Schadenfreude Alert: Dubai Edition

TW: Obviously we should be careful on the Schadenfreude front given our precarious economic performance since 2001 but why not...

Our Perceptions Are Not the Only Perceptions

TW: If there is one thing Americans tend to do both sides of the aisle is frame everything in our own viewpoints. We see ourselves one way, others see us differently.

From the Abu Mugawama blog from the CNAS:
"Not to be outdone...on the traveling front, [this blogger]has spent the best part of 24 hours on planes flying around the Middle East. And, the one good thing about travelling economy class on Emirates air are all the free English and Arabic newspapers.

The Taliban attacks on ISAF forces in Nuristan made for the top story in every single title. The story seems like a pretty straight forward affair, but hidden in its coverage is clue to how the Afghan conflict is being seen within the Muslim world.

Wire stories are a nuts and bolts write-by-numbers affair with strict rules on news judgement, impartiality and grammar which aim to ensure the finished written product adheres to the ethos of the organisation and varies little from individual writer to writer. Newspapers then later reprint these stories. Often the only changes they make are to cut out the final paragraphs of background or re-write the headline.

With that in mind, the original Reuters story on the Nuristan attack has the title; Eight U.S. soldiers killed in east Afghan battle. The same story in the Gulf News is; US troops beaten back. AFP's original story has the headline; Eight US troops die in one of worst Afghan battles. The Gulf news runs with; US suffers heavy losses in Taliban's daring attack.

Gulf News is a Dubai-based paper with a fairly neutral line towards the United States...the Arabic newspapers had similar headlines. It would been instructive to look at other newspapers from across the region and monitor the op-eds which will appear in the next couple of days.

The public in ISAF contributing nations are exposed to media stories that highlight the sacrifices of their own country's troops and the general evilness of the enemy. But what we don't see is how the conflict is being viewed abroad. But it is vital strategists are aware of perception in the region when they consider the implications of future strategy decisions.

There is little point denying that the Taliban (whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan) get much popularity for just fighting toe to toe against Western, and particularly American and British, troops. One of the new realities on the ground engendered by the last eight years of conflict is that local militias in the Muslim world attract respect and therefore support just by taking on Western forces. This respect, particularly when it comes from people who live far away from the theatre of conflict, translates into financial support. Many of these groups now have a strong motivation to turn "internationalist" where once they would have been local. Most readers here are aware of the talks between US and Taliban officials held in the US before 9/11. Once, it seemed the Taliban might develop a Saudi-like US client state. Not any more.

In [my] own opinion, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was misguided. But now it's done, it needs to be done right. "Leaving them to it" is morally dubious after a botched occupation that returned a bunch of gangsters to power. Not to mention the years of bloody service Afghanistan provided to the West in its cold war struggle against the Warsaw pact countries. But also, in the same way the Palestinians' use of suicide attacks sanctified their adoption by al Qaeda, what happens in Afghanistan will have an effect in the future. It's only the exact form of that impact that's not clear."
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/echoes-domino-theory.html

Separating the Takfiri From Terroristic Nationalists

TW: This piece frames a crucial issue- delineating the motives of various entities which use terrorism as a tool. Only by understanding motives can one seek to understand, address and combat the terrorists. Not all terrorists are created equally and one person's terrorist is another's revolutionary fighting unconventionally in the face of an otherwise overwhelming power. This does not excuse the use of terrorism or equate them with the target powers but it does mean dealing with the various types requires differing policies.

The takfiri (Al-Qaeda) are anarchists in many ways or at least their world would be so far away from existing structures that the result would be substantive anarchy.

From The Underreported Blog:
"After eight long years of mixing oranges and apples, the Europeans appear to have finally learned the distinctions between constituency-based and societally-active Islamist militant movements, on the one hand, and takfiri, transnational terrorist groups, on the other. The former, notably Hizbullah and Hamas, have grievances founded primarily on nationalist grounds. These grievances relate, for the most part, to their nations' loss of land in previous armed confrontations with Israel. Their overriding objective is to reclaim of these territories, as well as gain political power. The latter, however, is interested in a much grander project that finds little sympathy amongst Muslims. The Al-Qaeda-types seek to depose all heads of state in the Muslim world, get rid of foreign occupation, and establish a Caliphate system. In pursuit of these objectives, takfiri groups have no qualm about murduring every one standing in the way, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

That the differences are glaring between both camps is easy to conclude. Nevertheless, Western government have long refused to acknowledge, at least not publicly, the differences, preferring to lump all militant Islamist groups in an uneasy monloithic bloc. In some instances, non-violent Islamist parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, were thrown into the mix.
It is no secret that the aforementioned strategy have not yielded progress on any front. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon are virtually the same now as they were a few years ago.

