(An abridged vesion, prepared by the editor, was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, November 1, 2010, under the title "Denying truth about Palestinians and Israelis")
Dr. Siddique,
Assalamu Alaikum,
Yesterday, Friday October 22, 2010, I read the Inquirer article “Lincoln professor stands by anti-Israel talk.” I was not surprised by the reaction to your exercise of free speech which is guaranteed to us citizens by the Constitution. But it seems to me that the extreme right of our fellow citizens is adamant in denying the truth about the abuse of the Palestinians and the Palestinian lands by the Israelis. Not only that but they also wish to deny us as Muslim Americans and as Arab Americans our rights as citizens of this great country of ours. You see them daily in different forms on television and you read them in the newspapers vehemently attacking our faith.
Look no further, the above quoted title, let alone the content, of the above quoted article shows the bias, against Muslims and Palestinians, of Mr. Roebuck, the Inquirer staff writer, and his editor. If he or his editor wanted to be fair he could have chosen any of the following titles: “Lincoln professor [explains the Palestinian / Israeli relationship].” “ … [exposes the Israeli abuse of the Palestinians and their land].” “ … [talks about the Palestinian suffering by the Israeli military occupation.” “The extreme right winger chides a Lincoln professor for telling the truth about the Israeli policy and practice against the Palestinians.” And so on and so forth.
We must continue to yield our voices to the truth, because it is the right thing to do. That what attracted us to America and that what will keep us as proud Muslims and proud Americans.
The least I could do is to let you know that I admire your courage, and I pray for your safety and your sanity.
Respectfully,
Mahmoud S Audi
draudiphd@yahoo.com
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Obama’s vision raises hopes in Mideast talks
(This post is a revised and reduced version of the next post. The title is the making of the editor of the Delco Daily Times. This version is published in the said newspaper on Wednesday 22, 2010)
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by denying leverage for the Palestinians. But the current round of talks may be different because of President Obama’s vision, and because the issues for a settlement have already been discussed and the different views have already been tabulated. Now is the time to start to compromise.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of previous failures. Nevertheless, there is hope that some agreement will have been produced by the time the talks are concluded. The genuine resolve of President Obama would have been the prime mover to get results.
Because it’s believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, he started to work on the issue immediately after he became president. If he were a typical president, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration, but because of his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, he pushed the parties to start the negotiations as soon as he could, and continued, although we are in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections. The momentum is on his side, because he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues; and adding one more does not look to be far to achieve.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, disregarding the genuine security needs of the United States and the safety of its people. To start repairing that image he travelled and lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and in Egypt, at the Al Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, and promised the Arab and the Muslim worlds that he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East by pushing the two parties to work and never to give up.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table is the issue of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. Their main concentration, though, is in Gaza and the West Bank, in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them have lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they have enjoyed their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. But Israel has vehemently refused to let them back, because of the fear that they potentially would become athe majority in Israel.
Here is where an ingenious solution must be found. Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and in the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, are from these refugees who want to go home; so they understand the plight of their countrymen.
Jordan had given the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 coded citizenship, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have that privilege. In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to, to get citizenship.
In Syria the Palestinians have been given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights.
In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and to start working, but they did not have any political rights.
Many Palestinians would like to go to their homes at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in a fair-enough formula.
So in practice not all Palestinians will return permanently, and the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish Israel if that is what the Israelis want.
The other issues include the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian land, the mutual security and the borders of the two states, and the fate of Jerusalem. These issues are not as difficult as the issue of the right of return of the Palestinians, and on the negotiation table, there are lists of would be fair solutions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. This organization had won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, and unlike Al Gore in 2000 who ceded the results of the presidential election to George W. Bush, it wanted to annul the victory of Hamas.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization is merely a political label to justify punishment.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. And for the Palestinian State to fulfill its obligations toward the desired peace treaty, it must be democratic in a Western content.
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by denying leverage for the Palestinians. But the current round of talks may be different because of President Obama’s vision, and because the issues for a settlement have already been discussed and the different views have already been tabulated. Now is the time to start to compromise.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of previous failures. Nevertheless, there is hope that some agreement will have been produced by the time the talks are concluded. The genuine resolve of President Obama would have been the prime mover to get results.
Because it’s believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, he started to work on the issue immediately after he became president. If he were a typical president, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration, but because of his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, he pushed the parties to start the negotiations as soon as he could, and continued, although we are in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections. The momentum is on his side, because he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues; and adding one more does not look to be far to achieve.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, disregarding the genuine security needs of the United States and the safety of its people. To start repairing that image he travelled and lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and in Egypt, at the Al Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, and promised the Arab and the Muslim worlds that he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East by pushing the two parties to work and never to give up.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table is the issue of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. Their main concentration, though, is in Gaza and the West Bank, in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them have lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they have enjoyed their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. But Israel has vehemently refused to let them back, because of the fear that they potentially would become athe majority in Israel.
Here is where an ingenious solution must be found. Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and in the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, are from these refugees who want to go home; so they understand the plight of their countrymen.
Jordan had given the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 coded citizenship, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have that privilege. In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to, to get citizenship.
In Syria the Palestinians have been given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights.
In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and to start working, but they did not have any political rights.
Many Palestinians would like to go to their homes at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in a fair-enough formula.
So in practice not all Palestinians will return permanently, and the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish Israel if that is what the Israelis want.
The other issues include the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian land, the mutual security and the borders of the two states, and the fate of Jerusalem. These issues are not as difficult as the issue of the right of return of the Palestinians, and on the negotiation table, there are lists of would be fair solutions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. This organization had won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, and unlike Al Gore in 2000 who ceded the results of the presidential election to George W. Bush, it wanted to annul the victory of Hamas.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization is merely a political label to justify punishment.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. And for the Palestinian State to fulfill its obligations toward the desired peace treaty, it must be democratic in a Western content.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The Palestinian / Israeli negotiations of September 2010: The Obama Factor
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the past had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by the lack of leverage to support the Palestinians. But the current round of talks, between the two parties may be different because of, what I call, the Obama Factor, and because the issues to be discussed have already been discussed and the different views are already known and tabulated. Therefore the time now is ripe to get into a serious compromising stage.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of the other failures. But I could discern that there is a sliver of hope that some issues will have been agreed upon by the time this round of talks is concluded. This will have been accomplished mainly because of the genuine determination of President Obama.
