January 7, 2009
American Revival: Barack Obama, New Thinking and the Middle East (Brent Budowsky)
In my column yesterday, “Mandate for change,” and my column today, “The American Century,” I suggested that the election that was a clear mandate for change should begin a new era of thinking in Washington. It is time to reverse the pessimism, negativity, defeatism and division in our political, business and media elites that are widely discredited among the voters who issued the mandate for change.
This is the first essay in a series of American revival essays that will hopefully advance a dialogue about new thinking, and new ideas, for the Obama years that will hopefully begin a new political era. Let’s begin today with the hard one: Gaza. The commentators who claim Obama will wait, and focus only on the economy, are wrong. The world will not wait. Obama promised to begin on day one. He will. My hope is that Obama moves towards a worldwide appeal to young people and all of those willing to do the hard work to build a better day, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
At some point, in my opinion soon, there will be an agreed-upon cease-fire in the Gaza conflict. If there is, this is only the first step on a long and hard road. What I proposed in my column this morning is that the U.S. and the worldwide community of democratic nations initiate a major airlift of medicine and food and other necessities to the long- and hard-suffering people of Gaza as part of agreements that offer hope and a better life to the people of Gaza, Israel and throughout the Middle East.
Obama will not wait because he does not want to wait, because he promised he will not wait, and because world conditions demand he does not wait. Of course, there must be security guarantees for everyone in the region, including Israelis, including Gazans, including those in Jordan, Lebanon and everywhere else. But along with security guarantees, there must be new thinking and new policies that create new hopes and new realities on the ground, over time, starting now.
Obama, following Bush, begins with enormous appeal, especially to young people around the world. But there is also cynicism — that he may turn out to be like other politicians — and pessimism — that ancient struggles and hatred are deep and unresolvable in our lifetime.
New thinking, with a new president, begins with this: There must be powerful American support that is honorably believed by the world community that aspires to end the hatred of time immemorial and aspires to truly make life better and make peace possible for all. This is hard. This is tough. This will not be easy. But this is where new thinking begins and where new policies, over time, might succeed.
Whatever one may think of the various players and policies of the Middle East, I suggest new thinking begins with one great truth. Today 80 percent of Gazans endure poverty, misery, hunger, futility, desperation and disease.
We can debate until the end of time, and some will debate until the end of time, who is responsible, why this happened and who is to blame. But new thinking begins with this: Whatever has happened through the ancient hatreds of warring parties, it does no good, and much harm, to any prospect for peace, when 80 percent of the people in any land endure such desperation and destitution.
So today, I seek to put a big idea on the table, in my column in the paper and this essay on this site. We must begin anew, think anew, act anew, and one part of the newer world we seek, as grim events unfold on the evening news, is to plan for a revival of hope and dignity and a better life for Gazans, and all who populate the region, as one great aspiration to begin the Obama years.
So I propose an international airlift of food, medicine and other necessities to Gaza, followed by an international donors meeting to build a longer-term plan for hope. This will obviously be contingent on an agreed-upon cease-fire requiring all combatants to agree, but we must go much further and built a new spirit of hope, with new policies that make hope real, in a new era of a new American president.
In a few short days, there will be only one American president, and his name will be Obama. Let’s begin a real and more visionary dialogue about how a new American president can build a new and better world.
We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard, and because it must be done.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 45 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
"…We must begin anew, think anew, act anew,…"
——————-
AGREED. The most important part of acting anew is prosecuting war crimes whether they're initiated by leaders in Israel, Palestine or the U.S.
Under Section 33 of the Geneva Convention it's illegal to target civilians. Schools, hospitals, ambulances, homes etc. have been targeted in Gaza. This is outrageous.
We either live like civilized people with the rule of law as our guide or we degenerate to a bunch of savages where chaos, death and destruction rule.
The rule of law must be upheld if we're to survive as a people.
Medical and Food supplies must be shipped to Gaza immediately. The Israelis have only recently allowed a miniscule amount of aid to enter Gaza. For three weeks prior to the outbreak NO supplies were let in. Children are starving. Hosptials are overflowing.
NO reporters were allowed in either (easy to cover-up war crimes by barring the press).
UN special rapporteur Richard Falk went to Gaza to investiage and was detained by the Israelis and sent home unable to do his job.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 10:05 am
What I am focusing on as the priority is
a policy based on making life better for
the people Of Gaza and everywhere else.
My hope is that those who disagree about
many things, can agree on this. It is
amazing how little has been emphasized
about this, over many years, and especially
the Bush years. When 80% of the people suffer
incredible poverty and destitution, there
will be neither dignity nor peace for anyone.
