Not So Strange Bedfellows

I got into a long discussion with my cab driver last night about the cartoon saga (two words that should never be put together). He said free speech should be protected, but that it shouldn't apply to religion. His argument to me was that no one should be able to poke fun at God's messengers (Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, etc). Religion is not politics, he stressed.

This is where I take issue. Religion is and has always been interwined with politics. In fact, Muhammad was indeed a VERY political figure, as was Jesus. Religion has inspired some of the world's most devestating wars, and violent acts. All of which had political ends. Thus, I would make the argument that all are fair game (however distasteful). That said, free speech has consequences for those who are speaking as well as listening. I don't advocate violence in response to a religious and political grievance...but I also don't fool myself into being surprised by it. The fact that it has people talking about it at all to me is encouraging. Of course, all sides seem to be using it for their own purposes (ironically, all of which are political). Iran and Syria use it to divert attention away from their own ineptitude in both protecting religion or actually having functioning political systems. The "West" is using it as a chance to flog those states which are stoking the anger and are tying it to the foreign policy goals. Again, politics.

Usama bin Laden may well consider himself a religious figure, but he also well knows he is political figure. His actions are equally inspired by politics as by religion...because the two overlap and collide in so many amorphous ways. He knows our reactions to his twisted terror will be both politically, culturally and religiously motivated. It's the trap we are all walking into....we can't separate politics from religion ultimately despite our feeble attempts at constitutional ammendments and public diplomacy campaigns. Religion is visceral, it is political, and it certainly does not sit idly in the corner while the rest of the world goes about its business. It drives motivations of the evil and the good, just as much as political ends.

Insult Jesus

Why doesn't somebody print/reprint cartoons of Jesus, the Pope, etc. all over Europe and the Middle East?

There is an opportunity to educate offended but as yet non-politicized Muslims. You participate in this world, you are going to see some stuff you don't like. You get to speak out against that stuff. If you can see the stuff, there are a number of ways that you can respond, and other people will see that too. Those other ways need to be demonstrated; they are not a traditional feature in their local communities, but they do come with the globalization thing.

You don't get to react violently against relatable people who did you no crime by a standard they were made aware of and agreed to by continuing to interact with you (in this part of the world, our standard is not to punish people for being of some identity out of their control, but for taking action they chose to take). If Europe or the United States (separately, not claiming to be on the same side because they are traditional allies but ending up there by advocating the same rules of play) want to utilize this to strengthen moderate Muslims in the Arab world, they ought to take that line: it's not that you have to be ok with the drawings, but you can't go burning stuff down. You'll get your grievances redressed a lot quicker if you don't. Gather, demonstrate, or better yet write letters to the editor who really made the decision and then publish your own thought-provoking and catchy pictures of Jesus. Moderate leaders cannot advocate liking the drawings, they can say it's offensive but no violence, and that's what they have said.

This is not solely the fault of Muslims burning buildings. It is the fault of all actors failing to communicate effectively. If people in the Muslim world have a grossly false interpretation of the motivation and message behind continued reprinting of the cartoons, any understandable reason for reprinting them is irrelevant. Everybody involved who is trying to participate in this diverse, globalized world--meaning not just Internet access but flows of persons who do not move once but shape their lives straddling borders--has to understand that communication is more difficult, and even more essential, and they had better get creative if what they've got so far isn't working. So go insult Jesus, and see what Christians and Western governments do. They won't riot. That doesn't make them nicer. They set the rules of the game, one of which is that you have to accept getting offended in order to work with us. Say what you want (not whatever you want, words have power, but a lot more than you expect you can say), but you don't get to arbitrarily make people die and see anything good come out of it. And government and factional leaders don't get to make their people do that and expect to get what they want in the international system either. There are options, you can take the DPRK's for example. Or you can throw some new stuff on the table and say what you really think, but don't throw the fist you want to throw, much as we all want to throw it (I mean at the guy in the bar, not at the Muslims), and then you can see if you can make something else happen.