Any success of the current round of talks would be attributed to the President of the United States. It is believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama were a typical President of the United States, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration. But he is different, and without his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, we would not have the negotiations starting now, in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections.
Besides the security issue of the United States, Obama had promised and he would try hard to deliver what he promised. It is a matter of being truthful, which is a rare commodity with politicians. He promised while campaigning that he would tackle tough issues if he were elected. He is the President, and he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues facing our country.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, regardless of the genuine security needs of the United States. So when Obama lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and when he lectured in Egypt, at the Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, he gave a word of honor to the Arab and the Muslim worlds and he promised that as President of the United States, he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East.
So if the parties to the negotiations agreed about something substantial, Obama would have pushed the parties to act and pushed them again not to give up, because he has given the world around them and beyond them a promise that he would do, what he will have done, to put a strong footing to a well founded edifice of ever lasting peace in the Middle East.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table for compromise is the issue of the refugees: the problem of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. These Palestinians are everywhere in the world. But their main concentration is in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they enjoy their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. Israel says no way, because they would potentially become a majority in Israel. What would the negotiators do? Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, are from that crop of refugees, so they understand the plight of their countrymen. Jordan gave coded citizenship to the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 and shortly afterwards, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have the citizenship privileges.
In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to. In Syria the Palestinians were given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights were given to them. In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and start working, but they did not have any political rights. Many Palestinians would like to go to their places at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe that a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in an agreed upon formula. Israel has to agree to the human rights concept of the issue. But in practice the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish State if that is what the Israelis want.
The problem of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967 should be the least prickly of the thorny problems. Minor swaps of equal quality lands to accommodate some of the settlers who would provide additional security to Israel must be acceptable to both sides. But usurping Palestinian land by extremist Jewish squatters or modern day Jewish cowboys, should not be tolerated. Historic Palestine has never been and should never become the Wild, Wild West of America.
In my opinion, peace should be the best tool for the security of every party to the conflict, specially the minority party and the weakest of the parties. But if those among the Israelis who believe that force provides peace and security, they must be convinced that perpetual wars have not and will bring neither security nor peace. Peace should be based on solid foundations, which would make the two parties work together for their mutual security.
Peace based on fair claims is the best way for the security of Israel, unfair and unjust peace will take us back and not forward. Israel must invest a lot to earn the love of the Palestinians, and Palestinians should learn to stop hating the Israelis. Instead, they should learn and practice to love their neighbors.
Security through loving and wishing your neighbors well might be too slow in coming. So during the initial implementation of the terms of a peace treaty, International forces including Americans might be used as long as they are needed to observe the implementation and progress of the process.
Also, the fate of Jerusalem should be easy to settle. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank that was occupied in 1967 along with other parts of the city, so it is a Palestinian city and the Palestinians Should have the right to make it the capital of their State. However, if the Israelis insist on keeping Jerusalem united, then both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be allowed to claim it as the capital of their States, and they should work out the details of the operations of two governments of one city, albeit a holy city to the three great monolithic world religions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. Hamas won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, but not like us here (I am thinking of Al Gore in 2000), Fatah wanted to annul the surprise victory of Hamas. My hunch is that Hamas would still win an election if we conduct a monitored election now in the West Bank and in Gaza.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization although the militants of Hamas have never attacked us is merely political.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. Our President or his Secretary of State must make an announcement inviting Hamas to be part of the peace process in any agreed upon manner. The Palestinians to implement a meaningful peace treaty must vow to be fully democratic. Who governs depends on the ballot boxes not on inheritance of one sort or another.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the past had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by the lack of leverage to support the Palestinians. But the current round of talks, between the two parties may be different because of, what I call, the Obama Factor, and because the issues to be discussed have already been discussed and the different views are already known and tabulated. Therefore the time now is ripe to get into a serious compromising stage.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of the other failures. But I could discern that there is a sliver of hope that some issues will have been agreed upon by the time this round of talks is concluded. This will have been accomplished mainly because of the genuine determination of President Obama.
Any success of the current round of talks would be attributed to the President of the United States. It is believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama were a typical President of the United States, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration. But he is different, and without his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, we would not have the negotiations starting now, in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections.
Besides the security issue of the United States, Obama had promised and he would try hard to deliver what he promised. It is a matter of being truthful, which is a rare commodity with politicians. He promised while campaigning that he would tackle tough issues if he were elected. He is the President, and he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues facing our country.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, regardless of the genuine security needs of the United States. So when Obama lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and when he lectured in Egypt, at the Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, he gave a word of honor to the Arab and the Muslim worlds and he promised that as President of the United States, he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East.
So if the parties to the negotiations agreed about something substantial, Obama would have pushed the parties to act and pushed them again not to give up, because he has given the world around them and beyond them a promise that he would do, what he will have done, to put a strong footing to a well founded edifice of ever lasting peace in the Middle East.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table for compromise is the issue of the refugees: the problem of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. These Palestinians are everywhere in the world. But their main concentration is in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they enjoy their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. Israel says no way, because they would potentially become a majority in Israel. What would the negotiators do? Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, are from that crop of refugees, so they understand the plight of their countrymen. Jordan gave coded citizenship to the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 and shortly afterwards, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have the citizenship privileges.
In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to. In Syria the Palestinians were given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights were given to them. In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and start working, but they did not have any political rights. Many Palestinians would like to go to their places at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe that a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in an agreed upon formula. Israel has to agree to the human rights concept of the issue. But in practice the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish State if that is what the Israelis want.
The problem of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967 should be the least prickly of the thorny problems. Minor swaps of equal quality lands to accommodate some of the settlers who would provide additional security to Israel must be acceptable to both sides. But usurping Palestinian land by extremist Jewish squatters or modern day Jewish cowboys, should not be tolerated. Historic Palestine has never been and should never become the Wild, Wild West of America.
In my opinion, peace should be the best tool for the security of every party to the conflict, specially the minority party and the weakest of the parties. But if those among the Israelis who believe that force provides peace and security, they must be convinced that perpetual wars have not and will bring neither security nor peace. Peace should be based on solid foundations, which would make the two parties work together for their mutual security.