...Could it be that the Europeans have suddenly become more nuanced in their foreign policy posture towards the Middle East, whereas the United States has not? Probably not. I think the Obama administration is already stretching the limits of its domestic constituencies by appointing an ambassador to Syria, seeking dialogue with Tehran and opposing expanding Israeli settlements. Washington may have tacitly supported this engagement process, which the US itself cannot pursue, to test the waters, and see how much can be agreed on diplomatically with Hizbullah. After all, Hizbullah is not on the EU's list of terrorist organizations..."
http://el-shimy.blogspot.com/

We Shall See On Syria

TW: While some demagogue, hopefully something positive is stirring with Syria. Syria is the redheaded step child of the Middle East- little oil, not enough population to demand attention and a mediocre military. Its government garners attention asymmetrically by fomenting terrorism and generally causing mischief.

But if Syria could be pulled into a more integrated, more symmetrical diplomatic and economic posture, good things could happen. Lebanon's stability enhanced, Iran further isolated and one less sovereign nation left to foment terrorism. Obama sending an ambassador over is one of those little noticed but potentially very significant events that will hopefully bear fruit over time.



From Joe Klein at Time:
"The Obama Administration has decided to send a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria, for the first time since Margaret Scobie was pulled by the Bush Administration, which was protesting the likely involvement of the Syrian government in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. This is a wise move on several grounds. It is a reflection of productive negotiations between the U.S. and Syria just below the radar screen. It also sends an interesting signal to Iran, whose regime should begin to wonder if Syrians are shifting with the international tides, given the Iranian regime's public brutality and the recent defeat of Hizballah in the recent Lebanese elections. And it positions the U.S. as mediators in potential peace talks between Syria and Israel, which both sides have been pursuing through intermediaries for years.

The Syrians have been slightly uncomfortable with their Iran alliance for years, but they tend to move very slowly and cautiously in negotiations. This is a sign that something's bubbling in Damascus."

What the Iranian "Election" Means

TW: The incumbents in Iran appear to have almost certainly short-circuited the electoral process in Iran in order to retain power. What are the implications? My take based on my biases, extremely limited information and overall ignorance (which still leaves me ahead of many in the media):

1) Why do we care? Where to start? We have 250K+ troops deployed on Iran's borders to their west and northeast, Iran can either make our troops more or less challenging. Iran is a major oil provider sitting astride the Straits of Hormuz through which massive quantities of other oil moves. Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weaponry, how their pursuit evolves will determine whether we end up with another major military confrontation or perhaps design a resolution supporting a more stable region. Iran is a large pluralistic society with whom should we be able to establish positive relations world history could change for the better.
2) Iran is not a pluralistic, open society in the sense of a "liberalized Western" nation but Iran has been significantly more pluralistic than say Saudi Arabia. This "stolen" election severely undermines the pluralism within Iran. Pluralism equates to soft power, Iran's soft power suffers.
What does that mean?
A) Iranian pretensions to represent the "Middle Eastern street" lose credibility.
B) Iranian government's claim to be something other(better) than a mere oligarchy with power (i.e. Saudi Arabia/Egypt) loses credibility
C) Iranian prestige internationally loses credibility

What does loss of credibility mean- the bad stuff?
A) It increases the likelihood of confrontation with the West
B) With Ahmedjinead and the Grand Mullahs governing as despotic oligarchs it will be easy to portray the Iranian government as the "bad" guy for better or worse.
C) Will Ahmedinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei move away from the precipice of direct confrontation with the West or step back? With Moussavi in power the Ayatollah would have had more room to maneuver, with Ahmedinejad in power, the Western trigger fingers will tense up.