Comment by Brent — January 7, 2009 @ 10:41 am
"…there must be security guarantees for everyone in the region, including Israelis, including Gazans, including those in Jordan, Lebanon and everywhere else…"
————-
Nobody trusts security guarantees anymore.
Why should anyone believe a new agreement will provide them safety when the old guarantees (Geneva Conventions, Universal Declarations on Human Rights) are violated at will?
We need to return to the rule of law.
The law cannot apply only to the leaders in Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan.
It must apply to the powerful nations too: Israel, United States, Russia, China etc.
The illegal aggression we're seeing in Gaza is the direct result of the U.S. not holding the Bush admin. accountable for their crime of Aggressive War.
If George Bush were sitting in a jail in the Hague awaiting his trial you can bet your last dollar Ehud Olmert would've thought twice before launching his illegal aggression in Palestine.
This is why the Progressives were screaming for impeachment for the last five years.
This tragedy is the result of ignoring us.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Brent
If we only treat the symptoms without addressing the CAUSE - the problems will never go away between Isreal and Palestine.
The Gaza conflict, (at the risk of over-simplification), is about real estate property lines. FIX that issue and the necessity for bombshelters will disappear, in my opinion.
This is where the beauty of a gifted Politician with excellent skills comes in to play. With fairness, guidance and generosity, a group of leaders from several countries must convey and respectfully demand sacrifice from the two countries including respect for each culture, reparations, and of course the LAND issues resolved.
With a heap of faith and hard work, the glory of God and peacefulness will restore the hearts and souls on both side.
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 7, 2009 @ 11:12 am
wewillnotbeneoconned
Yes the innocent group called Hamas sending rockects from schools over to Isreal with flowers attached.
Added to Isreal's often over-reaction and we have the mess we have.
Also, if you want to get Bush & Cheney on crimes of torture you might want to add some to your list.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html
This Bush is at fault for EVERYTHING is so OLD and so LAME and has you stuck looking backwards that you do not see the wall in front of you that is keeping you from moving forward.
Congress can investigate the Bush Administration for 8 years and NOTHING I repeat NOTHING will come of it.
Because there are many people in DC that knew what he knew and were complicit.
Back to the Real World.
Brent,
I like your plan if everyone continues to take sides we will never move forward. Getting the cease-fire will be easy but gaining a consensus in the UN on enforcement and consequences will be the biggest challenge.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — January 7, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
HRC, nice post. There is much goodwill that
will have to be built in both directions.
Wewillnot there are ways of creating security
guarantees that work and would be acceptable
to both sides. It wont be easy, but it can
be done. My guess is there will be some form
of multi-national peacekeepers or monitors
alone the border that would protect Gazans
from Israeli attack and protect Israelis
from the rocket attacks and that would be
followed by something similar to what I am
proposing.
Comment by Brent — January 7, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Brent,
Good thoughts and I hope things take a turn in the direction you point. However, and this is reinforced daily with each action and comment they make, until the Democrats unseat Reid and Pelosi, and actually put people in those positions who are intent on bettering our Nation, instead of their petty all-consuming power grab, Obama will face an uphill battle, and the tenor and perception of our government will continue to suffer. The best medicine for Bush's legacy is to have Reid and Pelosi remain in power, as in contrast, they truly make Bush look good.
I hope for our sakes and for Obama's Presidency, they can figure out a way to shake that structure up before the next election cycle. While this may not seem to directly affect Obama's Middle East strategy and agenda, the perception that these two create about the US governemnt, and the Democrats in particular will permeate all that Obama does.
Comment by Nick — January 7, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
#1 "Under Section 33 of the Geneva Convention it's illegal to target civilians" - OK, try to prosecute Hamas for targeting civilians by firing rockets without any guidance systems towards Israel's border towns. That's what forced Israel's hand in the end because no country in the world must endure such attacks on its territory. But it's actually deeper than that, you genuinely hate USA and Israel, two of very few countries in the world willing to stand up to terror, while others are just turning another cheek or paying terrorists off.
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Mr. Brent,
Arab terrorists are not as naive as Obama voters and would not be impressed with your "spirit of hope", "new policies that make hope real", "new American President" and similar soaring rhetoric. Very few would faint, I can assure you. Save it for naive, liberal American youngsters who don't have a good background in world history from the public schools and don't know much about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Castro, Arafat, Idi Amin, and other despots. Grow up. Take off your rose-colored glasses. We deal with people what want to kill us all.
Hamas terrorists would take your food and medicine deliveries and continue planning new terror acts against Israel. That's all they know how to do. Do you think Hamas rulers are eager to tackle mundane Government issues like school lunch programs? Or more efficient garbage pick up schedules in Gaza City? Boring….