Peace based on fair claims is the best way for the security of Israel, unfair and unjust peace will take us back and not forward. Israel must invest a lot to earn the love of the Palestinians, and Palestinians should learn to stop hating the Israelis. Instead, they should learn and practice to love their neighbors.
Security through loving and wishing your neighbors well might be too slow in coming. So during the initial implementation of the terms of a peace treaty, International forces including Americans might be used as long as they are needed to observe the implementation and progress of the process.
Also, the fate of Jerusalem should be easy to settle. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank that was occupied in 1967 along with other parts of the city, so it is a Palestinian city and the Palestinians Should have the right to make it the capital of their State. However, if the Israelis insist on keeping Jerusalem united, then both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be allowed to claim it as the capital of their States, and they should work out the details of the operations of two governments of one city, albeit a holy city to the three great monolithic world religions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. Hamas won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, but not like us here (I am thinking of Al Gore in 2000), Fatah wanted to annul the surprise victory of Hamas. My hunch is that Hamas would still win an election if we conduct a monitored election now in the West Bank and in Gaza.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization although the militants of Hamas have never attacked us is merely political.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. Our President or his Secretary of State must make an announcement inviting Hamas to be part of the peace process in any agreed upon manner. The Palestinians to implement a meaningful peace treaty must vow to be fully democratic. Who governs depends on the ballot boxes not on inheritance of one sort or another.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Capitalism, Socialism, Health Care, and Patriotism
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Contrary to what some may write or say, there is no conflict between capitalism and socialism. But some television and radio talk show hosts, and some newspapers columnists, continue to frighten descent but ill informed Americans, by the ghoul of socialism. The examples are abundant; socialism and capitalism have worked together in America, in Europe, and throughout the world, for many decades. Grant you, the terminology need elucidation.
Socialism is an economic system where the production and distribution of wealth is owned by the community—in a democratic system of government the elected representatives constitute the community. In this context, community, democratic government, and elected government are interchangeable.
Next, the economic system where the dictatorial government owns the production and distribution of wealth is communism. In a communist country a powerful dictator or political party imposes its will on the people it governs.
In the context of the health care industry, the word “wealth” in the previous paragraphs could be replaced by the word “health.” In the United States, most of the healthcare management entities are owned by corporations. Medicare and Medicate, although they are run by the government, the corporations manage the delivery of the services, for a monthly premium. Corporations may remain reasonable, and continue to operate profitably; they may fail to deliver the services, and the people get hurt; or they may become greedy and corrupted with fraud, and fail miserably. A democratic government comes to the aid of the people when a corporation fails. It regulates the operations of the failed corporations, and it subsidizes services if they are essential to the health of the people and the health of the country. This might become a social program.
But the socialism that still frightens people goes back to the Marxist theory (socialism leads to communism) of the nineteenth century; armed with this theory, Linen and his Bolshevik cohorts forcefully toppled the government and usurped power in Russia, in 1917; and the almost immediate spread of communism in countries around Russia, in Asia and in what had become Eastern Europe frightened people all over the world. That fear is still lingering in the minds of some.
The countries aligned themselves in one of two camps: the communist camp led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States. Those alliances did not calm the people. Instead, the fear was exacerbated during the thirties, the forties, and the fifties of the last century. There were serious discussions, besides fear mongering in Western Europe and in the United States.
The discussions in the United States turned into condemnations. They generated a lot noise and fury and many individuals and groups were labeled un-American and persecuted. In the United States the fear came mostly from the inside rather than from the Red menace in the outside. And McCarthyism (after Sen. Joseph McCarthy) is to blame. The constitution which guaranteed our freedoms and liberties and fair trials was effectively shelved.
Now we live in a different world: the experiment of communism had failed. And the Marxist theory was proven wrong, when the communist Soviet Union fell crumbling. Capitalism survived, and the corporations won: the production and distribution of wealth are in their hands. And in the health care industry, the health care of the people is in their hands.
Unfortunately, corporations (driven by profit motives) of the health care industry have failed. The community (the elected government) must intervene to protect the interests of the people. The health care reform proposal advanced by President Obama, developed for that purpose, would regulate the health care industry and provide assistance to those who may need it. It is not another social program; because health care corporations would remain in charge of managing the system. They would still sell health care insurance to the public. The Obama proposal is not an invention: Democratic governments (communities) of the West have always subsidized necessary programs (including health care) for the well being of their people.
Congress and the president have worked for more than a year to get a fix for system. They produced two bills. It is important to note that the Republicans in the two Houses did not vote for either of the bills, not a single soul did. The casual observer would notice that they have been obstructionists. Their leadership does not want to support every Obama initiative. They want him to fail—an un-patriotic motive—and they think they can do it by defeating his initiatives, and by saying “No” to his agenda.
When the president urged them to participate, they made unreasonable demands, such as scraping the year-long work of Congress, and start all over again—a delaying tactic. To me and to other casual observers, they seem that they cannot accept the fact that they are the minority in both houses of Congress.
They have been working hard to defeat the Obama health care proposal. The health insurance corporations have recently intensified their efforts, and millions of dollars have been spent on advertising. The battle is raging, and the winner is not yet known. An amazing thing to observe is the Republicans are united in their attempts to defeat the proposal. But the Democrats are not united for passing it.
After a number of attempts, the president realized that the Republicans are not serious about working with him. So he recently started campaigning and organizing to pass the bill. They have supporters too, and they have intensified their campaign, too. They have supporters with deep pockets like the Republicans. They are advertising heavily in targeted districts. As I see it, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working not necessarily for the health care proposal or against it, but for what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and how either party can influence the outcome by what they do now. Unfortunately, this is American politics.
The health care reform bill may not help me. It is more likely that my health insurance premiums would increase. But my advocacy for a health care bill has not been for my personal benefit. It is for helping poor Americans find health care when they need one. It is patriotic to help others who need help to remain healthy. A healthy nation is a prerequisite for a strong and secure nation. It is patriotic to carry arms and fight for the country, it is also patriotic to carry a big heart and help the nation remain healthy.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Contrary to what some may write or say, there is no conflict between capitalism and socialism. But some television and radio talk show hosts, and some newspapers columnists, continue to frighten descent but ill informed Americans, by the ghoul of socialism. The examples are abundant; socialism and capitalism have worked together in America, in Europe, and throughout the world, for many decades. Grant you, the terminology need elucidation.