What does loss of credibility mean- the good stuff?
A) If Iran loses street cred. then their adherents such as Hamas and Hizbollah suffer as well
B) Iran was building soft power by combining social spending abroad with a scent of pluralism. The funds can still flow but they will be merely funds no longer supported by any claim to represent an alternative governance approach compared to the Arab oligarchs. Money is not a problem in that part of the world, in fact many of the problems result from too many petro-dollars sloshing around a poorly governed region. What is needed is good governance, Iranian claims in that area have been shattered.

More later.

It Was a Start

TW: Our sound bite journalism does not abide subtlety well but what Obama is trying to do is very subtle. It will take time to bear fruit if it ever does. Folks on the left (not enough criticism re women rights) and on the right (too much self-criticism), want things in purer black and white instead of the Obamian grays. I hope we and others give him time to play these things through.

From George Packer at New Yorker:
"The other evening, three Iranians came over for dinner—women activists, journalists, the sort of people who would be quick to pick up on and criticize any lessening of American commitment to human rights in their country and across the Muslim world. I wondered what they thought of that part of Obama’s Cairo speech—should it have been stronger, more forceful, as some critics (including the Egyptian politician and democracy advocate Ayman Nour) have said? No, on the contrary, the Iranians told me. This is not the moment to lecture and scold, or else the speech wouldn’t be heard. Obama’s first job was to begin to clear the poisonous air that’s filled the space between America and the Muslim world since 9/11. Soaring public perorations to freedom and democracy without a clear, concrete reckoning with the state of things today would have produced a backlash and achieved nothing. Obama needed to earn the authority to tell hard truths, and that could only be done by first acknowledging the various grievances and perceived wrongs that have accumulated over the years, on all sides (in this way, the Cairo speech was the foreign equivalent to the speech on race that he gave in Philadelphia during the campaign, with many of the same rhetorical moves).

The Iranians added that, later, in private, they want Obama to press governments like their own (if negotations with Iran ever start) on human rights. At that point, we’ll know more about the degree of realpolitik in Obama’s foreign-policy views. For now, though, he’s doing the essential work of making it possible for America to be heard by Muslims. And that’s a strategic necessity all by itself."

Good News: Moderates Win Lebanese Election

TW: This is one of those stories where if the opposite result had occurred headlines would have been screaming. As it is headlines are few and far between. Lebanon held its elections over the weekend, pro-Western moderates retained power and grew their majority over Iranian backed Hezbollah factions. One election does not make a nation and Hezbollah retains much power formally and informally in Lebanon. But a democratically elected government provides a more stable base from which to initiate reforms than say the pro-Western oligarchies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia etc.

From NYT:
"An American-backed alliance has retained control of the Lebanese Parliament after a hotly contested election billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.

The alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, won the majority in the 128-member parliament with 71 seats, compared with to 57 for the Hezbollah-led coalition, according to official results announced Monday by the government. The results represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.

...The March 14 coalition is a predominantly Sunni, Christian and Druze alliance. It is led by the Sunni Muslim Future Movement of Saad Hariri, whose father’s assassination in 2005 led to huge protests that forced Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

The majority party in Parliament gets to build the next government and set the direction of national policy.

The results formally leave the number of seats held by the March 14 movement nearly unchanged, with 68 seats, plus three independents aligned with them. But the vote promises to shift the balance of power in the country by providing the March 14 movement with a moral victory over Hezbollah. It also confers on them increased legitimacy, because last time the movement won, in 2005, it did so in alliance with Hezbollah.

...Around Lebanon, the interest in the contest was so high that during the voting on Sunday, people waited up to four hours to vote, many, including the elderly and the infirm, standing in the hot sun and in packed hallways..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world/middleeast/09lebanon.html?hp

The View From the Arab World

(from a Saudi newspaper)
(from a U.A.E. publication, purporting to show "Jews" disrupting Obama)

TW: The Middle East Research Institute gathered responses from Arab media to Obama's Cairo speech. Below are a couple of them plus a couple of cartoons: one positive, one of the prejudiced sort reflecting the gulfs which Obama and others are trying to overcome.