Please, get real and understand that the only way to succeed in a war against terror is to actually win it by incapacitating or eliminating your enemy, just like we did against Germany and Japan, and just like Israel did against Egypt in 1967 and 1973 to convince Anwar Sadat that a bad peace with Israel is better for Egypt than a good war.
Realistically, Western world must invest into military R&D efforts ASAP to increase "force multipliers" for our troops so we could handle ever increasing guerrilla forces with ultra sophisticated weaponry to deal them deadly blows every once in a while to demonstrate a strong resolve and deterrent.
Have a good day!
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Here's a little excerpt about a job creation program. Link and learn.
http://mises.org/story/3274
by David Gordon
Exactly this process took place in Germany after 1933. As Adam Tooze has noted, Hitler in 1932 indicated his interest in job-creation programs, and this of course required government spending. But once in power, his interest shifted from job creation to rearmament. This required even more government spending; and armaments rapidly increased.
The Nazi party did not adopt work creation as a key part of its programme until the late spring of 1932, and it retained that status for only eighteen months, until December 1933, when civilian work creation spending was formally removed from the priority list of Hitler's government … [Work creation] was in sharp contrast to the three issues that truly united the nationalist right . . . the triple priority of rearmament, repudiating Germany's foreign debts and saving German agriculture … It was Hitler's action on these three issues not work creation that truly marked the dividing line between the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. (Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction, Viking, 2006, pp. 24–5)[1]
The Chicago School economist Burton Klein, in Germany's Economic Preparations for War (Harvard University Press, 1959), long ago pointed out that Germany in 1939 did not have enough arms to launch a world war: German armaments were sufficient only for smaller conflicts.
In effect, Germany had embarked on a Keynesian policy: government spending became increasingly important in guiding the economy into the military channels that Hitler wanted. John T. Flynn noted that Franklin Roosevelt followed a parallel policy, after his programs of domestic spending failed to extricate America from the Depression.
Here he [Roosevelt] was with a depression on his hands [with] the pressing necessity, as he put it himself, of spending two or three billion a year of deficit money, and most serious of all, as he told Jim Farley, no way to spend it … Here now was a gift from the gods … Here now was something the federal government could really spend money on: military and naval preparations. (The Roosevelt Myth, Fox & Wilkes, 50th Anniversary Edition, 1998, p. 157.)
Keynes himself viewed the Nazi efforts with favor. In his preface to the German edition of The General Theory, dated September 7, 1936, Keynes indicated that the ideas of his book could more readily be carried out under an authoritarian regime:
Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.
As Donald Moggridge points out, the published German version (but not Keynes's draft) also said,
Although I have thus worked it [Keynes's theory] out having the conditions in the Anglo-Saxon countries in view — where a great deal of laissez-faire still prevails — it yet remains applicable to situations in which national leadership is more pronounced. (Donald Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography, Routledge, 1995, p. 611.)[2]
Once this program had begun, the dynamic to which Mises called attention developed in inexorable fashion: one intervention led to another, until the entire economy was brought under government control. Businesses who were reluctant to follow the plans of the New Order had to be forced into line. One law allowed the government to impose compulsory cartels. By 1936, the Four Year Plan, headed by Hermann Goering, changed the nature of the German economy.
On 18 October [1936] Goering was given Hitler's formal authorization as general plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan. On the following days he presented decrees empowering him to take responsibility for virtually every aspect of economic policy, including control of the business media. (Tooze, pp. 223–24.)
Of course, under a system of planning, international trade must be subject to strict control. The accretion of interventionist measures to which Mises called attention operated in this area also:
The German economy, like any modern economy, could not do without imports of food and raw materials. To pay for these it needed to export. And if this flow of goods was obstructed by protectionism and beggar-my-neighbour devaluations, this left Germany no option but to resort to ever greater state control of imports and exports, which in turn necessitated a range of other interventions. (Tooze, p.113.)
One type of trade interventionism was especially characteristic of the Nazi regime. After trade with the United States had drastically shrunk, Schacht made a series of bilateral trade deals with countries of southeastern Europe. These agreements involved particular commodities, with the rate of exchange between the German and foreign currencies "fixed at a level different from the actual rate of exchange … the barter agreements gave Germany a kind of monopoly of the trade with the countries of southeastern Europe which could not fail to link these countries politically with the Reich." (Human Action, Scholar's Edition, pp. 797, 799.)
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 7, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Has Igor morphed into Bzdashek?