Socialism is an economic system where the production and distribution of wealth is owned by the community—in a democratic system of government the elected representatives constitute the community. In this context, community, democratic government, and elected government are interchangeable.
Next, the economic system where the dictatorial government owns the production and distribution of wealth is communism. In a communist country a powerful dictator or political party imposes its will on the people it governs.
In the context of the health care industry, the word “wealth” in the previous paragraphs could be replaced by the word “health.” In the United States, most of the healthcare management entities are owned by corporations. Medicare and Medicate, although they are run by the government, the corporations manage the delivery of the services, for a monthly premium. Corporations may remain reasonable, and continue to operate profitably; they may fail to deliver the services, and the people get hurt; or they may become greedy and corrupted with fraud, and fail miserably. A democratic government comes to the aid of the people when a corporation fails. It regulates the operations of the failed corporations, and it subsidizes services if they are essential to the health of the people and the health of the country. This might become a social program.
But the socialism that still frightens people goes back to the Marxist theory (socialism leads to communism) of the nineteenth century; armed with this theory, Linen and his Bolshevik cohorts forcefully toppled the government and usurped power in Russia, in 1917; and the almost immediate spread of communism in countries around Russia, in Asia and in what had become Eastern Europe frightened people all over the world. That fear is still lingering in the minds of some.
The countries aligned themselves in one of two camps: the communist camp led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States. Those alliances did not calm the people. Instead, the fear was exacerbated during the thirties, the forties, and the fifties of the last century. There were serious discussions, besides fear mongering in Western Europe and in the United States.
The discussions in the United States turned into condemnations. They generated a lot noise and fury and many individuals and groups were labeled un-American and persecuted. In the United States the fear came mostly from the inside rather than from the Red menace in the outside. And McCarthyism (after Sen. Joseph McCarthy) is to blame. The constitution which guaranteed our freedoms and liberties and fair trials was effectively shelved.
Now we live in a different world: the experiment of communism had failed. And the Marxist theory was proven wrong, when the communist Soviet Union fell crumbling. Capitalism survived, and the corporations won: the production and distribution of wealth are in their hands. And in the health care industry, the health care of the people is in their hands.
Unfortunately, corporations (driven by profit motives) of the health care industry have failed. The community (the elected government) must intervene to protect the interests of the people. The health care reform proposal advanced by President Obama, developed for that purpose, would regulate the health care industry and provide assistance to those who may need it. It is not another social program; because health care corporations would remain in charge of managing the system. They would still sell health care insurance to the public. The Obama proposal is not an invention: Democratic governments (communities) of the West have always subsidized necessary programs (including health care) for the well being of their people.
Congress and the president have worked for more than a year to get a fix for system. They produced two bills. It is important to note that the Republicans in the two Houses did not vote for either of the bills, not a single soul did. The casual observer would notice that they have been obstructionists. Their leadership does not want to support every Obama initiative. They want him to fail—an un-patriotic motive—and they think they can do it by defeating his initiatives, and by saying “No” to his agenda.
When the president urged them to participate, they made unreasonable demands, such as scraping the year-long work of Congress, and start all over again—a delaying tactic. To me and to other casual observers, they seem that they cannot accept the fact that they are the minority in both houses of Congress.
They have been working hard to defeat the Obama health care proposal. The health insurance corporations have recently intensified their efforts, and millions of dollars have been spent on advertising. The battle is raging, and the winner is not yet known. An amazing thing to observe is the Republicans are united in their attempts to defeat the proposal. But the Democrats are not united for passing it.
After a number of attempts, the president realized that the Republicans are not serious about working with him. So he recently started campaigning and organizing to pass the bill. They have supporters too, and they have intensified their campaign, too. They have supporters with deep pockets like the Republicans. They are advertising heavily in targeted districts. As I see it, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working not necessarily for the health care proposal or against it, but for what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and how either party can influence the outcome by what they do now. Unfortunately, this is American politics.
The health care reform bill may not help me. It is more likely that my health insurance premiums would increase. But my advocacy for a health care bill has not been for my personal benefit. It is for helping poor Americans find health care when they need one. It is patriotic to help others who need help to remain healthy. A healthy nation is a prerequisite for a strong and secure nation. It is patriotic to carry arms and fight for the country, it is also patriotic to carry a big heart and help the nation remain healthy.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Dick Cheney: Preemptive Warrior
Also published as an Opinion, on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, in the Delaware County Daily Times (www.delcotimes.com) under the title ‘Peace is just a word in the dictionary’
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a master in the use and the defense of pre-emptive wars, in making new enemies out of potential friends, and in increasing the current enemies. He seems to believe that our superiority and our economic dominance would best be served by perpetual wars.
Peace is just a word in the dictionary; it must be used sparingly, because it is the refuge of the weak, so people like him think. He seems to use the preemptive war doctrine, not only in the defense of our country, but also in defending himself in the political and personal arenas. Such application of the later aspect of the doctrine is evident in his ongoing attacks against President Barack Obama and his administration.
There is no doubt in my mind that he despises the President partly because his way of leading this great country is different from his. But his continued attack, which includes diminution of the president, is a preemptive war against Obama and the Democrats.
The attacks are vicious and frequent; his wife and his daughter are part of his offensive. Also his abrasive pronouncements are the feed which the imbecile hosts of a number of radio and television talk shows consume. They get the cue and run with it. They parrot what he says and, using their imagination, they stretch and spin it in many different permutations.
The former Vice President is doing what has not been done before: a former vice president attacks a sitting president. It is important to state he is not doing it because he is bitter that his political party lost two major elections—the 2006 midterm election and the 2008 Presidential election.
He is not doing it because Obama and his administration are ending the war on Iraq or because they will be closing the war in Afghanistan soon or because they are closing the infamous torture prison at Guantanamo Bay or because they are processing the trials of the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts upholding our values, which are the pride of our uniqueness, and denying the enemy one of its propaganda tools.