State of the Language

The President's State of the Union Address on Tuesday has left me feeling under whelmed. I do not mean to single out the President as I must note that the Democratic response from Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia was just as painful to watch. Instead I intend to comment on something that has bothered me for some time. Is it too much to hope for prose and poetry from our leaders and politicians? I have grown weary of speeches from politicians from both sides of the aisle who use the latest catch phrase while remaining careful not to jump off the reservation. Speeches today are short on analysis and long on fluff. The problem does not end there. Preachers adapt their language to the lowest common denominator of their congregation. PowerPoint is becoming the preferred means of presentation and is even invading the ranks of old school academics. Let's not even get started on MTV.

Granted, Presidents are rarely remembered for their State of the Union address as its purpose and forum constrain its format. But what has happened to the great orators? Why was Abraham Lincoln able to capture the realities of the moment in his second inaugural address? It is funny that he thought the Gettysburg Address was a bomb. Why is Winston Churchill still quoted today? "Hindsight is the luxury of the few" yet Teddy Roosevelt already captured this point over 90 years ago. Is this a new problem or was George Orwell on to something?

These individuals were able to capture the moment. They mesmerized audiences and galvanized the will of their followers. Perhaps they were visionaries with exceptional foresight. Many exuded credibility while others were attracted to their strength. There is one lowest common denominator that I can agree with, all exercised exceptional command of the English language.

Buzkashi

I realize this doesn't have much to do with normal posts here...nonetheless, in response to a scolding from Rhodes months ago not to let the blog die and in an attempt to reduce Mags % of postings on the blog to under 90 I thought I'd post from snowy Kabul.

I went to my first buzkashi match the other day, saw Fahim and watched the Panjshir team rout the Parwan team.

Here's a description of the sport followed by some pics. Hope everyone is doing well.

Buzkashi - National Sport of Afghanistan

If you think football is a rough game, then you're definitely too much of a sissy to play Buzkashi. The national sport of Afghanistan is a dangerous, free-wheeling battle to keep control of a goat's carcass.

How Do You Play Buzkashi?
Buzkashi translated into English means "goat grabbing" or "goat killing." A headless carcass of a goat, a calf or a sheep is placed in the center of a circle and surrounded by the players of two teams who are on horseback. The object of the game is to pick up the carcass and bring it across a goal line or into the winner's circle.

The carcass to be used in Buzkashi is gutted and soaked in water 24 hours before the game starts. This is done so the carcass stays together and won't be torn to pieces while the hundreds of horsemen compete to grab the carcass and score. Sometimes sand is also packed inside the carcass to give it some extra weight.

Once the carcass is ready, it's placed in a circle and then the fun starts.
On a set signal, all the horsemen will race to grab the carcass and gallop away with it. The team or rider who carries the carcass across the goal line wins. The other riders try to prevent that by attacking the rider and trying to steal the carcass away. Riders are not allowed to tie the carcass to their saddle or hit other opponents on the hand to knock the carcass away. Other than that, anything goes. Opponents can punch each other in the face, kick each other and sometimes if they're playing near a river, they may even try to drown their opponent.

Peace and Prejudice

Funny, I had read today that Hamas may not actually "sweep" the elections, and that more attention should be paid instead to whether/how Hamas-Fatah will participate in a coalition government. Will Abbas still lead a Palestinian coalition government, or will Hamas want the lead Cabinet positions? Who knows...never try to predict Palestinian politics...that's my rule (about to be broken).

As for comparing Hamas of 2006 to the PLO of 1988 two decades ago, that's an interesting approach. I would caution against comparison, however. I assume you are comparing the two based on the PLO's 1988 announcement to renounce terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist. Should we trust Hamas' intentions to participate as a political entity and engage with Israel on the peace process, and thus achieve Hamas buy-in to peace negotiations? Perhaps not. But frankly, it's a false choice. I think the USG and Israel are going to have to accept Hamas at the table. Now, whether we are wiser for our experiences with the PA...that is questionable. Yet, I think Hamas buy-in could be far more credible with the Palestinian people than Fatah buy-in ever could have been. I don't believe for a minute that certain members of Hamas won't use terror when they feel it's needed...I just think it will be more as a tool to fight internecine Palestinian power battles vice forcing Israel's hand one way or another. In that respect, I think Hamas probably learned well from Fatah's example.

