Link: Attempted Coup In Turkey- NY Times
When I first saw the televised announcements last weekend regarding what appeared to be a coup attempt in Turkey, it didn't take long for me to realize that whoever was attempting to take control of the government in Turkey had absolutely no idea what they were doing. There is good reason for my surprise; coups are not uncommon in recent world history, with Turkey having already experienced a few in the last half-century. As I tried to make sense from what little information was available, I kept expecting to hear that the government had been taking into custody, the airport secured, and heavy armor rumbling down every major thoroughfare. The plotters were able to gain control of the radio for a limited time, during which they announced that the coup was necessary to protect against further erosion of civil liberties. The plotters announced a governing council and promised to adhere to all existing treaties. This message should have continued playing, or at least a blackout should have gone in affect. Instead, almost immediately after the attempted coup was announced in the western press, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on FaceTime and Skype, instructing the people to stand up to the coup by occupying the town squares and taking to the city streets, which they did, en force. Within an hour or two, Erdogan was holding a press conference at Ataturk International Airport (I'm still not sure why he was on a plane to begin with), announcing that the coup had failed, and that the plotters would be treated harshly.
In order to understand what occurred in Turkey, a bit of background information is necessary. For centuries, Turkey existed as the Ottoman Empire. In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire was an international superpower, at times occupying European territory up to the gates of Vienna. The Empire was ruled by a Sultan, who was also recognized as Caliph, the religious leader of Muslims. As history demonstrates time and time again, all Empires seem to have an expiration date. The Ottomans, in an attempt to rejuvenate a crippled economy and recapture international respect, made the mistake of joining the losing side in World War One (Austria-Hungary and Germany). For most folks, the war ended in 1918, but Turkey suffered through both a civil war and a war of independence simultaneously. A leader emerged from the struggle who was destined to transform Turkey. Kemal Ataturk was a former highly-decorated Ottoman Army Officer, and he ushered in what we know today as modern Turkey. Ataturk was determined to create a secular Turkey. He abolished the Sultanate and the Caliphate, and required that Turkish be taught in public schools. Women were encouraged to abandon the headscarf and men stopped wearing the fez. During the Second World War, Turkey remained neutral until the very end, with Ataturk in firm control of the government. When Ataturk finally died, he left behind a democracy backed by a very strong military. Over the years, when the military has grown concerned about corruption, or the rise in religious extremism, or what it perceived as a threat to secular Turkey, it has called out the troops and tanks and removed certain governments. At times, the military has kept control of the government much longer than anticipated, but democratic elections would eventually take place. Turkey has had a thriving democracy in part because of the military's willingness to protect its secular traditions.
In the last five years, Erdogan has moved Turkey further and further away from this tradition. Most recently, he has boldly moved against the media, not hesitating to arrest any journalist who speaks against his Administration. Erdogan has always governed in coalition with Islamist parties, and has already taken steps to remove military officers who might oppose his future intentions. The idea that the Turkish military would attempt a coup was not a surprise. The surprise was that this coup never had a chance of succeeding. Erdogan blames the coup on disgruntled military officers and Turks in exile who he considers enemies. But nothing he says makes any sense, and I'm not alone in my suspicion. I believe that Erdogan either planned or encouraged the coup himself. The plotters never took the necessary actions to give their efforts any hope of success. Where was the Air Force, the military branch which has been traditionally the most hostile to Erdogan? Why wasn't the airport occupied and Erdogan's plane shot down when it approached for landing? Why wasn't the government arrested or at least detained?
Regardless of who was behind the coup attempt, the result is particularly frightening. Erdogan is purging everything short of elementary schools. Anyone who had ever acknowledged any type of opposition to Erdogan has been arrested or fired. The Turks who came out into the streets, shouting their support for Erdogan and waving Turkish flags, now have the dictator they deserve. The first to suffer will be the Academic community, then the economy will grind to a halt. Erdogan will blame the West, in particular the United States. As far as I'm concerned, removing our military presence from Turkey is overdue. I'm fed up hearing stories of our servicemen and their families being harassed by Erdogan's nationalist thugs. If the Turks don't want us in Turkey, then we should leave. Let Erdogan negotiate his way out of NATO. He's already guaranteed that Turkey will never be a member of the European Union. I think Erdogan has visions of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire, but those days of grandeur are long gone. Turkey does not have the economy or the infrastructure to be a superpower. Don't be surprised, though, if Ankara starts to resemble Caracas.
Showing posts with label Ottoman Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ottoman Empire. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Friday, November 27, 2015
Turkey escalates tension between NATO and Russia with the destruction of Russian Su-24 bomber.
Link: Erdogan stands firm in crisis with Russia.
The crisis in Syria continues to make strange bedfellows, with antagonists being forced to put away grudges to accommodate more pressing matters. When Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan's party won elections earlier this month, there was real concern that Turkey would move further away from NATO and Europe, and possibly adopt a more friendly approach to Islamist parties and organizations. Those of us who feared just such a development should be thankful, in our own way, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Russia's timely intrusion into the Syrian conflict. The Russian military has a history of not respecting international borders, and Wednesday's development involving Turkish accusations of an airspace violation, came as no surprise. In fact, since the arrival of the Russian Air Force in the region, there have been complaints from just about every direction regarding Russian lack of respect for international boundaries. Turkey has been complaining of Russian border violations almost every day over the past week, and not surprisingly, the Russians continued to use the sky as their personal domain. Now that the Turks have taken down a Russian bomber that allegedly crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, the Russians are indignantly ratcheting up defensive measures, starting with the deployment of the S-400 air defense system at the Russian Air Base in Latakia. Russia also announced that a Russian missile cruiser sitting off the Syrian coast wouldn't hesitate to destroy any threat to Russian aircraft.