If we say that the former vice president has been attacking the president out of bitterness for the loss of his party, then we can infer that politicians are loyal to their political parties, but we know from many examples they are not loyal to their parties. If a politician had belonged to a party that did not give him what he wanted, he would switch to another party, or he would create his own party. Exhibit 1: Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut. Exhibit 2: Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3: Sen. Strom Thurman of South Carolina. Exhibit 4: Former President Ronald Reagan of California. Exhibit 5: a large group of southern Senators switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party when the wind of change had come to the South.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, when the elections were done, some media personalities and politicians were adamant about investigating the alleged illegal war on Iraq, the uncompetitive awarding of contracts, the torture of detainees at the Guantanamo Prison.
No one doubts, if we are attacked we will respond in kind regardless how big or how small the attack, we will win without the suspension of International Law and the disabling of our moral values and legal procedures.
The noise demanding the appointment of commissions to investigate the allegations was getting louder and louder. Cheney knew where the winds were blowing, so he started his preemptive war against Obama and his administration.
The media loved it. They covered the attacks and got busy reporting, analyzing, and the progressive politicians denounced his pronouncements and his press releases. They did not have the extra time or space to handle the pursuance of investigating the allegations and his role in the Presidency of George W. Bush.
The media normally give priority to new happenings. Thus, in these days you do not hear the voices calling for the investigation of the abuses of power by Cheney during the Bush administration.
So far the former vice president has won the preemptive war against President Obama and his administration. The problems facing the president and his party are overwhelming. The Democratic congress and the Republicans have not been helpful.
Practically, it is wise to let the forgone forgo and focus on the issues of today and tomorrow. History will treat the Cheney matter better.
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a master in the use and the defense of pre-emptive wars, in making new enemies out of potential friends, and in increasing the current enemies. He seems to believe that our superiority and our economic dominance would best be served by perpetual wars.
Peace is just a word in the dictionary; it must be used sparingly, because it is the refuge of the weak, so people like him think. He seems to use the preemptive war doctrine, not only in the defense of our country, but also in defending himself in the political and personal arenas. Such application of the later aspect of the doctrine is evident in his ongoing attacks against President Barack Obama and his administration.
There is no doubt in my mind that he despises the President partly because his way of leading this great country is different from his. But his continued attack, which includes diminution of the president, is a preemptive war against Obama and the Democrats.
The attacks are vicious and frequent; his wife and his daughter are part of his offensive. Also his abrasive pronouncements are the feed which the imbecile hosts of a number of radio and television talk shows consume. They get the cue and run with it. They parrot what he says and, using their imagination, they stretch and spin it in many different permutations.
The former Vice President is doing what has not been done before: a former vice president attacks a sitting president. It is important to state he is not doing it because he is bitter that his political party lost two major elections—the 2006 midterm election and the 2008 Presidential election.
He is not doing it because Obama and his administration are ending the war on Iraq or because they will be closing the war in Afghanistan soon or because they are closing the infamous torture prison at Guantanamo Bay or because they are processing the trials of the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts upholding our values, which are the pride of our uniqueness, and denying the enemy one of its propaganda tools.
If we say that the former vice president has been attacking the president out of bitterness for the loss of his party, then we can infer that politicians are loyal to their political parties, but we know from many examples they are not loyal to their parties. If a politician had belonged to a party that did not give him what he wanted, he would switch to another party, or he would create his own party. Exhibit 1: Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut. Exhibit 2: Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3: Sen. Strom Thurman of South Carolina. Exhibit 4: Former President Ronald Reagan of California. Exhibit 5: a large group of southern Senators switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party when the wind of change had come to the South.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, when the elections were done, some media personalities and politicians were adamant about investigating the alleged illegal war on Iraq, the uncompetitive awarding of contracts, the torture of detainees at the Guantanamo Prison.
No one doubts, if we are attacked we will respond in kind regardless how big or how small the attack, we will win without the suspension of International Law and the disabling of our moral values and legal procedures.
The noise demanding the appointment of commissions to investigate the allegations was getting louder and louder. Cheney knew where the winds were blowing, so he started his preemptive war against Obama and his administration.
The media loved it. They covered the attacks and got busy reporting, analyzing, and the progressive politicians denounced his pronouncements and his press releases. They did not have the extra time or space to handle the pursuance of investigating the allegations and his role in the Presidency of George W. Bush.
The media normally give priority to new happenings. Thus, in these days you do not hear the voices calling for the investigation of the abuses of power by Cheney during the Bush administration.
So far the former vice president has won the preemptive war against President Obama and his administration. The problems facing the president and his party are overwhelming. The Democratic congress and the Republicans have not been helpful.
Practically, it is wise to let the forgone forgo and focus on the issues of today and tomorrow. History will treat the Cheney matter better.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Joe Lieberman enigma
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
To understand senator Lieberman of connecticut, it is helpful to know where his loyalty lies. It is not where it is normally expected to be. It is not to the people who elected him to represent them and to stand for the interest of their state, in the Senate; it is not to the Democratic Party which gave him the Chairmanship of an important senate committee, even though he had campaigned against their presidential nominee, Barak Obama, in 2008; it is not to America and its standing as the greatest country on Earth: its economy is second to none; its military is ready for peace and ready for war; and its moral compass lights the way for the rest of the world.
His loyalty is to himself, for his own grandiosity and promotion; to the health insurance companies and to the drug maker corporations; to the continued occupation of the Palestinian land by the Israeli military; and to perpetual wars against Islam and Muslim countries.
His stand as the king maker (a boost to his egocentricity) in the debate of the Health Reform bill is as expected to exact concessions as a price for his needed and deserved vote. The gain is not necessarily to benefit the people who had elected him to represent their state.
One way to deal with such an egomaniac is for the timid leader of the Senate to exercise some leadership and tell the Senator that he would strip him of the Chairmanship of the committee which he loves so much; he would not be supported by the Democratic Party in Connecticut; and the annual billions of military aid to Israel would be reduced.
But Lieberman has been around for a long time. He knows how to abuse our democracy. He might also be working on a long term strategy. As a starter, we know that he had campaigned for the Republican nominee, McCain, against the Democratic nominee, Barak Obama, and he spoke at the Republican Convention of 2008 encouraging voter to vote for his long time ally to defeat Obama and the Democrats. He is one of the most aggressive senatorial supporters of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian land and the oppression of the Palestinian people. Unlike Obama he is a war monger and his finger is always on the trigger—such a person is a trigger happy maniac.