I would say Hamas has two things going for it: grass roots support among Palestinians and a political/social agenda that goes beyond the prism of Palestinian relations with Israel. It also has the following going against it: as a grass roots political "vanguard" organization Hamas may not flourish when it has to govern; and a virtual vaccum of Palestinian (and Israeli) leadership to which they can respond (remember, they have traditionally thrived off their "opposition" status). These are all things the USG will need to consider when analyzing Hamas intentions. Not to sound inconclusive, but this could go either way: Strong, energized Hamas with political clout; or weak Hamas (due to above) that returns to the cornered animal response. Which one is better?

Let us not forget that if we are comparing Palestininian organizations, it may be beneficial to compare the Israeli and US governments of each period as well in order to get a more comprehensive picture. But that would involve some sort of crazy Excel matrix, some Powerpoint, and a lot of liquor to make sense of it all afterwards.

Pondering Potential Peace Process Progress (or lack therof)

Strat Thinkers--
Marlin here (Ignore the Star Wars nickname-- simply an indication of my poor computer skills!).
The coming week promises to introduce an interesting twist to the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic and I wanted to call your attention to the intriguing issues that the upcoming Palestinian elections will surely raise. Polls are showing Hamas sweeping the elections (worst case scenario for Hamas-- winning 30%!), which will be a major nail in the coffin of the traditional ruling party, Fatah. Since the "peace process" began a decade and a half ago, the Palestinian public has been forced to watch a corrupt party dominate its institutions. In what I would deem a success for the U.S. "democracy push," Hamas has accepted the legitimacy of participating in the political process. This poses a fascinating dilemma for both the US and Israel: should these entities begin taking Hamas seriously as a force with which to be reckoned? I'm not advocating for or against, but this all smacks of the US/Israel posture toward the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1988. Which leads one to question: is there a marked and substantive difference between Hamas today and the PLO two decades ago? And if the distinction is superficial at best, then what have we learned over the last two decades that can better color how the US/Israel respond to Hamas' participation and the potential for engagement?
The election results will surely serve as a test for the Global War on Terror and the Administration's democracy push. I'm eager to see how it plays out!

Interview w/ Colonel Berger

Q&A: Charting Fallujah's Course
Posted by Hot Zone team
on Thu, Nov 17 2005, 7:57 PM ET

The top Marine commander in Fallujah predicts Iraqi police will be ready to control the city in six months

A year ago, U.S. Marines were storming Fallujah in a fierce bid to wrestle the Iraqi city from insurgent control.

Today, Marines are training Iraqi forces to stand on their own. The top Marine commander in Fallujah predicts a large part of that task -- handing over the job of securing the city to Iraqi police -- could be done in six months.

U.S. Marine Col. David Berger is commander of the 8th Regimental Combat Team, responsible for Fallujah and its outlying villages.

On the anniversary of the battle for Fallujah, Kevin Sites asked Col. Berger about security concerns, reconstruction of the city and the ongoing process of training the Iraqi army and police.

Here are excerpts of the interview, conducted at Camp Fallujah on Nov. 13.


On the status of reconstruction and development:


KEVIN SITES: "We have experienced a full year since al Fazur, the battle for Fallujah. I think the Marines considered it a success. Where are we a year later after this battle? Where is Fallujah both in terms of security and reconstruction, and in terms of moving forward with the rest of Iraq?"


COL. DAVID BERGER: "The answer to that is probably not so simple. I think in a lot of ways, much further along than some would have anticipated. In some ways, understandably the folks in Fallujah are frustrated that things have not gone faster. The reconstruction part is going pretty well, I think, on personal and individual compensation for people with homes damaged and property damaged.


"What's frustrating the Iraqis is the other part, which is the commercial part. If we don't address that, unemployment is going to remain high, and that bleeds over into security and a lot of other issues. And rightfully so. They're fighting hard to open up the piggybank in Baghdad to get compensation for commercial businesses."


