Promised One. Mankind sees all its goals and aspirations and their fulfillment at a time when justice will prevail all over the world, kindness will prevail, antagonism will go away. Therefore, the Promised One tomorrow is the Promised One of all nations. He is the one that is being awaited by all world nations. They are all waiting for that sweet incident to happen, to see mankind reach the peak of its perfection.”

“They (the West) think that all the world nations are in need of them and that world nations cannot live without them and as soon as they cut off their ties with them, their breathing apparatus will stop functioning.”

“They say they have 5,060 or plus (nuclear) bombs they have stockpiled. A government that cannot bring an oil well under control – how can they stockpile all these bombs? We protest this.”

June 16^th, 2010 Iranian News Channel (IRINN)

Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

“Over sixty years ago, by means of an artificial and false pretext, and by fabricating information and inventing stories, they gathered the filthiest, most criminal people, who only appear to be human, from all corners of the world. They organized and armed them, and provided them with media and military backing. Thus, they occupied the Palestinian lands, and displaced the Palestinian people.”
  (Referring to Israel becoming a State in a 1948 League of Nations mandate.)

“Today, the harshest dictatorship is the one operating against the American nation, and the greatest pressure is exerted over there. They have no freedom of expression. No newspaper has the right to write anything about the crimes of the Zionists, or about the support given to them by the US politicians. The American people do not have the right to demonstrate freely or to oppose the crimes of their politicians. Many Americans live in poverty. Eighty million people are poor. Some [leader] of that same America plundered hundreds and thousands of billions of dollars from the wealth of other nations.”

March 1^st, 2010 Al-Alam TV

Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei meeting with Hamas leader

“Honorable Leader, some people are trying today to drive a wedge between the Arab and the Islamic resistance movements, between the resistance movements of Palestine, and between Syria, Lebanon, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These attempts are destined for failure. We are in the same trench, confronting the enemy of our nation: Israel, and whoever stands behind Israel – America and others. “

February 8^th, 2010

Iranian Atomic Chief Ali Akbar Salehi Al-Alam television

“The West is arrogant, I am sad to say. It always seeks to impose its will on other countries. Iran is an independent country, and it will not accept these dictates. We hope that matters do not become so complicated, but if they do, we will take the appropriate measures.”  
”Threats have been made, especially by the Zionists, but we take all the necessary precautions, and the rest is in the hands of Allah. Martyrdom... Everybody wants to meet Allah as a martyr. We have no fear. Our scientists are not afraid. Naturally, we take precautions, the government invests all its efforts in protect the scientists of Iran, but if what happened to the martyr Ali-Mohammadi happens again – so be it.”  “Naturally, we took all necessary measures to fortify [the plants], but this does not mean that there is 100% protection. That's one thing. Secondly, we think that the enemy – especially the Zionist enemy – will not dare take this cowardly step. This could spell the end of Israel. Attacking Iran is not a simple thing, and they know this.”

Iran recently responded with military maneuvers after comments by President Obama that they perceived as a threat of nuclear attack.  After the maneuvers concluded, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei suggested that the exercises were aimed at showing Iran as a regional power that will provide the region’s security needs; at defying the U.S- the world

power enemy.  Iranian officials reiterated to the West that Iran is fully capable of closing off the Strait of Hormuz – which would have serious ramifications for oil prices worldwide and made a clear threat to American interests in the region.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad was please with the military exercise and reiterated a call for a “new world order” and a “new security order.”  Ahmadinejad said, “experience shows that the presence of several foreign forces has brought the region nothing but undetermined security, slaughter, and hostility.  Therefore, there is no need for the presence of foreign forces to provide security for the region… They must leave our region.”  “This is not a request, but an order, and the will of the local nations.”  “We can threaten U.S. bases across the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.”  It should be noted that the Strait of Hormuz accounts for passage of 20% of the world’s oil export.  Iran has stockpiled a large amount of sophisticated weapon systems that would easily deny access through the Strait if they desired. 

It often seems that the truth can be found somewhere right of positions publicly taken and somewhere left of the actions being labeled coincidence.  In this case, President Ahmadinejad proclaims peaceful intentions and progressive motivations, all the while rattling sabers of Islamic superiority and intolerance of infidels.  A free Iraq is Ahmadinejad latest coup.  The previous pro-Sunni Iraqi government was not interested in dealings with the Shia Iranian government.  The tide has turned and in light of the new Shia leadership in Iraq, and four rounds of sanctions against Iran, they are limited in their trading partners in the region.  Iraq, the third largest oil producing country, is a favored conquest for Iran.  A relationship with Iraq would give Iran legitimacy and power in the region, as well as increased political leverage with the West.   As the U.S. begins to leave Iraq, the Iraqi security is certainly a question that Iran is certain to provide answers to.  This relationship can only be seen as suspect.