Comment by Lester — January 7, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
This Bush is at fault for EVERYTHING is so OLD and so LAME and has you stuck looking backwards that you do not see the wall in front of you that is keeping you from moving forward.
Congress can investigate the Bush Administration for 8 years and NOTHING I repeat NOTHING will come of it.
Because there are many people in DC that knew what he knew and were complicit.
Back to the Real World.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — January 7, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
———————–
What a surprise. Murdoch's WSJ advises us in an OP-ED to just let the torturers go free.
Bologna Sandwich.
You think I don't know about Pelosi and Rockefeller's complicity in torture and spying?
I've written about it in this space alone a dozen times.
Take them ALL down, Republican and Democrat.
This country, the people and the Constitution are worth far more than a few cowardly and sociopathic politicans.
Millions of Americans have died for this country and what it stands for.
The torturers and spyers are a cancer. If we don't deal with them the disease will come back.
We're already witnessing its metastisis in Gaza.
I am LOOKING FORWARD, it's YOU who cannot see (or do not care) the damage that will be done if these war crimes are not dealt with.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
"Under Section 33 of the Geneva Convention it's illegal to target civilians" - OK, try to prosecute Hamas for targeting civilians by firing rockets without any guidance systems towards Israel's border towns. That's what forced Israel's hand in the end because no country in the world must endure such attacks on its territory. But it's actually deeper than that, you genuinely hate USA and Israel, two of very few countries in the world willing to stand up to terror, while others are just turning another cheek or paying terrorists off.
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
————————
For the record, I have no problem prosecuting those who fired rockets into Israel.
What you're unaware of, because you get all you information and talking points from one source is that Israel had imposed a total blockade on Gaza for three weeks prior to their illegal military attack (which there's evidence had been planned for 6-12 months proving it has nothing to do with the few missiles Hamas lobbed into remote sections of Israel recently).
Food, medical supplies and energy were cut off totally. Children were starving. Hosptial patients were dying. Cancer patients couldn't get their chemo drugs.
What the hell were they supposed to do?
You see, you're not an honest or intelligent human being. You cannot see any situation but from your own very narrow perspective.
And don't tell me that I don't love my country. You and your type remained silent as the Constitution was replaced with the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. You remain silent as our soliders continue to be slaughtered for oil and defense company profits.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Lester I was thinking the same thing>wink.
What ever happened to Igor? Was he a paid
Republican commenter who left after the
election? Or did he leave the country with
Barack being elected?
bzdashek, here is where you are wrong. Of
course terrorists are not impressed by hope
the way I mean it, but the people they recruit
from most definitely are, so long as the hope
is honest and real. This is what Bush, Cheney
and folks like you never got right, that the
more there is poverty, destitution, hunger,
malnutrition and disease the more there is
frustration, helplessness and hate that is the
recruiting branch for terrorism.
JFK was right, there is a battle of ideas,
and Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush and Co are wrong.
The more they acted like an imperial army the
more they helped the terrorists. That is why
terrorists fear Obama. That is why Bin Laden
and Al Zawahiri fear Obama.
Most people are merely people, they are not
political, they are not terrorists, and they
are not imperial. They are people with wives,
husbands, kids, families and hopes for a better
life. This is hard stuff, not easy, but we
have got to offer people something real and
tangible that will make their lives better so
they have some place to go, other than the
terrorists.
Trust me, in different parts of my life, I
have seen enough of the dark side on these
matters for a lifetime. It is not about
being naive, it is about being realistic,
understanding the forces that move people,
winning the loyalty of the people.
Read Petraeus on counterinsurgency. I dont
agree with him on everything, but on this,
he would agree in principle with every word
I write in this note, about the need for
political, economic, and diplomatic moves
in these conflicts and about the futility
of solutions that are only military without
these other initiatives. Virtually every
commander in every branch of the services
agrees with this; virtually every serious
intelligence professional, policy and covert,
agrees with this.
The people who are naive are the neocons which
is why they have led us into so much trouble.
Comment by Brent — January 7, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Brent: You're really getting ridiculous. If you have any facts, please let them spring forth. But this statement you have in that post is beyond belief, and is utterly ridiculous.
Quote from Brent:
"That is why Bin Laden
and Al Zawahiri fear Obama."
It's a statement that is so ludicrous as to make you laugh out loud. I doubt if Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden fear Obama. In fact, if he follows through on some of his nutty plans, he will play right into their hands. I'm sure he's aware of that.
It's troubling that the Messiah blinds logic in those sheep who follow him.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 7, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Do you think Hamas rulers are eager to tackle mundane Government issues like school lunch programs? Or more efficient garbage pick up schedules in Gaza City? Boring….