Al-Hayat Columnist for Al-Hayat Raghidah Dergham wrote: Partnership With the U.S. - An Arab Interest-
"The Arabs and their leaders must remember that the peace endeavor is in the interest of the Middle East's younger generation. It is they who must transform the victory [achieved] in the battle for peace into an Arab victory - considering that for 42 years, Israel has rejected peace and maintained a siege mentality, since its 1967 occupation of the Arab territories, while many generations of Arabs were taught to call [this war] a defeat...

"It is in the Arab and Muslim interest to consider forging partnerships with the U.S. and with President Obama, instead of wallowing in the culture of 'accusations of treason' and always blaming others. Arabs and Muslims are not always victims, although [at times] they, too, are victims of extremism and terrorist activities carried out by Arabs and Muslims, not against the U.S. and the West but against Muslims - as is now happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"If only Obama's initiative vis-à-vis the Muslims and the Arab countries… would be an incentive to innovative thought and the formulation of a strategy… that would shift [our] self-esteem from a place of Nakba and defeat to a place of self-confidence and ability to [create] impact and change…"

Al-Ahram (Egypt) Editor Osama Saraya: We Must Improve Relations with the U.S.
"Obama's speech was good not only because of his personality, his influence, or the sentiments that have surrounded him since he arrived at the White House, but also because it contained new terms and ideas, and significant clues as to the expected changes in American policy in the coming years...

"Obama has brought the U.S. closer to the Muslim world, and now we must draw closer to the U.S. if we are serious and if we want to take advantage of the proposed and expected changes in the U.S.'s positions. The solution to the problems between America and the Muslim world lie at the midpoint between the two sides, and there is no alternative but for each side to move some distance towards these solutions.

"Iran will undoubtedly find in Obama's speech statements that will anger it. The rejectionist forces will surely find in it statements that arouse their enmity, and Hamas will find its words to be oil poured on the bonfire of rage. This, even though Obama stressed [the importance of] Hamas' participation in the negotiations for resolving the conflicts.

"But unlike the forces that have chosen to flow at the margins of the Arab and Muslim river, a decided majority of Muslims certainly believe in the justice of Obama's words, and in his sincere desire to end the unnecessary conflicts and to find broad areas where the interests of everyone can meet."
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD238409

It Takes Two Or In This Case About Six To Tango

TW: Crawford makes a point that others have as well. The U.S. can say and do much to advance Middle East peace but at the end of the day enlightened leaders throughout the region must extend their own hands, take their own risks, and make their own sacrifices if peace/improved stability is to be realized.

Those with an interest in continuing instability and war have the easy job (how hard is it to bomb something or kill someone versus providing security and economic opportunity?). But for the first time in a while the onus is being placed more squarely upon the local players rather than an alleged hegemon (i.e. the U.S.) who regardless of its intentions has become a punching bag upon which all sides can blame their weaknesses and failures.

What will the locals do if the opportunity? What will the free-riders (i.e. Europeans, Chinese) who enjoy playing the rich, concerned uncle (i.e. expressing sympathy for all sides while selling as much as they possibly can to everyone) do?

From Craig Crawford at
"Ok, so Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet with an exceedingly blunt speech in Cairo that, while not a policy address in diplomatic terms, provided a road map for ending hostilities between Jewish and Arab interests.

If the President's direct words, holding both sides accountable for progress, are not soon echoed by mainstream Israeli and Muslim leaders then the world shall know that they are not now and perhaps shall never be true agents for peace.

If electing a Christian with Muslim and African heritage, who has repeatedly stood firm for the preservation of Israel's Jewish state, is not enough to promote an eventual end to this ridiculous conflict then what more can the American people do? We've tried everything, from Jimmy Carter's conciliations to George W. Bush's war mongering. This presidency could be your last chance, folks, or you're on your own.

Obama spoke essential truths on Thursday. He said things that neither side dares to say in public -- namely, that Arabs privately accept Israel's right to exist, and that Israelis privately acknowledge the inevitability of a Palestinian state.

"It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true." -- President Barack Obama
It is time for each side to step up and lead their peoples to the place that Obama described. If they don't, we can rightly conclude that neither side is worthy of American support."

Go Figure

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Looking for Comity in the Muslim World
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Economic Crisis

TW: This one takes a bit to get going but ultimately Stewart delivers (go to about 2:50 mark).