Ahmadinejad speaks of a peaceful nuclear program in one breath and justifies defiance in yet another.  He preaches tolerance and then makes statements that Israel and America should be wiped off the face of the earth.  In light of this duality, the world awaits the intentions of a man who vows that his country’s intentions are for nuclear energy, while he tests long-range missiles and unmanned bombers on the very day that the Bushehr nuclear energy plant is inaugurated.  Ahmadinejad coldly referred to the new unmanned bomber as, “the ambassador of death” to Iran’s enemies.  He continued, “The jet, as well as being the ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.”  The goal of the aircraft is to, “keep the enemy paralyzed in its bases.”  Referring to any aggression by Israel or any other nation, Ahmadinejad said the attacks were unlikely, “but he said if Israel did, the reaction would be overwhelming.”  “The scope of Iran's reaction will include the entire the Earth,  "We also tell you — the West — that all options are on the table."

Following Democracy Down the Rabbit Hole

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

Alice in Wonderland

The arguments regarding the cultural center being planned near ground zero, can seemingly become as convoluted as Alice’s trip down the rabbit hole.  The initial response is emotional and perhaps a well-deserved guttural expression of grief, fear and disbelief that still remains regarding the tragic attacks of September 11^th, 2001.  The simple approach is that we were the victims of an unjust attack by Muslim extremists.  The more complex discussion remains that we were the victims of an attack by a misguided subset of Muslims who followed the violent teachings that are as alien to the Muslim religion as pedophilia is to the Catholic religion or racism is to southern members of various religions during segregation.  So why are we misguided when we attempt to force an “all or nothing” generalization on what can only be considered an extremely complicated matter?

At the center of this controversy is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.  Rauf is a Kuwaiti born Arab-American who is listed as Founder and Visionary of The Cordoba Initiative, an organization, who’s expressed mission statement, is to, “actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences.”

Rauf has been the Imam of the New York City Mosque Masjid al-Farah since 1983 and has been involved as an “ambassador of sorts” according to the State Department.  My.nowpublic.com published this statement of Rauf’s mission to spread religious tolerance. “The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, spokesman P.J. Crowley said. He said that the imam had been on two similar trips and that plans for the upcoming tour predated the mosque controversy.

"We have a long-term relationship with him," Crowley told reporters, noting that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt this January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs.

"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," Crowley said.”

Again, we hear the use of the word Mosque, despite Rauf’s insistency that the planned project is a cultural center that will be utilized by the community and welcomes any and all religions.  The $100 million dollar center is to be built on 45 Park Place Street, located two blocks from the Northwest corner of the ground zero site.  Also located within blocks of the site are six churches, varying from a Jewish Synagogue in Battery Park, to a Greek Orthodox church.  There are numerous retail outlets and restaurants, including three strip clubs.  The argument falls back to the fact that we were not attacked by any of these facilities, which leads to the interjection that the Muslim religion is the easier target, which leads further down the rabbit hole of logical misunderstanding to focus this argument on the sensitivity of building anything apparently related to Islam near this site.

Imam Rauf is then the face of this debate, since it clearly is an impossibility to cast this decision to the voters.  Rauf doesn’t always help his own pleadings of tolerance.  After the 9/11 attacks, Rauf condemned the attacks as, “un-Islamic” and went on to call upon the United States government to, “reduce terrorism by altering its Middle East foreign policy.”  In a 2004 quote, Rauf said, The U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.”  In a much more damaging statement Rauf said, The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians, but it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.”  It would seem that there are several inconsistencies with these statements.  We often hear of the conflict in Afghanistan regarding civilian deaths at the hands of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  It can be given the benefit of the doubt that these examples are not true Muslims, but fanatical Muslims.  How then can we have a collective understanding of whom to fear?  Afghanistan and Iraq have absolute examples of Islamic rulers waging war on innocent civilians, so again, how do we factor in the statements of Imam Rauf's Islamic beliefs, without convolution?  Perhaps no absolutes exist however, decision-making does hold an element of filtering evidence through the strainer of consistency.  In terms of Imam Rauf’s implication that Christians were responsible for Dresden and Hiroshima, that would appear to be a comment one would hope he would regret.  The argument falls apart when compare to the facts that During World War II, United States came to the aid of our European allies against an aggressor dedicated to world domination and atrocities.  Our involvement was also forced by the attack of American vessels off the Eastern seaboard.  Hiroshima was agreeably a tragic response to an ongoing act of aggression and failure to cease aggression by the Japanese leaders.  These conflicts though devastating when viewed through the eyes of current retrospection, were not Holy wars.  In comparison to today’s standards of “rules of engagement,” the tactics of prior wars was indeed barbaric.  The same could be said for all wars of the past, including Muslim wars through the ages.  The goal of comments such as the ones made by Rauf, would appear to be placation of perceived American involvement, opposed to simply condemning the terrorist actions.  There is no message of tolerance when Rauf agrees that the 9/11 attacks were wrong however, America is not innocent either.

Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote of Rauf’s appearance on 60 Minutes, “Rauf gave a mixed, muddled, muttering message.”  19 Days after the 9/11 attacks, Rauf commented to a 60 minutes interviewer, “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.”  When asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks he said, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”  Rauch noted the use of the verb, crime that happened.  When asked by 60 Minutes how he considered the U.S. an accessory, Rauf responded, “Because we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world, in fact, in the most direct sense Osama Bin Laden is made in U.S.”  Rauf is clearly referring to the United States assistance in the Afghan-Soviet war, when the U.S. via the CIA, aided the Mujahideen fighters, leading to the evolution of a discontented Bin Laden, who welcomed U.S. aid and training, but rejected the U.S. departure from Afghanistan before reconstruction of the war-torn region.   Clearly to make this comment regarding Bin Laden being made in the U.S. is an over simplification. 

If we can allow tolerance for possible poor word choice, then we are left with the evidence of actions.  There is no doubt that Imam Rauf is striving for religious tolerance.  Rauf’s decision to build a cultural center in the ground-zero area is supported by many Jewish leaders, Christian leaders and even a large number of family members of the 9/11 victims.  Is our fear then for the perception that others may have of our ignorance to an obvious sensitivity slight?  Muslim Sufi Mysticist Suleiman Schwartz comments that building the Islamic cultural center two blocks from ground zero is, “inconsistent with Sufi philosophy of simplicity of faith and sensitivity toward others.” 

In a 2009 TED talk in New York City, Imam Rauf said,  “The Qur’an urges us to remember to remind each other because the knowledge of truth is within every human being.”  Certainly these words are positive and unifying, teaching tolerance to all.  Rauf continues, “I believe personally we are on the verge and with the presence and help of people like you here, we can bring about the prophecy of Isaiah when he foretold of a period when people shall transform their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore.  We have reached a stage in human history that we have no option, we must lower our egos, control our egos, whether it is individual ego, personal ego, family ego or National ego, and let all be for the glorification of one.”

Certainly this is a positive message with no real area for misrepresentation or ambiguity.  Perhaps the message of Imam Rauf is intrinsically unifying.  Why then do we have such convolution?  Rauf began his lecture to the TED conference with a statement that Islam’s basis is one of compassion.  “The Qur’an is a source of compassion from God, and that we, as people should, adorn yourself with the attributes of God.”  The argument to those that object to this Islamic cultural center, could site that compassion would be to recognize the collective voice of the people.  The argument could also be offered that if two blocks is too close, then how far away from ground zero is appropriate?  If nine-years after 9/11 is too soon, then how long is appropriate.  Is the objection really as quantified by the emotions that we view them with or is there evidence that the Muslim faith, the Muslim leader or the potential for the Muslim message is the reason for the powerful reactions that have occurred?

If we indict Imam Rauf as anti-American for his comments then the issue isn’t should he be allowed to build an Islamic cultural center.  The American ideal fashioned by the Constitution allows him the same freedom of religious views and speech that it allows us all. If we are indicting all Muslim believers, then we are certainly shortsighted.  If we are fearful that the message delivered will be one that incites anti-American actions, the message is also covered in the constitutional rights to deliver such a message.  The American ideal that stands as the “gold-standard” of most nations is in constant evolution and constant challenge.  We benefit far more from our diversity than we are harmed by it.  Or are the many Europeans correct that diversity is simply another soft-term for Islamization?  Some European “thinkers” compare Islamic beliefs with the Nazi agenda, to simply build the pure and eliminate the impure.  Some have even gone to the extreme of saying both equally share in an agenda to “wipe out the Jews.”  It would seem that Americans are capable of evaluating the two beliefs, just as we have countless other beliefs throughout history.   Perhaps the Imam’s message of tolerance is in essence “preaching to the converted.”  After all, if America was as intolerant as some believe, what then can we attribute the great progresses that we have recognized in our short existence?  We are more alike than not.  It is the very debate of this issues correctness that separates us from the ideals of those who actually orchestrated and carried out the attacks of September 11^th. 