Interestingly enough, Erdogan has to tone down his recent anti-Europe, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO rhetoric. With the Russian military force that is just across the border in Syria growing all the time, Erdogan has no choice but to call upon his NATO allies in this dangerous time. Although Turkey has a very capable armed forces, and the Russians would have to move night-and-day to transport adequate military personnel and equipment to the region, Erdogan has no intention of standing up to Russia alone. Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to push the envelope, in Georgia, Crimea, and now in Syria. Actually, the onset of this mini-crisis provides the United States and Turkey with an important opportunity to mend fences, although Turkey has been the bellicose trouble-maker in the relationship lately. Even though Erdogan was able to solidify his domestic position with the recent election victory, he has been given a reminder that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire and the year is not 1560 AD. Turkey not only needs allies in the west, but Turkey needs its membership in NATO to remain healthy and in good-standing. Everyday it becomes more obvious that Russia is following through on some grand scheme to increase her influence internationally and to rebuild Russia's relationships around the world, in order to isolate and diminish the United States. Russia continues to aggressively champion Iran's acceptance as a regional super-power, and leaves no stone unturned in its effort to coax away long-time U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.
This conflict is beginning to take on so many different dimensions, that it will become more and more difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Right now, the world is focused on eliminating ISIS, or at least its pretending to be focused; Russia is still the only major military power who has committed itself to the destruction of this monstrous group (as opposed to "containment"). But I'm beginning to wonder if Russia might actually be the more dangerous of the two. ISIS invaded two countries: Syria and Iraq. Russia has invaded three countries: Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and formerly annexed a province of Ukraine. If the United States had taken the lead and built a coalition that included ground forces, ISIS would have been defeated by now. But rethinking past decisions is really a waste of time. We have to come up with a strategy for what we face today.
The crisis in Syria continues to make strange bedfellows, with antagonists being forced to put away grudges to accommodate more pressing matters. When Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan's party won elections earlier this month, there was real concern that Turkey would move further away from NATO and Europe, and possibly adopt a more friendly approach to Islamist parties and organizations. Those of us who feared just such a development should be thankful, in our own way, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Russia's timely intrusion into the Syrian conflict. The Russian military has a history of not respecting international borders, and Wednesday's development involving Turkish accusations of an airspace violation, came as no surprise. In fact, since the arrival of the Russian Air Force in the region, there have been complaints from just about every direction regarding Russian lack of respect for international boundaries. Turkey has been complaining of Russian border violations almost every day over the past week, and not surprisingly, the Russians continued to use the sky as their personal domain. Now that the Turks have taken down a Russian bomber that allegedly crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, the Russians are indignantly ratcheting up defensive measures, starting with the deployment of the S-400 air defense system at the Russian Air Base in Latakia. Russia also announced that a Russian missile cruiser sitting off the Syrian coast wouldn't hesitate to destroy any threat to Russian aircraft.
Interestingly enough, Erdogan has to tone down his recent anti-Europe, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO rhetoric. With the Russian military force that is just across the border in Syria growing all the time, Erdogan has no choice but to call upon his NATO allies in this dangerous time. Although Turkey has a very capable armed forces, and the Russians would have to move night-and-day to transport adequate military personnel and equipment to the region, Erdogan has no intention of standing up to Russia alone. Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to push the envelope, in Georgia, Crimea, and now in Syria. Actually, the onset of this mini-crisis provides the United States and Turkey with an important opportunity to mend fences, although Turkey has been the bellicose trouble-maker in the relationship lately. Even though Erdogan was able to solidify his domestic position with the recent election victory, he has been given a reminder that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire and the year is not 1560 AD. Turkey not only needs allies in the west, but Turkey needs its membership in NATO to remain healthy and in good-standing. Everyday it becomes more obvious that Russia is following through on some grand scheme to increase her influence internationally and to rebuild Russia's relationships around the world, in order to isolate and diminish the United States. Russia continues to aggressively champion Iran's acceptance as a regional super-power, and leaves no stone unturned in its effort to coax away long-time U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.
This conflict is beginning to take on so many different dimensions, that it will become more and more difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Right now, the world is focused on eliminating ISIS, or at least its pretending to be focused; Russia is still the only major military power who has committed itself to the destruction of this monstrous group (as opposed to "containment"). But I'm beginning to wonder if Russia might actually be the more dangerous of the two. ISIS invaded two countries: Syria and Iraq. Russia has invaded three countries: Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and formerly annexed a province of Ukraine. If the United States had taken the lead and built a coalition that included ground forces, ISIS would have been defeated by now. But rethinking past decisions is really a waste of time. We have to come up with a strategy for what we face today.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Is Hamas working with ISIS in Sinai?
Link: A. Is Hamas working with ISIS?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Can Erdogan recreate the Ottoman Empire from the existing Turkey?
Links: A. Turkey goes to the polls on 7 July.