Obama made it clear during the campaign of 2008 that if elected he will give diplomacy a chance; he will respect the United Nations and its institutes; the United States will abide by the protocols of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of wars and the treatment of war prisoners. And after he won the election he made it clear that Islam is the not the enemy, and Islam is not to be feared, by his speeches, in Cairo, Egypt and in Ankara, Turkey, and through a reporter interview for a television station in an Arab country, among other venues.
He also promised the Arab and Muslim leaders that he will work hard to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This cannot be achieved without convincing the Israelis that the ways of peace are more beneficial to them and to all the other parties: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs and Muslims, the United States and the West, and for World peace. Israel with its military might and military superiority will not budge. The only entity in the world that might have the chance to move Israel to reason is the President of the United States. This weapon is very simple and might be very effective: let the leader of the Senate tell the senator that the President would reduced the military aid to Israel, if he does not cooperate. Lieberman and his elks in the Senate might be able neutralize such as a potentially effective tool.
Lieberman also knows that Obama, unlike other presidents, is a hands-on president, especially on the major issues of his presidency. Lieberman knows that he cannot influence Obama to change policy, as he had influenced other Presidents including Clinton and W. with such a relationship what is left to Lieberman to protect Israel from possible modification of the US policy toward the Middle East, is to become the obstructionist we have seen.
This is what he hopes to accomplish. Defeat the health reform bill and all other major initiatives of the President, to declare the failure of the Obama presidency, and to make him easy to defeat come 2012. Then celebrate a new incompetent president (the Republicans have smart people among them but they do not get nominated) who will be handled by right wing ideologues.
Lieberman pays lip service to America but his stance on basic issues shows the real face of the senator from Connecticut. I do not need health reform for myself. But I am for it if it will prevent people from dying because they are poor, or prevent them from experiencing catastrophes in their lives, because they cannot afford the ever expensive medical care in this great country.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
To understand senator Lieberman of connecticut, it is helpful to know where his loyalty lies. It is not where it is normally expected to be. It is not to the people who elected him to represent them and to stand for the interest of their state, in the Senate; it is not to the Democratic Party which gave him the Chairmanship of an important senate committee, even though he had campaigned against their presidential nominee, Barak Obama, in 2008; it is not to America and its standing as the greatest country on Earth: its economy is second to none; its military is ready for peace and ready for war; and its moral compass lights the way for the rest of the world.
His loyalty is to himself, for his own grandiosity and promotion; to the health insurance companies and to the drug maker corporations; to the continued occupation of the Palestinian land by the Israeli military; and to perpetual wars against Islam and Muslim countries.
His stand as the king maker (a boost to his egocentricity) in the debate of the Health Reform bill is as expected to exact concessions as a price for his needed and deserved vote. The gain is not necessarily to benefit the people who had elected him to represent their state.
One way to deal with such an egomaniac is for the timid leader of the Senate to exercise some leadership and tell the Senator that he would strip him of the Chairmanship of the committee which he loves so much; he would not be supported by the Democratic Party in Connecticut; and the annual billions of military aid to Israel would be reduced.
But Lieberman has been around for a long time. He knows how to abuse our democracy. He might also be working on a long term strategy. As a starter, we know that he had campaigned for the Republican nominee, McCain, against the Democratic nominee, Barak Obama, and he spoke at the Republican Convention of 2008 encouraging voter to vote for his long time ally to defeat Obama and the Democrats. He is one of the most aggressive senatorial supporters of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian land and the oppression of the Palestinian people. Unlike Obama he is a war monger and his finger is always on the trigger—such a person is a trigger happy maniac.
Obama made it clear during the campaign of 2008 that if elected he will give diplomacy a chance; he will respect the United Nations and its institutes; the United States will abide by the protocols of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of wars and the treatment of war prisoners. And after he won the election he made it clear that Islam is the not the enemy, and Islam is not to be feared, by his speeches, in Cairo, Egypt and in Ankara, Turkey, and through a reporter interview for a television station in an Arab country, among other venues.
He also promised the Arab and Muslim leaders that he will work hard to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This cannot be achieved without convincing the Israelis that the ways of peace are more beneficial to them and to all the other parties: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs and Muslims, the United States and the West, and for World peace. Israel with its military might and military superiority will not budge. The only entity in the world that might have the chance to move Israel to reason is the President of the United States. This weapon is very simple and might be very effective: let the leader of the Senate tell the senator that the President would reduced the military aid to Israel, if he does not cooperate. Lieberman and his elks in the Senate might be able neutralize such as a potentially effective tool.
Lieberman also knows that Obama, unlike other presidents, is a hands-on president, especially on the major issues of his presidency. Lieberman knows that he cannot influence Obama to change policy, as he had influenced other Presidents including Clinton and W. with such a relationship what is left to Lieberman to protect Israel from possible modification of the US policy toward the Middle East, is to become the obstructionist we have seen.
This is what he hopes to accomplish. Defeat the health reform bill and all other major initiatives of the President, to declare the failure of the Obama presidency, and to make him easy to defeat come 2012. Then celebrate a new incompetent president (the Republicans have smart people among them but they do not get nominated) who will be handled by right wing ideologues.
Lieberman pays lip service to America but his stance on basic issues shows the real face of the senator from Connecticut. I do not need health reform for myself. But I am for it if it will prevent people from dying because they are poor, or prevent them from experiencing catastrophes in their lives, because they cannot afford the ever expensive medical care in this great country.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Afghanistan Plan: My Version
By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The President will soon announce his plan for Afghanistan. He will talk about his objectives, in the landlocked country, and his strategies to achieve these objectives. The pronouncement will be limited by his desire to please his supporters, and to minimize the impact of the objections of his political adversaries. Unfortunately, most of the discussion will be heated. The demagogues of the media will have a free field day, the pundits will spew their wisdom for the world to ponder, and the disinterested will also contribute to the noise.
So I write about Afghanistan: about what should be our objectives, and how we could achieve them. My knowledge of the culture and the political history of that part of the world have influenced what I have written.
The following should be our objectives.
• The primary goals of our focused and renewed attention to Afghanistan must be the security of our land and the security and safety of our people, wherever they might be.