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
——————–
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
From Wikipedia:
"…Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has conducted numerous social, political, and military actions. Its popularity stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities"
Full and unedited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Bzdashdev
So happy you are not in charge. Proof there is a God.
There will never be enough 'weaponery' that will eliminate bad blood in the world. That is to be used as a last resort of self-defence.
The way to eliminate the problems w/ terrorists of all kinds is with education, with familiarity, with people talking eye-to-eye, and treating people with fairness. The U.S. is the perfect example, all kinds of people living in crowded cities and communities from every part of the world mingling their cultures, sharing, marrying, doing business with everyone and doing this in a peaceful nature.
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 7, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Besides sending the immediate needs like food and medical supplies, it would be a waste to spend money on infrastructure that is only going to get bombed in another flare-up. Something more permanent needs to be in place before that happens.
Both sides need to come together and negotiate a final border for the Palestinian state, taking resources like water into consideration for the sake of both sides. Israel is going to have a tough time getting its settlers out of the West Bank, but that's a reality they must face; and the sooner, the better. Once a border is established, UN forces can control the border.
At that point, they can deal with the finer issues such as refugees/reparations and use aid money to help develop infrastructure in the Palestinian state.
Comment by Melissa — January 7, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
#16 If you wish to quote from Wikipedia, don't pick and choose. Here is a complete quote from that link:
"Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[3] Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5] Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious[6] or antisemitic.[7] However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[8] reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories."
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Hamas has in its charter that it does not recognize the nation of Israel and will never recognize them. They also state that one of their objectives is the destruction of Israel by any means. With this sort of starting point there is no negotiation only capitulation to whatever Hamas wants.
Since it is impossible to give Hamas what it wants you end up with the violence over there. Brent you are correct in that we need a new look to this old problem, a paradigm shift. The problem is difficult but the solution is simple, either you want peace or you don't, there can be no equivocation because that leans to heavily on the past. If peace is truly desired then let the parties agree on this and act peacefully. Otherwise they are just wasting the world's time and resources.
Comment by Winfield — January 7, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
#16 If you wish to quote from Wikipedia, don't pick and choose. Here is a complete quote from that link:
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
—————-
You need to stick to the point of contention.
You stated that Hamas wasn't "eager to tackle mundane government issues".
You were wrong.
Do you think I'd debate you that Hamas is a romp through Disneyland?
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Hamas has in its charter that it does not recognize the nation of Israel and will never recognize them. They also state that one of their objectives is the destruction of Israel by any means.
Comment by Winfield — January 7, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
———————
I found this in a piece written by Paul Craig Roberts (Reagan's Assistant to the Treasury). I don't know if it's accurate but nonetheless:
"…Reporting from Jerusalem three years ago, Chris McGreal (The Guardian, 1-12-06) noted that “Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto.” On June 22, 2006, McGreal reported from Jerusalem that “Hamas has made a major political climbdown by agreeing to sections of a document that recognize Israel’s right to exist.”…
Full and unedited:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21647.htm
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
wewillnotbeneoconned - don't you have anything else to do with your time other than defend Hamas killers constantly splitting discussions into finer points? you seem like a Progressive type from Berkeley, you can tackle gay marriage quite well, or right of public urination for the homeless - why Hamas?
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
bzdashek you need to do some serious studying
and learn what you are talking about. First,
Hamas does a ton of social welfare programs.
You had better believe they spend a lot of
time and effort on the mundane things of daily
live such as schools and food and medicine to
the degree they can, which is more than most
others are doing. Which is sad, and wrong,
and a reason the problem persists.
Hamas has a military/violence wing and a
political/social welfare wing. You should
study and learn about this. You are like far
too many on the right who simply dont know
what you are talking about, who think in terms
of cliches, who are factually uninformed and
ignorant, defining ignorance as a lack of
knowledge which your post proves 100%. Of
course Hamas spends much time on the mundane
social welfare matters of daily life. How
can you not know that? Even the mundane
and shallow media reports that!
And, you should read and study and learn about
counterinsurgency. Including David Petraeus
but is it true of almost all counterinsurgency
experts and practitioners. And read, and
learn about, the views of General Anthony Zinni
and others in the Marine Corps who strongly
believe in diplomatic initiatives, political
initiatives, programs to make life better.
And BTW, this is no secret, Petraeus and most
commanders support diplomatic efforts with Iran
and other unfriendly nations to at least try
to achieve our goals through diplomacy in
concert with all other aspects of policy.