B. Turkey's Prime Minister Davutoglu caught between a rock and a hard space.
C. Turkish President Erdogan revives the ghosts of Ottoman glory.
If there is one thing that I really appreciate about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is his taste for history. Erdogan enjoys reminding the Turkish people of the long history of Turkish military conquest, when the Ottoman Empire stretched from Algeria to Oman and up to the gates of Vienna in Europe. Oddly enough, when I hear the Islamic State ramble on about the creation of an Islamic Caliphate, I can't help but think of the Ottomans. In reality, the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Caliphate. The Sultan wasn't only the head of state for the Empire, he was also the Caliph, or leader of the faithful, with the authority to issue fatwas and declare war not just for the Empire, but for all Muslims. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this appear to be very similar to what the Islamic State is demanding? In reality, the Ottomans were nothing like today's terrorist bad-boy of the moment, the Islamic State (IS). Millions of practicing Christians lived within the Ottoman Empire, and with very few exceptions, enjoyed the protection of the state. Jews were also welcome in the Empire, as the Ottomans recognized the importance of international trade and banking. The Ottoman Empire also had close, personal diplomatic relationships with France, England, Austria and the United States. If it weren't for European banks, the Ottoman Empire would have lived up to its nickname as "the sick man of Europe" and expired long before the actual end came in 1923. What happened to the Ottomans, that they went from world power to an impoverished state, rife with revolutionaries and anarchists? In a word, corruption. And interestingly enough, the word continues to be in vogue a century later.
Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, is a member of President Recep Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) and considered a close ally of the President. Davutoglu had an auspicious start as Prime Minister when he publicly proclaimed that fighting corruption would be a top priority. Davutoglu hinted that he would support the nation's Supreme Court if it chose to put on trial the four government ministers who were forced to quit in 2013 after a large-scale corruption probe produced evidence of their involvement in bribery and influence peddling. Davutoglu was even quoted as saying that he "would break off the arm of anyone who gets involved in corruption, even if its my brother." But timing got in the way, and Davutoglu was forced to eat his words, so to speak. Erdogan had no intention of allowing the Supreme Court to air the AKP's dirty laundry, and the motion to call for a trial by the Supreme Court was voted down in Parliament by the AKP. This incident is not the only example of Erdogan's opposition to Davutoglu's stated goal of combatting Turkish political corruption. Erdogan has no intention of fighting corruption. It has become the military wing of his political ambitions. Erdogan can no longer play the game successfully without the use of some phalange of corruption, whether it be bribery or intimidation (a favorite of his). Davutoglu has been given the crash course in Erdogan politics 101, highlighted by the Jan. 19 meeting of Davutoglu's cabinet. Erdogan called the meeting, chaired the meeting, and ended the meeting, with Davutoglu having not a word to say. It was an obvious reminder to Davutoglu that Erdogan was the real Prime Minister. More importantly, it sent a message that from Erdogan's optic, the actual position of Prime Minister itself was on borrowed time. Erdogan has been discussing the possibility of Turkey adopting a Presidential system of government that does not include a Prime Minister. It would consist of an Executive Branch (President and Cabinet), a Legislative Branch (Parliament), and a Judicial Branch (Supreme Court of Turkey). For someone who is so critical of the United States, he certainly seems to appreciate our style of government. Be that as it may, Erdogan's idea of a presidential system does not include our checks-and-balances. Erdogan sees the Executive as having full authority over the other two, which would leave the office of president with increased powers. And who would be the president in this system? Why, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. For more than just a couple reasons, it was in Davutoglu's best interest to sit still and keep quiet.
There are times when I see similarities between Erdogan and Italy's former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Erdogan, like Berlusconi, never gives up; he realizes that in most instances all you have to do is show more staying power than your opponent. Erdogan uses national ideals to stir up the people, especially near election time, another useful habit of Berlusconi. The exist some obvious differences between the two, though. Italy's electoral system is not as easy to manipulate as Turkey's, and its very difficult to bribe or unfairly influence the Italian judiciary. Also, everywhere Berlusconi goes, his businesses follow like a heavy shadow. Most of the offenses of which he has been accused have to do with manipulation for the benefit of his companies. Erdogan has no business obligations to weight him down, at least none that are known to us. He is a political animal, through and through. When his political party originally burst onto the scene, I was concerned that he was an Islamic extremist, or at least an ideologue. I was worried that Turkey, such an important part of NATO, with a large, well-trained and equipped military, would lose its identification as a secular state. In reality, the AKP and Erdogan approached power with a much more pragmatic, long-term perspective. Then I became concerned that he was playing up to the nationalist element in Turkish politics (in Turkey, there is a fine-line between the Islamist parties and the Nationalist parties, although they wouldn't agree). Now, after more than a decade of Erdogan, I think I finally have an accurate assessment. Erdogan isn't about Islamic domination, nor is he about Turkish nationalism. Erdogan is about Erdogan. He is determined to create a new niche in Turkish politics that allows him to govern as a king, but with the title of president. And he wants his Turkey to be militarily and economically powerful and dominant in the region, a 21st century Ottoman Empire, more or less. I'm not convinced that he will succeed; a growing number of very brave Turks have become vociferously opposed to Erdogan, led by a few independent journalists. And I've always wondered if he was completely successful in excising all the military brass who were dedicated to keeping Turkey secular and free. Maybe the Turkish Military has one coup still left in the pipeline. Now would be a good time.........