SITES: "There's supposed to be, I think, $30 million in reconstruction funds from the Iraqi government. Has that been coming through?"


BERGER: "Not a dime."


SITES: "Why not?"


BERGER: "Good question. It's the same question city leaders asked the ambassador when he was down here a couple weeks ago, just after the referendum. They say they're happy with the way the compensation is going individually, but economically it's flat and they need the central government to free up the money. They don't know, and neither do I, why it hasn't started to flow. It's been promised, but it's not here. Without it, businesses can't get off the ground. There are a lot of unemployed people. They need money; they have families to support."


On the potential for more violence, the drive to secure the city and the number of people who have returned in the past year:


BERGER: "If you get paid a certain amount of money to lay an IED [improvised explosive device] or throw a grenade, that's quick money. I'm saying that because a lot of the friction we get is not from al Qaeda in Iraq ... there's a portion that are just doing it straight out of economics.


"This town was built on some big factories. The big factories haven't reopened, and it's been very frustrating. [Fallujah's residents] don't see any progress, they don't see any action. They hear a lot of words, a lot of promises, but not a lot of product."


SITES: "Frustrating from the point that if something doesn't get done soon there is the potential for more violence? Have you noticed anything that is manifesting that frustration?"


BERGER: "No, not at all. It isn't at that kind of tipping point where if things don't improve in another month it's going to go south, no not at all. The two biggest reasons are the [Iraqi] army and the Iraqi police. We've spent a long time working with them -- especially the army. They're firmly entrenched here, people know, and they have a good confidence level.


"And the police are also a big factor here. ... There are a thousand, maybe 1,100 police and they are on the streets every day, 24/7. The people very much trust them and look to them for security, and I think in another six months [the Iraqi police] will be in control of the whole city themselves. And the army and the rest of the military forces will continue to push out."


SITES: "You're saying in six months the police will be able to control the whole city?"


BERGER: "If they keep on going like they're going, yes."


SITES: "How is this police force different, which, along with the Iraqi national guard back in April 2004, turned the city over to insurgents?"

BERGER: "It's more confident, it's more highly trained, and that makes all the difference in the world. There's still a lot of perception that some of the police have too much loyalty to certain parts of the city, and won't be objective as law enforcement parties. But I think the police chief and the leadership he has selected is key to making sure that doesn't happen. He has even established an internal affairs-type section that roots out -- just like any police force does -- those people that are working both sides.

"The big difference is training, absolutely. And there are a lot of little things, like in any military law enforcement: uniforms, discipline, holding people accountable. Those things didn't exist eight or 10 months ago; now they do."

SITES: "In the year since the battle for Fallujah, have you been successful in keeping the insurgents from returning, and also keeping the weapons flow out?

BERGER: "Yes. I don't just think so. Statistically, when you look at it, there's no question."

SITES: "Is there an ambient level of violence that's always there?"

BERGER: "Yes, I'm sure there is. It's higher than I'd like. But because the control points in the city are manned so efficiently, there's always an influx that's going to get through, but the cordon and containment is good. There's going to be some that get through but it's absolutely manageable. And it's so small that there is not going to be a buildup in the city."

SITES: "Has there been an official estimate in the number of people that have returned since the battle for Fallujah last year?"

BERGER: "Official I don't know. Our best guess is about 150,000 people right now."

SITES: "Out of, what was it, 300,000 before?"

BERGER: "I think it was closer to 230,000 or 250,000."

On the strategy for training the Iraqi army and police:

SITES: "If the United States wants to get out of Iraq militarily, it's going to have to accelerate the process of training the Iraqi army and Iraqi police. I've seen with the different units that I've been with, maybe one embedded adviser per company. Perhaps that's not enough?"

BERGER: "The counter to that is that too many advisers becomes a crutch to every operation and every planning effort. If it's done by U.S. guys that say, "We know how to do it," we sometimes think we're going to show you how to do it but then we just go ahead and do it. So we can get it right the first time. So there is a balance. Too many advisers make it too easy [for the Iraqis to lean on them]. I think the balance is right. With what they're working with right now -- at brigade, battalion, company staff -- it's about right. If you pile more on there it's going to take away some of the incentive for [the Iraqis] to do the work themselves, and muddle their way through it.