Anyone who says that answers are only military
does not know what military people believe in
fact, ditto most intelligence people, ditto
virtually counterinsurgency experts, ditto
virtually everyone throughout NATO and the
military leaders of the free world. It is
Bush, Cheney, and the neocons who are out
of step with them all and it is time, here
and everywhere else, to take them to the
woodshed and call them out about this.
There are no easy answers. But there are no
purely military answers.
Comment by Brent — January 7, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Berkeley? Ha! I'm in Obamaland. Never been to CA.
I don't believe I've spent more than one minute discussing gay marriage in my entire life.
Actually, I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I'm for Government getting out of people's personal lives. I'm for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Those used to be CORE Republican principles in the 80's.
If you'd pay closer attention what I'm defending is truth and accuracy.
The fact that you think I'm defending Hamas says more about you than me.
I believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself.
I hate the anti-semitism I see boiling over on all the websites.
The Jews aren't evil. The Muslims aren't evil.
The warmongers ARE evil.
As Brent said earlier…most people just want to live in peace.
That's what I try to defend.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 7, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Brent, there were social programs under Mao, Castro and Stalin. You too would benefit from some reading and learning before doing all this preaching.
Check out Hamas' founding charters, articles 7, 22 and 32 on that same Wikipedia page above before praising their political/social wings. These wings exist for the sole purpose of attracting young boys to their military wing as fighters and suicide bombers. If you are so naive as not see this connection, we might as well stop this discussion. Check out some Sunday morning cartoons from Hamas for your viewing pleasure, brent.
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
#25 - much better, almost sounds like a Republican. What are you doing in obamaland, clinging to your guns?
Comment by Bzdashek — January 7, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
#20 I believe we had this same conversation a few days ago.
As I told you then, one could also argue that Israel's settlers were out of control long before Hamas came into existence. It could be argued that Israel's occupation has been suffocating and seems to tie in all too conveniently with the region's scarce water supplies. But where does that kind of arguing get the many innocent people on BOTH sides who continue to pay the price?
Hamas doesn't represent the whole of Palestinians, just as the settlers don't represent all Israelis. There are many, many Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace in a viable state of their own. They do not deserve collective punishment.
Comment by Melissa — January 7, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
#26 Are you going to lash out at the blog editor for censoring you or complain that Obama's birth certificate isn't real? Reading your posts is giving me a real sense of deja vu….
Comment by Melissa — January 7, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
One area of new thinking I hope Obama brings
iis a large discussion of one of the worst
trends in modern warfare, the killing of
civilians and the treatment of wounded
civilians. Lets be clear: virtually everyone
does it, it has become a way of life of
modern warfare and it is wrong, no matter
who does it.
Hamas and Hezbollah rockets are by definition
attacks on civilians. Terrorism is by an
attack on civilians. Israel's attacks in
Lebanon and Gaza involve killing of civilians.
While the American military has made gigantic
efforts to minimize civilian casualties,
there have been too many, in Afghanistan and
Iraq. This is in part a consequence of using
air power and heavy bombardment to replace
counterinsurgency warfare and ground troops
we dont have.
Lets avoid everyone just repeating their
normal position and blaming the party they
dislike. This happens far too often in almost
every conflict by virtually combatant. It is
an ugly trend of history. Treatment of wounded
civilians is also a problem that is a trend
in recent history. Hell, we dont even treat
our own wounded troops nearly as well as we
should.
I dont have an easy answer. Lets initiate
serious discussion because major changes are
needed, across the board, in reducing the
killing of civilians and improving treatment
of the wounded. This is a big issue and new
thinking is needed and I welcome ideas and
through the year will be offering some of
my own, and maybe borrowing yours!
Comment by Brent — January 8, 2009 @ 7:32 am
Brent,
I'm always amazed when fruitcake right wingers defend Israel.
The Israelis know the American right as well as we do and realize that ultimately the American right hates Israel as much as their ideological brethren in the Middle East.
My advice to Israel: Make peace if possible, but always stay away from the American right. They hate you.
Comment by rightistrash — January 8, 2009 @ 10:54 am
31: Unlike you who apparently hates everyone.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Mr. Brent, #30
I'm puzzled by your defending Hamas "non-military" wings in your posts above, thought better of you.
If you think of what you wrote about killing of civilians it stems from two factors:
* Indiscriminate launching of unguided primitive rockets by Hamas into Israel's populated centers. Can you talk to political and social welfare wings of Hamas and politely ask them to stop this practice today? OK, one problem is solved.