In the words of John F. Kennedy, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

The issues remain complicated and the motives convoluted.  Hopefully our complex dialogue will avoid labeling any dissenting believers as bigots or terrorists, naïve or foolish.  The future will be our destiny and history our judge.  Regardless of the outcome of this decision, our society will continue to grow and change.  We will face future challenges by those who find reason to hate, despite the lessons of compassion and tolerance in their own religion.

After examining my own thoughts and feelings, I considered that Imam Rauf is the face of Islam in this issue.  It becomes easy to say that he shares a commonality with all Muslims and therefore his belief system is the same as all Muslim people.  It would be easy to say that Rauf’s words are suspect and inconsistent, even though his words also hold hope and unity.  It would be easy to judge his motives based on our own fears.  It is however, difficult to deny him and his followers of a place of worship or of education, for that fact alone is why we felt such unity on September 11^th, 2001.  We are all proud to be members of a free society that values all and trusts in the goodness of the heart of mankind. 

Imam Rauf is however, not the face of all Muslims.  Just as, I am not the face of all Americans or of all Christians.  It is true that Osama Bin Laden is a face most would easily negatively attach to the Muslim faith.  We should strive however to avoid attaching Bin Laden’s deeds to the Muslim faith, despite his proclamation that Jihad is the true directive of all Muslims.  There are many other faces we should attach to the Muslim faith, such as Khalid M. Shahid, a 25 year-old systems administrator who died in tower 1 of the World Trade Center, as did other Muslim believers.

A letter from the memorial of Khalid M. Shahid:

September 05, 2002

Dearest Shahid Family,

There are only two words that describes Khalid and that is "Great Man", I'm so glad I had the opportunity to work and have Khalid as a "FRIEND". It didn't matter the type of person you were, Khalid always saw the good in people. I have never in life met anyone so wonderful like him. What I miss the most of Khalid was his ability to make me laugh when I was sad. If there's anything that I learned from him it was to live life fully, and do what your heart desires. What was most important to Khalid was his Family, never stopped talking about his dreams and his future with Jaime. Khalid never had a bad day at work; in fact he had a strong positive energy that would light up our IT department every single day. No matter how bad things were in the office, Khalid always found the good in all. I will never forget all the times he gave me a ride to our office in New Jersey, he always offered and never hesitated.

Khalid has touched my heart in a very special way and he will always have a special place in my heart. He will always be remembered in our hearts.

Rest In Peace my friend.

~ Michelle Chea,

College Point, New York

Is Wikileaks the New Abolitionist?

 

Wikileaks, a web based international watchdog group is preparing to release more than 15,000 classified military documents related to the war in Afghanistan.  This following more than 70,000 reports released last month.  Wikileaks has claimed that it delayed the release of the latest reports, as part of a “harm-minimization process,” in an effort to redact any information that they felt was objectionable.  The Pentagon has requested the reports be returned and further stated that, “We’re not getting involved in harm-minimization conversations, we’re asking them to return stolen property.”  Wikileaks responded to the Pentagon’s statement with a statement of their own:  “Obnoxious Pentagon spokesperson issues formal threat against wikileaks:  Destroy everything or else.”

“There is a Higher law than any government’s law.  The People are required to obey their government’s law only when it’s in agreement with Higher law.  If the government violates Higher law, we are bound to throw off our allegiance and to resist.”

Reverend Jonathan Mayhew

30 January, 1750

John Adams, the second President of the United States, referred to the above statement by Reverend Mayhew as, “crucially important in leading to revolution.”  Adams also said, “But what do we mean by the American Revolution?  Do we mean the American War?  The Revolution was effected before the war was commenced.  The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.”

The “Higher law” that Mayhew referred to was simply a Common Law, which most colonists understood and faithfully obeyed.   The two basic principals of Common Law:  1) do all that you have agreed to do  2) do not encroach on other persons or their property.  All major religions and philosophies agree on these two points, although perhaps expressing them uniquely, and the American colonists were absolutely dedicated to the principal of Common Law.  The revolution began after colonists felt that unfair taxation was an encroachment by the British government, and therefore a breach of Common Law, leading to the eventual overthrow of the government by the colonists.  The colonists were also guilty of treason and this treason was felt to be, “moral, ethical and right in every way.” 

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “This eternal and immutable law said the politicians and bureaucrats were as human as anyone else and they had no special rights or privileges; they could not encroach on others.  “All men are created equal.”