• The creation, with contributions from friends and allies, of conditions in Afghanistan that will not permit the reestablishment of training camps for individuals and groups who think that violence is the only means of solving their problems with us.
• The establishment of conditions, in the urban and rural communities of Afghanistan, to help them develop their economic infrastructure, such as water supplies and sewage systems, roads and electricity, agriculture and industry, as investment in their future.
Our security depends on our vigilance and our strength; it also depends of the weakness and understanding of our enemies. In my opinion, our security depends on the ability of each of us to stand guard of his or her community against those who want to keep us busy worrying about the next attack on us and on our land. It also depends of our confidence to offer our friendship to those who may think that we are their enemy; let them know that we mean no harm to their peaceful living.
The creation of the humongous Department of Home Land Security has not been the answer. The security needs of the different communities are more likely to be different than the same. But there is a basic need to all of them: each knows best itself and how to protect itself or what it needs to protect itself from human and natural disasters.
The structure of the different departments and agencies of the government before they became components of the Home Land Security Department was more efficient than the current huge multilayered bureaucracy. Each local community needs to protect itself against manmade and natural menaces. They all need, always current, communication systems for simultaneous and instantaneous exchange of intelligence and other information. They need unified codes of communications and unified training in aspect that are relevant to their communities. Moreover, those communities which are at risk more than others, but they do not have the means to protect themselves should be helped. The independent revitalization of all the security departments and agencies along with the installment of qualified leaders and other qualified personnel would produce a more efficient and less expensive structure than the recently established Homeland Security Department.
Our security also depends on those who think that the only way to treat their problems with us is violence. That attitude, rightly or wrongly, is reinforced by what some of us do and what that some say. For examples, there are crowds among us who incessantly say that we decide and the rest of the world must listen. It may be true that the world listens when we speak, but we should also know that the world might react, to what we do or say, in ways that might be harmful to us.
We can reduce the threat of our declared enemies by behaving in a more responsible and mature ways, and not necessarily by killing them. Giving them hope and respecting who they are religiously and culturally might help. But saying to the peoples of the world that they are either with us or against us, and they are with our God or against our God does not help. We should have the inclination to assume and act on the assumption that the world is our friend, although we know that parts of the world are closer to us religiously and culturally than the other parts. That fact should not matter. Humanity is the more encompassing scope than the other yard-sticks.
Yet in every religion, every culture, every ethnicity, every country, every city and every tribe, there is a small group who do not follow the rules of the law. Instead, they use the tools of democracy, such as the freedom of speech, to agitate the people to highjack their governments and convert it to a tool to achieve their selfish and unpatriotic political goals. In none democratic countries, such small groups use arms and other suppressive measures to highjack their governments and change them into tools for achieving power. Let us not judge peoples by what the small groups do.
There are many things that we could do to woo people to our side. But the most potent among them is the empowerment of the United Nations. There are many conflicts in the world, and as its acknowledged leader we must understand them, and understand the opposing points of views. We must not take sides. We must allow the community of nations to work to resolve these conflicts and we must support this community by endorsing and supporting its resolutions. We must regularly remind ourselves that we alone were the main driver to create the United Nations, with the main purpose to resolve peacefully international conflicts. In my opinion, our neutral stand between conflicting parties will reduce the number of our enemies considerably. No other foreign policy will pacify our enemies than the stance of neutralism in our foreign policy.
The second objective is the security of Afghanistan. Simply, the Afghanis must be responsible for the security of the Afghanis and their country. To do this they need help. Help would come if the Afghanis show inclinations to accept modern understanding of their ethnicities, their culture, and their religion. They must learn how to take what improves their lives from the West, and use it as their own. They should also be willing to teach, from what is in their own culture, the West and the rest of the world about what enhances the life and the dignity of the individual. They must also understand that their destiny is peace among themselves, and among their neighbors, and they should learn from us and from others, by example, how to be tolerant.
The creation and adaptation of that paradigm will not and must not be our job in that remote and rocky country. From the security point of view, our job is to train the Afghanis to secure their communities and their borders, and to prevent the use of their land to house and train those who want to harm us. For that object we do not need more American troops in Afghanistan, on the contrary, we need less American troops. We will need 50,000 of American military personnel who in Afghanistan will be focusing on defending themselves, and training the Afghani military and police forces.
For that job, we should give the government of Afghanistan one year to recruit enough police and military personnel. Then we will train them, arm them, and discover and promote leaders among them. Then our military forces will withdraw for good from that troubled land.
Also, the government of Afghanistan will be encouraged to develop its own flavored democracy. We will educate them about democracy and freedom and how freedom strengthens the creativity and the productivity of the people, and how democracy makes people believe that they own their country which makes them more willing to bear arms to defend it. We will not indoctrinate them into our form of democracy and our brand of freedom.
We will tell the government of Afghanistan about the dire consequences of allowing the military training and indoctrination of would be our attackers.
The third objective of the Afghan plan rises from our humanity and our desire to help them rise from the ashes of war and destruction, and live in a peaceful land. That requires the creation of developmental programs to help the people in securing their lives and lively-hood. If the process is successful we could eliminate the killing of people by our bullets, and reduce the exposure of our personnel to being killed by angry bullets. Reaching this end, however, requires, for example, helping the Afghani farmers develop their farms by introducing improved agricultural technologies and knowhow, and introducing new agricultural products. Beyond that, we need to help them develop markets for their agricultural products.
The same approach would be applied toward creating businesses, we should support locally created businesses, and encourage the development of needed projects. We could educate them in such fields by teaching them the ways of the industrial West.
Schools and training programs of all kinds including technical and arts schools should be developed. Students should learn the ways of agriculture, industry, and technology along with culture and religion. They should also learn how to respect the religions and cultures of other peoples.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Retired professor
22 South Springfield Rd / C-2
Clifton Heights, PA 19018
Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com
Home phone: 610 626 7494
Cell phone: 484 574 1937
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The President will soon announce his plan for Afghanistan. He will talk about his objectives, in the landlocked country, and his strategies to achieve these objectives. The pronouncement will be limited by his desire to please his supporters, and to minimize the impact of the objections of his political adversaries. Unfortunately, most of the discussion will be heated. The demagogues of the media will have a free field day, the pundits will spew their wisdom for the world to ponder, and the disinterested will also contribute to the noise.