** Deliberate placement of fighters along with rockets, mortar launchers in densely populated areas by the terrorists. These are done to reduce the element of surprise because Israelis notify civilian residents of imminent strikes and for propaganda of course. When these military assets are eventually targeted in Israel's reprisal strikes no matter how carefully Israelis calculate the angle of ordinance impact to reduce collateral damage the laws of probabilities still at play and casualties do occur. We know that if terrorists were to place their military assets outside the populated areas, such military campaigns against them would last only a few hours. Again, please contact political/social welfare wings of Hamas and ask them to move their military assets and not hide behind their mothers' skirts to reduce civilian casualties.
I can see that you don't have an easy answer, your calls for fresh ideas, new hope and change with new President are fine for another online article that you must periodically produce, but they don't solve anything and you know that. But to feel better about yourself you propose to "initiate a serious discussion" about killing of civilians. Typical liberal BS.
I'll check this site from time to time, let me know when discussion has started.
Have a good day!
Comment by Bzdashek — January 8, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Hey Melissa, I don't necesaarily mean to say that Israel is innocent. Yes Hamas doesn't represent all of Palestine, but you are familiar with the few bad apples can ruin a bunch analogy just like with renegade Israelis.
I agree with Brent that there needs to be a new way of thinking about the problems in Gaza. My main point is that to have peace you must want peace and the focus has been too heavily on what the other side has done to me. If one side refuses to acknowledge the other and is devoted to the others destruction it becomes diffcult to negotiate and does not bode well for sustainable peace.
I believe there comes a time when you must stop banging your head against a brick wall. Let Hamas go and do what it feels it must and suffer the consequences. Let Israel stop trying to control Gaza and let Hamas stand on its own dime with its own supplies and not those delivered through Israel (i.e. stop being dependent on Israel for basic needs). Have the other arab nations assist in its growth and prosperity. Do I think this would work, no, because Hamas is too devoted to attacking Israel, I feel Israel tries harder than Hamas in curtailing violence. But if violence is the only thing Hamas can bring itself to do, in relation to Israel, then it needs to suffer the consequences and its arab nation brothers should understand that continued violence will only bring about the destruction of the Palestinian people. More should be done by their neighbors to increase prosperity in that region, but I fear that the spectacle of Gaza suffering has become too much of an call to arms in the arab world and less of a humanitarian one. Its become cliche to blame Zionists and Americans for their problems, and their politicians play this to the hilt in a populistic way.
The solution I feel is quite simple, either you want peace or you don't. If you don't then the world needs to step back and let things happen, one way or another. To have broken peace deal after peace deal is insanity and jeopardizes future peace deals simply by their failures. The world needs to give one final push for peace and then let the chips fall where they may, the world will be better in the long run.
Comment by Winfield — January 8, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
31: Brent does not sound like a fruitcake or a rightwinger.He seems thoughtful and genuine to me.He does seem to think wars are somehow more brutal than before but his approach will bring positive results where your hateful and devisive speech only reinforces the worst of the hyper-partisan bomb throwers out there.
Comment by Mike M — January 8, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
35
I wasn'r accusing Brent of being a rightwinger. No way, shape or form. I know better.
To turn over the debate to the fruitcakes leaves America and the world endangered.
I will continue to challenge them. If the verbage is offensive to them, so be it.
When they back off of their hateful, divisive, words and apologize to the American people and to the world, I'll forgive them.
Comment by rightistrash — January 8, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
32,
No, Rosie, I don't hate everyone….just those who endanger us and the world.
They are easily identified.
I wonder who I'm talking about?
Comment by rightistrash — January 8, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
#36
The only hateful, divisive words are those that come from your ilk. Constantly belittling those who don't share a certain view, look at me I am better than you. You are some of the most intolerant fools on this planet.
Comment by Winfield — January 8, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Brent
I have a request:
I was on the road this afternoon and flipping through the channels I came upon Rush Limbaugh on the radio…
I request that you comment on RL's mindset about PE Obama's speech today (which I unfortunately could not listen to due to work). Rush went on and on that this country is just going to keep printing money.
A lot of us out here in real-people-land have been hurt by the recent economic crisis and for whatever the reasons were or whoever is to blame, it certainly does not help that this RUSH guy create an impression to the country and the rest of the world that we have nothing to back up our dollar.
I am no expert on money, so I would appreciate some real objective insight on this so people like RL don't get away with undermining the reputation of our country's fincnce situation worse then it already is.
I realize it is his job to undemine the "left" and he is an expert at that. However, he is also independently wealthy and puts forth no value to our country. RL also has nothing to lose by trashing this country, since he actually doesn't ever have to work another day in his life, should he find himself unemployed.
(Brent, ya know the poor skier that was caught hanging fron the lift w/ no pants? Why couldn't that have been Rush? )
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 8, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
JFK-HRC, #39
Yesterday Brent placed a gem on this site by stating that "Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri fear Obama."