B. Turkey's Prime Minister Davutoglu caught between a rock and a hard space.
C. Turkish President Erdogan revives the ghosts of Ottoman glory.
If there is one thing that I really appreciate about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is his taste for history. Erdogan enjoys reminding the Turkish people of the long history of Turkish military conquest, when the Ottoman Empire stretched from Algeria to Oman and up to the gates of Vienna in Europe. Oddly enough, when I hear the Islamic State ramble on about the creation of an Islamic Caliphate, I can't help but think of the Ottomans. In reality, the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Caliphate. The Sultan wasn't only the head of state for the Empire, he was also the Caliph, or leader of the faithful, with the authority to issue fatwas and declare war not just for the Empire, but for all Muslims. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this appear to be very similar to what the Islamic State is demanding? In reality, the Ottomans were nothing like today's terrorist bad-boy of the moment, the Islamic State (IS). Millions of practicing Christians lived within the Ottoman Empire, and with very few exceptions, enjoyed the protection of the state. Jews were also welcome in the Empire, as the Ottomans recognized the importance of international trade and banking. The Ottoman Empire also had close, personal diplomatic relationships with France, England, Austria and the United States. If it weren't for European banks, the Ottoman Empire would have lived up to its nickname as "the sick man of Europe" and expired long before the actual end came in 1923. What happened to the Ottomans, that they went from world power to an impoverished state, rife with revolutionaries and anarchists? In a word, corruption. And interestingly enough, the word continues to be in vogue a century later.
Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, is a member of President Recep Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) and considered a close ally of the President. Davutoglu had an auspicious start as Prime Minister when he publicly proclaimed that fighting corruption would be a top priority. Davutoglu hinted that he would support the nation's Supreme Court if it chose to put on trial the four government ministers who were forced to quit in 2013 after a large-scale corruption probe produced evidence of their involvement in bribery and influence peddling. Davutoglu was even quoted as saying that he "would break off the arm of anyone who gets involved in corruption, even if its my brother." But timing got in the way, and Davutoglu was forced to eat his words, so to speak. Erdogan had no intention of allowing the Supreme Court to air the AKP's dirty laundry, and the motion to call for a trial by the Supreme Court was voted down in Parliament by the AKP. This incident is not the only example of Erdogan's opposition to Davutoglu's stated goal of combatting Turkish political corruption. Erdogan has no intention of fighting corruption. It has become the military wing of his political ambitions. Erdogan can no longer play the game successfully without the use of some phalange of corruption, whether it be bribery or intimidation (a favorite of his). Davutoglu has been given the crash course in Erdogan politics 101, highlighted by the Jan. 19 meeting of Davutoglu's cabinet. Erdogan called the meeting, chaired the meeting, and ended the meeting, with Davutoglu having not a word to say. It was an obvious reminder to Davutoglu that Erdogan was the real Prime Minister. More importantly, it sent a message that from Erdogan's optic, the actual position of Prime Minister itself was on borrowed time. Erdogan has been discussing the possibility of Turkey adopting a Presidential system of government that does not include a Prime Minister. It would consist of an Executive Branch (President and Cabinet), a Legislative Branch (Parliament), and a Judicial Branch (Supreme Court of Turkey). For someone who is so critical of the United States, he certainly seems to appreciate our style of government. Be that as it may, Erdogan's idea of a presidential system does not include our checks-and-balances. Erdogan sees the Executive as having full authority over the other two, which would leave the office of president with increased powers. And who would be the president in this system? Why, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. For more than just a couple reasons, it was in Davutoglu's best interest to sit still and keep quiet.
There are times when I see similarities between Erdogan and Italy's former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Erdogan, like Berlusconi, never gives up; he realizes that in most instances all you have to do is show more staying power than your opponent. Erdogan uses national ideals to stir up the people, especially near election time, another useful habit of Berlusconi. The exist some obvious differences between the two, though. Italy's electoral system is not as easy to manipulate as Turkey's, and its very difficult to bribe or unfairly influence the Italian judiciary. Also, everywhere Berlusconi goes, his businesses follow like a heavy shadow. Most of the offenses of which he has been accused have to do with manipulation for the benefit of his companies. Erdogan has no business obligations to weight him down, at least none that are known to us. He is a political animal, through and through. When his political party originally burst onto the scene, I was concerned that he was an Islamic extremist, or at least an ideologue. I was worried that Turkey, such an important part of NATO, with a large, well-trained and equipped military, would lose its identification as a secular state. In reality, the AKP and Erdogan approached power with a much more pragmatic, long-term perspective. Then I became concerned that he was playing up to the nationalist element in Turkish politics (in Turkey, there is a fine-line between the Islamist parties and the Nationalist parties, although they wouldn't agree). Now, after more than a decade of Erdogan, I think I finally have an accurate assessment. Erdogan isn't about Islamic domination, nor is he about Turkish nationalism. Erdogan is about Erdogan. He is determined to create a new niche in Turkish politics that allows him to govern as a king, but with the title of president. And he wants his Turkey to be militarily and economically powerful and dominant in the region, a 21st century Ottoman Empire, more or less. I'm not convinced that he will succeed; a growing number of very brave Turks have become vociferously opposed to Erdogan, led by a few independent journalists. And I've always wondered if he was completely successful in excising all the military brass who were dedicated to keeping Turkey secular and free. Maybe the Turkish Military has one coup still left in the pipeline. Now would be a good time.........
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Has the United States ever been on the wrong side of a war? Just a few to think about:
Links: A. The American Legion breaks down the Vietnam War
B. Triggers of World War One
C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine
I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments. The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud. With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States. Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone. Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject. Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war? I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible. And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).
When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on. Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese. While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France. For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got. Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall. Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing. The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend. Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit. The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition. The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.
During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war. Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam. If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field. But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties. As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973). But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time. Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died. But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction.
Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently. But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies. If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months. Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea. Or the Russians decided to up the ante. Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons. But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side. I think history has answered that question. After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state. Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans. And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually). We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.
The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia. In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria. France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs. Whew! The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join. The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat. A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany. For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.