Today we find the social and political machine is a much more complicated and diverse challenge.  Our, “Common Law” is not as easily defined or agreed upon.  Those who we entrust with making law and those entrusted with defining laws made by others, often bends and distorts the two simple principals of Common Law, until we as a society can no longer recognize the original premise.

On December 4^th, 1859, Abraham Lincoln commented on the resistance and ultimate death of American abolitionist John Brown.  Lincoln described Brown as having, "great courage and rare unselfishness."  Lincoln also said of the anti-slavery activist, “Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.'' 

John Brown is known for advocating and practicing armed insurrection to abolish slavery.  Brown’s actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 and the 1859 failed raid on Harper’s Ferry, an action that began the Civil War.  For his acts of, “patriotic treason,” Brown would be labeled, “one of the most controversial of all 19^th century Americans.”

American isolationism begins to fade and this social and economic change heralds in a time of increased complexity on the issues of right and wrong, patriotism and treason.  No longer do Americans solely fight their own fights, but now must become involved in the fairness and protection of encroachment on a world stage.  Now the issue of when treason is justified becomes as complex as the quantum mechanics example of Schrödinger’s Cat, where the very attempt to observe democracy somehow alters the path traveled by democracy.

We now fight battles against enemies who do not revere Common Law and cannot seem to find tolerance for others who may believe differently.  We seem to have arrived at an intersection where those whom have the opportunity to oppress or force self-interest agendas, will. 

The Issue of Censorship:

Currently there are ten countries that have complete control of information diffusion.  North Korean certainly leads the world in having total control of what their citizens not only receive, but more harmful to progress, what they believe.

Other authoritarian ruled countries are Libya, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Cuba Uzbekistan, Syria and Belarus.  The citizens of these countries are typically not only living in social and emotional poverty, but also economic poverty.  It is true that no patriots will spring from these countries, even if there are patriotic acts performed.  Certainly the oppression imposed by these dictators will limit the growth and future of the very citizens that the regime selfishly espouses to serve.           

President John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and

competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

Does this concept apply to classified Military actions in foreign countries, even under the guise of exposing an “unjust war?”  The Wikileaks  public presentation of classified military documents describing the successes and failures of an ongoing conflict does not appear to follow the causality of treason dictum applied by our forefathers.  Perhaps the views of Wikileaks spokesman, Julian Assage, are simply relative to where his views were viewed?   America could be seen as encroaching in Afghanistan.  The reasons we are in Afghanistan are certainly complicated and would be self-evident to most Americans, but on a world-view, perhaps others would consider us breaching another’s Common Law.  The question then is can Wikileaks actions be considered patriotic simply because they risk retribution for an act of protest in response to an event that they view as flawed.  There does not exist a collective majority view that the war in Afghanistan is flawed or unjust, so who then can decide autonomously to take such drastic actions and release classified material?  Wikileaks actions have undoubtedly endangered the lives of civilians.  John Brown’s actions sparked the Civil War, a costly war for soldiers and citizens alike. 

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell called wikileaks actions, “the height of irresponsibility.”   Wikileaks responds saying they are, “trying to expose serious violation of human rights and civil liberties, which the Bush administration committed in its war against terror.” 

Jean-Francois Julliard, Secretary General of Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media watchdog group, called Wikileaks action “reckless” and “incredibly irresponsible.”   Julliard went on to say of the Wikileaks release, “but revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff said, “Assage can say whatever he like about the greater good that he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”  They question remains that if there have been unjustified civilian deaths in the act of military actions, who’s hands were bloodied first.  It would seem that the word unjustified is depended on the viewer’s opinion of military correctness.  Civil War photographer Mathew Brady captured the first pictures of the wartime carnage seen by the American public.  Does simply seeing the resultant death of warfare give us a plateau on which to individually judge the worth of that action?

Oddly enough, the Taliban who is historically defined by their disregard for Afghan civilian’s safety or life in general recently changed their code of conduct, following the Wikileaks information.  AP reported, “An updated Taliban code of conduct urges fighters to avoid killing civilians and forbids them from seizing weapons and money, a directive aimed at winning hearts and minds of Afghans also being courted by international forces. But the document declares that people working for international forces or the Afghan government are "supporters of the infidels" and can be killed. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar took a similar hard line in orders to insurgents that NATO forces said they intercepted in early June.”  

Just weeks ago a Taliban suicide bomber attempting to kill an Afghan official, detonated his explosives and unfortunately killed six Afghan children instead.  So much for the “new code of conduct.”

“I am not so much concerned with the right of everyone to say anything he leases as I am about our need as self-governing people to hear everything relevant.”

- John F. Kennedy