"You have to accept when you're in that training mode, you're going to have to accept some hiccups, you're going to have to accept some time to learn along the way. That's what's frustrating for some junior officers, who say, 'God, I told you how to do it.' But you have to allow them to branch out on their own. As long as you're there to back them up, and as long as security-wise you're not going to cause any sacrifices, you've got to push them out. You've got to let them learn."

Safety, Schmafety....

I'm a firm believer that public safety is impossible without national security. Otherwise, what are we all working towards? Now, I think Kean and Hamilton are more making the point that "defensive" measures have taken a backseat to "offensive" measures. Certainly both have their merits, but how much energy and resources should be applied to each is what the real question is. And is the war in Iraq really cotnributing to public safety? Is the fact that resources and public/official attention are devoted to the war in Iraq, leaving public safety vulnerable in our fight against the global jihadist movement? The answers are elusive and likely to be controversial. But no one is having that discourse. It's the elephant in the room.

I tend to believe that "safety" is obscure and relative until it is non-existent. How do you define it? We may FEEL more safe with airport screeners and gas masks in our drawers, but are we? I think it's a bit like chasing the rabbit down the hole.

December Book Club: Inner Ring

Our own STRAT Inner Ring met this weekend to discuss C.S. Lewis' essay on the same topic. In the spirit of "inclusion", these were the main highlights of the discussion:

--Inner Rings are inevitable, and by themselves not wholly evil. Lewis, however, makes the point that no one should strive to be inside only for the sake of being inside. There was much debate over whether "ambition" could in itself be a virtue rather than a vice. Naked ambition, in other words ambition as end rather than a means, should be avoided. But one has to wonder if there is such a thing as noble ambition. But that would have us digress into a discussion on human egoism. Thankfully, a few hangovers and some spicy Indian good prevented that Pandora's Box from being opened.

--The Inner Ring should be read at various points in one's life, and likely will have far different meaning at 45 than at 25 or even at 35. Given we are all eager to succeed at what we do, and accomplish productive change, this essay appeared naive and unrealistic to many of us starting a new career in the bureaucracy. However, it should serve mostly as a warning sign to be retained in the back of our minds when Washington starts to get the better of us and the Inner Rings we encounter (in all their subtlety) begin to circle us.

--I know that as I sat and listened to discussion, I wondered in my mind if it would be easy to discern the moment I became a "scoundrel." Would it be obvious, or would it creep up on me? And once you realize you have become a scoundrel, how do you change that?

--Certainly, we all agreed that our inner ring known as Strategic Studies is one based on friendship...the best and most virtues inner ring. We certainly don't share ideology (hello, TMAC!), but share a kinship that goes beyond a pure network. I have no doubt when I look around the room that some of us, if not all of us, will be in positions of power at some point, but the only feeling that comes to mind is pride in my friends and their accomplishments. The friendship upon which that pride is based, however, will always be present...even in failure.

Safety vs. Security

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?

They had Kean and Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission to preview the report card they will release tomorrow. The bottom line for them, after highlighting a few critical areas where both administration and Congress have failed, was that public safety is not the number one priority for the government as it should be. Now I tended to agree with that statement, but I know that those on the Hill and in the White House would take issue. Their line WRT GWOT and Iraq is that they are exerting every effort to ensure national security.

But what is the difference between public safety and national security?

They are both about protecting Americans. Is public safety more micro-security trying to keep people from dying? Is national security macro-security wrapped up in abstract ideas like the preservation of the state and sovereign interests? The issue isn't to parse the semantic difference, but think about where priorities should be.

If what we really want to do is keep Americans alive, healthy and happy, should national security receive top billing? Why not public safety? For that matter, why not public health?

I don't know what direction our "Inner Ring" discussion took after I left, but stepping out of our Washington/SAIS ring for a moment, does national security really trump all else?