Back to the original question. The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships? I have a different opinion. First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain. Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways? In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States? And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe. Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own. The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth. If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war. The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke. Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party. At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.
Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population. Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats. The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines. In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves). Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs. But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning. Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet. In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy. It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California. Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain. Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana. The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up". The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing. As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated. In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event. tragic, yes, but justification to go to war? We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea. But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses). The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily. I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due. Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.
B. Triggers of World War One
C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine
I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments. The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud. With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States. Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone. Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject. Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war? I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible. And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).
When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on. Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese. While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France. For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got. Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall. Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing. The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend. Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit. The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition. The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.
During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war. Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam. If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field. But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties. As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973). But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time. Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died. But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction.
Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently. But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies. If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months. Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea. Or the Russians decided to up the ante. Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons. But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side. I think history has answered that question. After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state. Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans. And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually). We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.
The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia. In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria. France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs. Whew! The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join. The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat. A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany. For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.
Back to the original question. The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships? I have a different opinion. First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain. Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways? In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States? And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe. Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own. The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth. If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war. The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke. Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party. At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.
Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population. Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats. The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines. In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves). Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs. But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning. Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet. In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy. It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California. Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain. Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana. The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up". The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing. As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated. In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event. tragic, yes, but justification to go to war? We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea. But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses). The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily. I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due. Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Why Won't Someone Help the Poor Palestinians? (Part I)
Links: A. Wikipedia Entry For Palestine
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Where The Hell Is Yemen And Why Should I Care?
Links: A. Yemen on Wikipedia
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
peninsula. Depending on your tastes, the landscape can be described in various ways. The coasts of Yemen include both barren, rocky cliffs and beautiful sand beaches. The interior of Yemen is mountainous in places, as the Al-Sarat Range bisects northern Yemen. The entire country is defined by a mountainous interior which falls to the sea on one side and to the Rub' Al Khali (the empty quarter) and Saudi Arabia on the other. Not surprisingly, Yemen reminds me of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece. Unless it was raining, Yemen always seemed to be sun-drenched, with little vegetation except for wait-to-shoulder high native shrubs. Principal agricultural commodities include fruit (mangoes), sorghum, grain, cotton, and qat. To use a favorite term from my childhood, the Yemenis grow a "buttload" of qat, and it gets exported everywhere. Travel to Somalia, Kenya, Mauritius, and they will tell you that Yemeni qat is the best. Heck, as far as I know, it may only grow in Yemen. I can't recall ever seeing a woman chewing qat, but I'm sure it happens. Its much like chewing tobacco. You take a few leaves, squeeze together and put them in your mouth, either between your bottom lip and gums or in the pouch of your cheek. When you collect enough spit, you do
what comes natural. Let me tell you, I've seen my share of stoners and potheads, but these qat chewers are just as dedicated. They chew while working, from sun-up until sun-down, and they partake when relaxing. I've been chewing tobacco (dipping) off and on for thirty-plus years, so I had to give it a shot. To tell the truth, I never noticed much except for a bit of a headache that lasted all afternoon. I've heard that its supposed to be a bit like marijuana, but I've never smoked pot, so I can't compare.
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
 |
| Man chewing qat in Yemen Source: |
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?
Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
A True Christmas Story
Link: History of The Assyrian People
For those of you who eventually read my book, you will find a longer, more spiritual version of this story. Given that Christmas is upon us, and this is a true story, I chose to share it with everyone. Sometimes when you least expect it, and in the most unlikely places, a little miracle with sneak up on you. Rejoice!
It was December, 2003, and Mike and I were going about our daily routine of ops meetings and paperwork. I had been in Baghdad for roughly eight months, and Mike had been in country for five. Mike and I lived in the Green Zone, within the Agency compound, and we worked together on a daily basis. It was not normal for two case officers to work together as a team, but we gravitated to each other from the start, and modesty notwithstanding, we were as productive as three officers. Otherwise, I can guarantee you, the arrangement would have come to an end. Why did we work so well together? If was a combination of Mike's amazing sense of direction, intelligence, his work ethic, and his patience, mixed with my experience. We had separate cases and met with our own list of contacts, and we always managed to not let it get complicated. Unfortunately, both Mike and I were missing one important skill: neither of us spoke Arabic. We always seemed to have a shortage of linguists in Baghdad, but we managed. The entire compound was lucky to have a family of brothers, all older gentlemen, travel out to Baghdad and share their Arabic skills. The three Hanani Brothers, Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, were all American citizens and all over the age of sixty-five (Lucas being the oldest at seventy-eight). The Hanani's were ethnic Assyrians, with Lucas having been born in Baghdad. The large Hanani family were successful merchants in Baghdad, but the unstable political situation following the second world war convinced Hanani Sr. (the father of Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, who is still around) to move to the United States. Over the Years, hard-work and sacrifice led to tremendous success in business, and the Hanani's were proud to call themselves Americans. The family in the United States did its best to keep in contact with family in the relatively large Assyrian community in Baghdad, but communication was never consistent. While the American Hanani's enjoyed the opportunities and freedoms of the United States, life became more and more difficult for Assyrians living in Iraq.