To me that's an already powerful counterargument to Rush, :).
Comment by Misha — January 8, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
#34 Hi Winfield,
You wrote: "The solution I feel is quite simple, either you want peace or you don't." That's simple, alright, but that's not a solution. You're overlooking so many parts of this intricate web that need to be understood to develop a solution. First, many Palestinians have reached out to Hamas because A)Hamas offered social programs and aid when it was difficult to come by and B)There was widespread corruption in the PLO. And then there are those Palestinians who aren't affiliated with Hamas. So who wants peace and who doesn't? I have a pretty good suspicion that most Palestinians would abandon a desire to see Israel suffer if they had within their grasp a chance to peacefully exist in a viable, productive state of their own.
If you were in a state of perpetual helplessness as a citizen, and you had reason to believe that another entity was by and large responsible for your sustained fear, misery, and deprivation, I believe that you, too, would feel frustrated, angry, and finally wish that entity away. It is those feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that lead to the hatred that keeps playing itself out like a broken record, and on both sides.
I agree that the many failed peace deals of the past only contribute to the feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. And that is why a new approach needs to happen. I believe (and I know I'm not alone in this sentiment), that Hamas is going to have to be included in some way in negotiations and a future Palestinian government.
Comment by Melissa — January 8, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Melissa
Yes, we can agree that Hamas does do some good for its own citizens and provides much needed social assistance. Hamas as a social organization does a lot of good for its people, Hamas as a political/militant organization is equally bad for its people. Israel doesn't help things by feeding into the ire and hate that Hamas uses to make itself indispensible. There are many other avenues other than Hamas to help build Palestine into a productive and beautiful nation. But as it stands Hamas needs to be in negotiations, because they are central to the violence and also to the social structure of Palestinians.
What I mean by saying the solution is simple, is to mean that too often we overcomplicate the objective, which is peace. The complications seep in and derail the process from the true goal. Both sides want peace and their people (majority) want peace, but the vengeance part rears its head and then each side must get consessions from the other. Next thing you know, your peace deal is just a collection of one ups that you can crow about to your citizenry. I feel if the intention can be kept true to peace, then the rebuilding of Palestine can occur and alot of ill will can go away. This process must include Palestine's arab brothers to police the rogue elements and assist in reconstruction and bringing thoughtful programs that enrich daily lives not instill and feed hatred. Israel would do good to let these nations help rebuild, and must let old suspicions go. Hamas should not take the interim to rearm, how much good would that money be for its citizens if it were spent on them and creating viable industries and education opportunities. That is what I mean when I say that peace is a simple solution, it must be the priority and nothing else no matter how large or small can take precedent.
Comment by Winfield — January 9, 2009 @ 11:15 am
#42 I really don't disagree with anything your saying. I think a peace initiative in which borders were determined first would offer something tangible that previous efforts that failed could/did not.
Comment by Melissa — January 9, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
… it certainly does not help that this RUSH guy create an impression to the country and the rest of the world that we have nothing to back up our dollar.
I am no expert on money, so I would appreciate some real objective insight on this so people like RL don't get away with undermining the reputation of our country's fincnce situation worse then it already is.
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 8, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
——————
Rush is experimenting with the truth now that Obama is getting ready to take over.
The bad news: There's nothing to back up the dollar EXCEPT the trust of the U.S Government.
The dollar isn't even a dollar. It's a Federal Reserve Note.
Blame Nixon for taking FRN's off the gold standard, 1971.
You might've noticed the steam coming out of the chimney in Ben Bernanke's new residence. He's been busy printing trillions of new dollars. This is his (wrong) understanding of how to deal with the economic crisis. (This is how he'll create massive inflation.) But since the dollar isn't backed by anything he can print as many as he wants (fiat money = not backed by anything).
The Fed, a group of PRIVATE bankers (with their own PRIVATE interests), was given control over our money supply (credit) in 1913. Woodrow Wilson later regretted the Federal Reserve Act declaring:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men…."
Many now believe that the Federal Reserve should be abolished and its duties absorbed in the Treasury, where they'd (theoretically) be responsible to the people.
Count me in on that.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — January 9, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
#44 Wewillno…
Did you ever think that perhaps the gov really does not want us to spend all our money on stuff anymore. This is like a tidal wave. all banks, investment compaanies, credit companies, big businesses supposedly tanking all in the same week?
We must not over spend and learn to live not within our means but far below our means. But rush Limbaugh just took it to far.
Comment by JFK-HRC — January 13, 2009 @ 9:43 pm