So I write about Afghanistan: about what should be our objectives, and how we could achieve them. My knowledge of the culture and the political history of that part of the world have influenced what I have written.
The following should be our objectives.
• The primary goals of our focused and renewed attention to Afghanistan must be the security of our land and the security and safety of our people, wherever they might be.
• The creation, with contributions from friends and allies, of conditions in Afghanistan that will not permit the reestablishment of training camps for individuals and groups who think that violence is the only means of solving their problems with us.
• The establishment of conditions, in the urban and rural communities of Afghanistan, to help them develop their economic infrastructure, such as water supplies and sewage systems, roads and electricity, agriculture and industry, as investment in their future.
Our security depends on our vigilance and our strength; it also depends of the weakness and understanding of our enemies. In my opinion, our security depends on the ability of each of us to stand guard of his or her community against those who want to keep us busy worrying about the next attack on us and on our land. It also depends of our confidence to offer our friendship to those who may think that we are their enemy; let them know that we mean no harm to their peaceful living.
The creation of the humongous Department of Home Land Security has not been the answer. The security needs of the different communities are more likely to be different than the same. But there is a basic need to all of them: each knows best itself and how to protect itself or what it needs to protect itself from human and natural disasters.
The structure of the different departments and agencies of the government before they became components of the Home Land Security Department was more efficient than the current huge multilayered bureaucracy. Each local community needs to protect itself against manmade and natural menaces. They all need, always current, communication systems for simultaneous and instantaneous exchange of intelligence and other information. They need unified codes of communications and unified training in aspect that are relevant to their communities. Moreover, those communities which are at risk more than others, but they do not have the means to protect themselves should be helped. The independent revitalization of all the security departments and agencies along with the installment of qualified leaders and other qualified personnel would produce a more efficient and less expensive structure than the recently established Homeland Security Department.
Our security also depends on those who think that the only way to treat their problems with us is violence. That attitude, rightly or wrongly, is reinforced by what some of us do and what that some say. For examples, there are crowds among us who incessantly say that we decide and the rest of the world must listen. It may be true that the world listens when we speak, but we should also know that the world might react, to what we do or say, in ways that might be harmful to us.
We can reduce the threat of our declared enemies by behaving in a more responsible and mature ways, and not necessarily by killing them. Giving them hope and respecting who they are religiously and culturally might help. But saying to the peoples of the world that they are either with us or against us, and they are with our God or against our God does not help. We should have the inclination to assume and act on the assumption that the world is our friend, although we know that parts of the world are closer to us religiously and culturally than the other parts. That fact should not matter. Humanity is the more encompassing scope than the other yard-sticks.
Yet in every religion, every culture, every ethnicity, every country, every city and every tribe, there is a small group who do not follow the rules of the law. Instead, they use the tools of democracy, such as the freedom of speech, to agitate the people to highjack their governments and convert it to a tool to achieve their selfish and unpatriotic political goals. In none democratic countries, such small groups use arms and other suppressive measures to highjack their governments and change them into tools for achieving power. Let us not judge peoples by what the small groups do.
There are many things that we could do to woo people to our side. But the most potent among them is the empowerment of the United Nations. There are many conflicts in the world, and as its acknowledged leader we must understand them, and understand the opposing points of views. We must not take sides. We must allow the community of nations to work to resolve these conflicts and we must support this community by endorsing and supporting its resolutions. We must regularly remind ourselves that we alone were the main driver to create the United Nations, with the main purpose to resolve peacefully international conflicts. In my opinion, our neutral stand between conflicting parties will reduce the number of our enemies considerably. No other foreign policy will pacify our enemies than the stance of neutralism in our foreign policy.
The second objective is the security of Afghanistan. Simply, the Afghanis must be responsible for the security of the Afghanis and their country. To do this they need help. Help would come if the Afghanis show inclinations to accept modern understanding of their ethnicities, their culture, and their religion. They must learn how to take what improves their lives from the West, and use it as their own. They should also be willing to teach, from what is in their own culture, the West and the rest of the world about what enhances the life and the dignity of the individual. They must also understand that their destiny is peace among themselves, and among their neighbors, and they should learn from us and from others, by example, how to be tolerant.
The creation and adaptation of that paradigm will not and must not be our job in that remote and rocky country. From the security point of view, our job is to train the Afghanis to secure their communities and their borders, and to prevent the use of their land to house and train those who want to harm us. For that object we do not need more American troops in Afghanistan, on the contrary, we need less American troops. We will need 50,000 of American military personnel who in Afghanistan will be focusing on defending themselves, and training the Afghani military and police forces.
For that job, we should give the government of Afghanistan one year to recruit enough police and military personnel. Then we will train them, arm them, and discover and promote leaders among them. Then our military forces will withdraw for good from that troubled land.
Also, the government of Afghanistan will be encouraged to develop its own flavored democracy. We will educate them about democracy and freedom and how freedom strengthens the creativity and the productivity of the people, and how democracy makes people believe that they own their country which makes them more willing to bear arms to defend it. We will not indoctrinate them into our form of democracy and our brand of freedom.
We will tell the government of Afghanistan about the dire consequences of allowing the military training and indoctrination of would be our attackers.
The third objective of the Afghan plan rises from our humanity and our desire to help them rise from the ashes of war and destruction, and live in a peaceful land. That requires the creation of developmental programs to help the people in securing their lives and lively-hood. If the process is successful we could eliminate the killing of people by our bullets, and reduce the exposure of our personnel to being killed by angry bullets. Reaching this end, however, requires, for example, helping the Afghani farmers develop their farms by introducing improved agricultural technologies and knowhow, and introducing new agricultural products. Beyond that, we need to help them develop markets for their agricultural products.
The same approach would be applied toward creating businesses, we should support locally created businesses, and encourage the development of needed projects. We could educate them in such fields by teaching them the ways of the industrial West.
Schools and training programs of all kinds including technical and arts schools should be developed. Students should learn the ways of agriculture, industry, and technology along with culture and religion. They should also learn how to respect the religions and cultures of other peoples.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Retired professor
22 South Springfield Rd / C-2
Clifton Heights, PA 19018
Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com
Home phone: 610 626 7494
Cell phone: 484 574 1937
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