Assyrians originally come from Syria, and most have always been Orthodox Christian. As has been the case with Armenians and Kurds, Assyrians have faced episodes of pogroms and ethnic cleansing related to both religion and culture. During the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Assyrian community was heavily involved in trading, and close, trusting relationships were developed between the Ottoman authorities and Assyrian leaders. In reality, the Assyrians were able to determine who to bribe and when, which made life so much easier for everybody. But one morning, soldiers came and kicked in the doors and took everything of value. This repeated occurrence over the years ended with Assyrian neighborhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, and Arbil becoming little more than slums. Mike and I really enjoyed discussing the history of Iraq and the Assyrian community with the Hanani Brothers, who were usually posted to Baghdad at the same time (their request). But when it came time for work, the Hanani's were first in line and ready to go. I recall many times that an unscheduled meeting was triggered, and a Hanani Brother happily got out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to come translate a meeting. During a conversation with Mike and I, the two older brothers, Lucas and Luther, announced that their father had ordered them to find their relatives in Baghdad while they were here on duty. If we had made a formal request to go cruising around the slums of Baghdad looking for Assyrians, no doubt we would have been denied. But Mike and I were convinced that if we didn't get involved, these old farts were going to just walk out of the Green Zone and head for downtown Baghdad one afternoon. Lucas told me that he spoke Arabic and had no fear of Muslims. I needed more assurances that that. Mike and I told the boys to sit tight, and went to work. We reached out to our local contacts, and also hit the internet. before long we had a good idea of the last known location of an Assyrian community. That night Mike and I did a RECON, in order to confirm the existence of a church, a relatively safe place to park, and an open flow of traffic...no bottlenecks. The next day, December 23, we told the three brothers that we had located an Assyrian Church and possibly the remnants of an Assyrian community in the Ad Dora neighborhood of Baghdad (south bank of the Tigris). We informed them that on Christmas Eve, we would take them out to the Church at noon, and leave them long enough to enjoy a Mass; they could call us when they were ready for a pickup. They were ecstatic; it may not have been the family reunion that their patriarch has requested, but at least it was something. Mike and I also went in to talk to our Chief, whose response was, if something goes wrong, call, but I don't know a thing. We will pull your ass out, only to hang it out to dry later.
The next morning at 1100 am, we picked up the three Hanani boys (age or no age, I can't help but think of them as boys, because together they were always laughing and playing jokes on each other), who were showered, combed, and dressed as nice as they could be (no one brings a suit to Baghdad). We had no problems getting to Dora, but we were depending on parking relatively close to the Church. This wasn't possible because of the number of cars already taking up all available space. We had no choice but to park in front of this one large, nondescript house about five hundred yards from the Church, and two hundred yards from the end of the street. The boys would not listen or wait; as soon as the car was parked in front of this house, they were on the street. I hopped out quickly as well, and thank goodness for my speed because I was able to see the first glimpse of recognition. Someone from inside the house had come outside to see what big, obviously not-local vehicle had parked in front of their house. The old man and woman that came outside were the Hanani Brother's Aunt and Uncle. By chance (and because of the traffic), we had parked directly in front of the Hanani-Baghdad home. Once the shouting and hugging began, people started appearing from everywhere. I was so amazed at how many of these people recognized each other, after fifty, maybe sixty years. The commotion in the street soon moved into the house, and Mike and I were dragged inside virtually against our will. When I complained to a younger, French-speaking Hanani that I had safety concerns, he laughed as said that the "truck" and its occupants were completely safe. We had to meet everyone, and had to eat food...lots of food. I don't particularly like food from this part of the world, but everything was sweet on that day. The tears never stopped. After roughly an hour, the group prepared to leave for the first Christmas Mass. Mike and I took the opportunity to say our goodbyes, and confirm our contact arrangements with the boys. When they were ready for pickup, they would call, and we would be there.
They didn't call until the next morning, but we weren't concerned. We could have called them, but we chose to leave them in peace. Mike and I were petrified that a shortage of linguists would create a "where's the Hanani's?" contagion ,but it never happened. After picking up the brothers on Christmas Day, they never included Mike and I in their family meeting arrangements again. They knew that Mike and I had jeopardized our careers by taking three older U.S. citizens "off campus" and into the heart of Slumville, Baghdad. They made arrangements to meet their newly discovered family in the Green Zone, which was the safest option to begin with. Its my understanding that our efforts were instrumental in reconnecting a family that had not spoken in decades, and all the newly discovered young members of the Hanani clan now had the opportunity to learn the entire history of their heritage. For the rest of my life, I will remember the look on Lucas' face when he recognized his Aunt...it was instantaneous, and it was beautiful, and a moment of pure love. Who could ask for more from a Christmas miracle?
For those of you who eventually read my book, you will find a longer, more spiritual version of this story. Given that Christmas is upon us, and this is a true story, I chose to share it with everyone. Sometimes when you least expect it, and in the most unlikely places, a little miracle with sneak up on you. Rejoice!
 |
| Medieval icon depicting Ephrem the Syrian |
It was December, 2003, and Mike and I were going about our daily routine of ops meetings and paperwork. I had been in Baghdad for roughly eight months, and Mike had been in country for five. Mike and I lived in the Green Zone, within the Agency compound, and we worked together on a daily basis. It was not normal for two case officers to work together as a team, but we gravitated to each other from the start, and modesty notwithstanding, we were as productive as three officers. Otherwise, I can guarantee you, the arrangement would have come to an end. Why did we work so well together? If was a combination of Mike's amazing sense of direction, intelligence, his work ethic, and his patience, mixed with my experience. We had separate cases and met with our own list of contacts, and we always managed to not let it get complicated. Unfortunately, both Mike and I were missing one important skill: neither of us spoke Arabic. We always seemed to have a shortage of linguists in Baghdad, but we managed. The entire compound was lucky to have a family of brothers, all older gentlemen, travel out to Baghdad and share their Arabic skills. The three Hanani Brothers, Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, were all American citizens and all over the age of sixty-five (Lucas being the oldest at seventy-eight). The Hanani's were ethnic Assyrians, with Lucas having been born in Baghdad. The large Hanani family were successful merchants in Baghdad, but the unstable political situation following the second world war convinced Hanani Sr. (the father of Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, who is still around) to move to the United States. Over the Years, hard-work and sacrifice led to tremendous success in business, and the Hanani's were proud to call themselves Americans. The family in the United States did its best to keep in contact with family in the relatively large Assyrian community in Baghdad, but communication was never consistent. While the American Hanani's enjoyed the opportunities and freedoms of the United States, life became more and more difficult for Assyrians living in Iraq.
Assyrians originally come from Syria, and most have always been Orthodox Christian. As has been the case with Armenians and Kurds, Assyrians have faced episodes of pogroms and ethnic cleansing related to both religion and culture. During the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Assyrian community was heavily involved in trading, and close, trusting relationships were developed between the Ottoman authorities and Assyrian leaders. In reality, the Assyrians were able to determine who to bribe and when, which made life so much easier for everybody. But one morning, soldiers came and kicked in the doors and took everything of value. This repeated occurrence over the years ended with Assyrian neighborhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, and Arbil becoming little more than slums. Mike and I really enjoyed discussing the history of Iraq and the Assyrian community with the Hanani Brothers, who were usually posted to Baghdad at the same time (their request). But when it came time for work, the Hanani's were first in line and ready to go. I recall many times that an unscheduled meeting was triggered, and a Hanani Brother happily got out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to come translate a meeting. During a conversation with Mike and I, the two older brothers, Lucas and Luther, announced that their father had ordered them to find their relatives in Baghdad while they were here on duty. If we had made a formal request to go cruising around the slums of Baghdad looking for Assyrians, no doubt we would have been denied. But Mike and I were convinced that if we didn't get involved, these old farts were going to just walk out of the Green Zone and head for downtown Baghdad one afternoon. Lucas told me that he spoke Arabic and had no fear of Muslims. I needed more assurances that that. Mike and I told the boys to sit tight, and went to work. We reached out to our local contacts, and also hit the internet. before long we had a good idea of the last known location of an Assyrian community. That night Mike and I did a RECON, in order to confirm the existence of a church, a relatively safe place to park, and an open flow of traffic...no bottlenecks. The next day, December 23, we told the three brothers that we had located an Assyrian Church and possibly the remnants of an Assyrian community in the Ad Dora neighborhood of Baghdad (south bank of the Tigris). We informed them that on Christmas Eve, we would take them out to the Church at noon, and leave them long enough to enjoy a Mass; they could call us when they were ready for a pickup. They were ecstatic; it may not have been the family reunion that their patriarch has requested, but at least it was something. Mike and I also went in to talk to our Chief, whose response was, if something goes wrong, call, but I don't know a thing. We will pull your ass out, only to hang it out to dry later.
The next morning at 1100 am, we picked up the three Hanani boys (age or no age, I can't help but think of them as boys, because together they were always laughing and playing jokes on each other), who were showered, combed, and dressed as nice as they could be (no one brings a suit to Baghdad). We had no problems getting to Dora, but we were depending on parking relatively close to the Church. This wasn't possible because of the number of cars already taking up all available space. We had no choice but to park in front of this one large, nondescript house about five hundred yards from the Church, and two hundred yards from the end of the street. The boys would not listen or wait; as soon as the car was parked in front of this house, they were on the street. I hopped out quickly as well, and thank goodness for my speed because I was able to see the first glimpse of recognition. Someone from inside the house had come outside to see what big, obviously not-local vehicle had parked in front of their house. The old man and woman that came outside were the Hanani Brother's Aunt and Uncle. By chance (and because of the traffic), we had parked directly in front of the Hanani-Baghdad home. Once the shouting and hugging began, people started appearing from everywhere. I was so amazed at how many of these people recognized each other, after fifty, maybe sixty years. The commotion in the street soon moved into the house, and Mike and I were dragged inside virtually against our will. When I complained to a younger, French-speaking Hanani that I had safety concerns, he laughed as said that the "truck" and its occupants were completely safe. We had to meet everyone, and had to eat food...lots of food. I don't particularly like food from this part of the world, but everything was sweet on that day. The tears never stopped. After roughly an hour, the group prepared to leave for the first Christmas Mass. Mike and I took the opportunity to say our goodbyes, and confirm our contact arrangements with the boys. When they were ready for pickup, they would call, and we would be there.
They didn't call until the next morning, but we weren't concerned. We could have called them, but we chose to leave them in peace. Mike and I were petrified that a shortage of linguists would create a "where's the Hanani's?" contagion ,but it never happened. After picking up the brothers on Christmas Day, they never included Mike and I in their family meeting arrangements again. They knew that Mike and I had jeopardized our careers by taking three older U.S. citizens "off campus" and into the heart of Slumville, Baghdad. They made arrangements to meet their newly discovered family in the Green Zone, which was the safest option to begin with. Its my understanding that our efforts were instrumental in reconnecting a family that had not spoken in decades, and all the newly discovered young members of the Hanani clan now had the opportunity to learn the entire history of their heritage. For the rest of my life, I will remember the look on Lucas' face when he recognized his Aunt...it was instantaneous, and it was beautiful, and a moment of pure love. Who could ask for more from a Christmas miracle?
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part I)
Link: The Crusades
The Birth of Israel
Part I
Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog. But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot. Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher). But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.
The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages. My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE. In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...). The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land. This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade. At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks. The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword). The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.
Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians. Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control. Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine. The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best). At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans. During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust). The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home. In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state. The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state. The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel. The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war. That reputation exists today. The history lesson is complete. Now on to the difficult part.
The Birth of Israel
Part I
Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog. But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot. Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher). But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.
The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages. My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE. In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...). The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land. This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade. At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks. The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword). The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.
Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians. Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control. Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine. The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best). At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans. During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust). The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home. In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state. The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state. The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel. The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war. That reputation exists today. The history lesson is complete. Now on to the difficult part.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
ISIS, ISIL, Friends of the Caliphate, Caliphatians, whatever.....
Link: Questions about the Caliphate you were too embarrassed to ask
The media has yet to decide exactly what to call the latest boogeyman on the Islamic Extremist scene. And this one is a doozy. At first they were known as ISIS, then Islamic State of the Caliphate (sorta rhymes), and now I'm hearing ISIL (thanks General Dempsey and Bagel Hagel). The link provided answers some of the more pressing questions, and I have added some simple facts myself. As far as extremist groups go, they are neophytes. No Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Egyptian Brotherhood (EIJ) from the 1950s or Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the 60s and 70s. But they are leaving a mighty big footprint for a newcomer. This group is dedicated to creating a new Caliphate, something akin to the old Ottoman Empire. The difference being, the Ottoman Empire was usually run by a besotted, sometimes pedophilic, other times syphilitic Sultan who had no interest in Islam whatsoever. The Sultan of old also held the title of Caliph, which historically is the religious leader for all Muslims. ISIL (my choice) is not interested in a Sultan but they do want a Caliph, and they want a Caliphate, a geographic area that their religious leader can rule over. ISIL has repeatedly avowed to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan and parts of Iraq to form their ideal Caliphate. Of course, this will include Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capitol. Make no mistake; these guys are for real, and they do not believe in compromise (otherwise I'd say lets just give them Syria and be done with it).
I strongly recommend that anyone seriously interested in the motivations and believes of this group to educate yourself on the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were a Muslim
bunch who happened to have the most powerful military in the world in the 15th and 16th centuries. They had a history of getting along with Christians within their borders, which is markedly different from ISIL. But the leaders of ISIL seem to bask in the memory of Ottoman glory, recalling the days when twice Ottoman troops laid siege to Vienna (only to be defeated by the unluckiest of circumstances). Please read The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross, one of the greatest historic books I have read.
We have also heard another less-than common term being bandied about. I have been asked more than once, "What is the Levant?" Well, ladies and gentleman, the Levant is the geographic area that borders the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The French, who used to run Lebanon and Syria, were very fond of the term. The Levant refers to Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.
Just so that no one misunderstands the motivations and intentions of ISIL, they may talk about only occupying enough countries to constitute their "dream" Caliphate, but I can assure you the battle will not end there. There was a time when you could gather up 25 Islamic Extremists and you would be lucky to find 2 who were prepared to give their lives for Allah. ISIL is different. It seems that every one of these folks are obsessed with reaching the Pearly Gates. This group is a Trident of tremendous danger, with three dangerous prongs. The first is the absolute extreme attitude of the members of ISIL, the second is ISIL's ready access to loads of money, and the third prong is the vacillation of the West. The Devil holds this Trident, and its only a matter of time before we feel the tips.
The media has yet to decide exactly what to call the latest boogeyman on the Islamic Extremist scene. And this one is a doozy. At first they were known as ISIS, then Islamic State of the Caliphate (sorta rhymes), and now I'm hearing ISIL (thanks General Dempsey and Bagel Hagel). The link provided answers some of the more pressing questions, and I have added some simple facts myself. As far as extremist groups go, they are neophytes. No Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Egyptian Brotherhood (EIJ) from the 1950s or Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the 60s and 70s. But they are leaving a mighty big footprint for a newcomer. This group is dedicated to creating a new Caliphate, something akin to the old Ottoman Empire. The difference being, the Ottoman Empire was usually run by a besotted, sometimes pedophilic, other times syphilitic Sultan who had no interest in Islam whatsoever. The Sultan of old also held the title of Caliph, which historically is the religious leader for all Muslims. ISIL (my choice) is not interested in a Sultan but they do want a Caliph, and they want a Caliphate, a geographic area that their religious leader can rule over. ISIL has repeatedly avowed to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan and parts of Iraq to form their ideal Caliphate. Of course, this will include Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capitol. Make no mistake; these guys are for real, and they do not believe in compromise (otherwise I'd say lets just give them Syria and be done with it).
I strongly recommend that anyone seriously interested in the motivations and believes of this group to educate yourself on the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were a Muslim
 |
We have also heard another less-than common term being bandied about. I have been asked more than once, "What is the Levant?" Well, ladies and gentleman, the Levant is the geographic area that borders the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The French, who used to run Lebanon and Syria, were very fond of the term. The Levant refers to Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.
Just so that no one misunderstands the motivations and intentions of ISIL, they may talk about only occupying enough countries to constitute their "dream" Caliphate, but I can assure you the battle will not end there. There was a time when you could gather up 25 Islamic Extremists and you would be lucky to find 2 who were prepared to give their lives for Allah. ISIL is different. It seems that every one of these folks are obsessed with reaching the Pearly Gates. This group is a Trident of tremendous danger, with three dangerous prongs. The first is the absolute extreme attitude of the members of ISIL, the second is ISIL's ready access to loads of money, and the third prong is the vacillation of the West. The Devil holds this Trident, and its only a matter of time before we feel the tips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)