Iraq Falling Apart And Islamist Take Charge In Egypt

Almost immediately after American forces left Iraq the security situation and the fragile Iraqi government started to fall apart:

Faster than anyone expected, barely a month after the last U.S. troops left, Iraq's government appears to be coming apart, prompting fears that the country is headed for another round of sectarian strife.[...]

In the midst of the political squabbling, insurgents, possibly al-Qaida, have carried out attacks , killing at least 250 civilians in Baghdad and other cities in the time since U.S. forces left, giving the country a security scare.

The article also points out how that the situation in Iraq is possibly being unjustifiably portrayed in America as a success:

The Obama administration, which trumpeted the U.S. troop withdrawal as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, views the internal conflict as a real crisis and a big problem for future relations.

The United States has "repeatedly" told Maliki and other political leaders that "our relationship, all the things we want to do" depend on "a resolution through constitutional means," a State Department official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Less clear is whether the U.S. can help restore stability. With no military forces on the ground, Washington's leverage is meager.

President Barack Obama may have made things worse last month when he hosted Maliki in Washington and hailed him as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet."

"Iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent," Obama said.

The speech enraged Saleh Mutlak, a Sunni who is a deputy prime minister.

"What I heard from Obama was deceiving both for Americans and Iraqis," Mutlak said. "Obama is telling Americans that they were victorious in Iraq, they liberated the country and Iraqis are now very well situated, and the hero of Iraq, the prime minister, has made an inclusive government in Iraq. But it is the opposite."

So he gave an interview to CNN in which he denounced Maliki as a "dictator."

"I wanted to let Mr. Obama know that what he's telling his own people is not correct. And I wanted to tell my people that I have waited enough, and it's time to tell the truth of what's going on inside the government. If Maliki stays in power, dictatorship will be more concentrated."

It seems that in a haste to withdraw from a long and unpopular war, America leaders might have made an early withdraw at the expense of America's long term national security interest in Iraq and the region. While most Americans might not care what is going on in Iraq and might support leaving Iraq, there is a very real concern of the possibility for Iran to exploit the political chaos and power vacuum to gain influence in Iraq as this article points out:

Military analysts and Middle East experts have spent years warning about the growing influence of Iran in Iraq. A group of Texas National Guardsmen watched it firsthand.

As one of the last U.S. units to deploy to Iraq, the Texas Army Guardsmen told congressional lawmakers in late November the Iraqi army still struggles to disseminate intelligence and manage logistics, leaving their soldiers vulnerable to outside influence. Iraqi soldiers spend weeks by themselves, without supplies or relief, on posts dispersed across the Iran-Iraq border.[..]

Iran is flooding Iraq’s markets with goods at much cheaper prices than other imports, leading other countries’ suppliers, in places such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to not bother to sell in Iraq. Those supplies allow Iran to control southern Iraq’s markets and thus its stomachs.

“It really means more than you might think,” Smith told Republican Rep. Mike Conaway, a member of the Armed Services Committee. “It’s really going to be a big problem for them in the future.”

The Iraqi army also continues to struggle to set up its intelligence network, Spurgin said. The soldiers don’t have an effective, decentralized system to spread information securely and efficiently across the country.

When asked by Conaway if the Iraqis could protect their borders from an external threat such as Iran, he bluntly said no. Spurgin told the congressman the Iraqis could not defend against an invading force.

“Operationally, the Iraqi Army has the ability to provide internal security of their own country, but they’re not ready to defend their country from an external threat,” Spurgin said.

If Iran does end up with considerable influence in Iraq, a very real concern by some American leaders, then the Iraq war will have been a wasted war and effort from my perspective. What would over ten years of American effort at the cost of 850 billion dollars, 4800 dead, and 32000 wounded been for?

The results of the Arab Spring are also creating the potential to weaken America and the West's long term interest. Middle East the Arab Spring that was suppose result in the flowering of democracy in the Middle East has resulted in Islamist winning seventy-five percent of the Egyptian parliament:

Final results on Saturday showed that Islamist parties won nearly three-quarters of the seats in parliament in Egypt's first elections since the ouster of authoritarian president Hosni Mubarak, according to election officials and political groups.The Islamist domination of Egypt's parliament has worried liberals and even some conservatives about the religious tone of the new legislature, which will be tasked with forming a committee to write a new constitution. Overseeing the process will be the country's Mubarak-era military generals, who are still in charge.A coalition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood won 47 percent, or 235 seats in the 498-seat parliament. The ultraconservative Al-Nour Party was second with 25 percent, or 125 seats.

But there is nothing to worry about according to our government because"... top U.S. officials from the State Department have recently met with the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders, who have in turn assured Western officials that they respect minority rights and support democracy". The Muslim Brotherhood is the party whose spiritual leader wants to kill Jews from his wheelchair, there is actually a video of this guy (who gave a speech to millions of Egyptians shortly after the Egyptian uprising) saying this. Also taking a look at the early history of the Muslim Brotherhood is illuminating and will make you view things through a different prism.

Overall, America's long term nation interest in the Middle East being achieved doesn't seem likely.

Middle East Update: So Much For The Flowering Of Freedom And Democracy

(A short poorly put together post.) Recent developments in the Middle East do not appear to be good. Muammar Gaddafi was killed by the Libyan rebels. While it is a good thing that he is dead the government that will be replacing him won't be such a good thing.

The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil called on Libyans to show "patience, honesty and tolerance" and eschew hatred as they embark on rebuilding the country at the end of an 8-month civil war.

Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Qaddafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.

In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great. He then stepped aside and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.

As noted in earlier post, some of the Libyan rebel leaders are actual terrorist that fought against America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Islamists have won elections in Tunisia. And America is pulling its ambassador out of Syria.

America will be completely pulling out of Iraq, thus creating a political vacuum that Iran will take advantage of :

With Syria in turmoil, Iran on the march, a more isolated Israel, and Turkey’s ever-more ambivalent policies, now is the worst time to see a diminished U.S. influence in ensuring continued progress in Iraq. A total troop pullout will leave Iraqi security forces much more vulnerable to terrorism, sectarian conflict, and Iranian meddling, and it will leave them much less capable of battling al-Qaeda in Iraq and pro-Iranian Shia militias.

The Afghanistan president said that if there were a conflict between America and Pakistan, that he would side with Pakistan.

It looks like things aren't going so well in Egypt

In the eight months since the Egyptian Revolution, radical Islamic groups are rising to power, the army seems unwilling or unable to stop a growing rash of sectarian violence and the long-standing friendship between the U.S., Israel and Egypt is in serious question.

“I am the enemy of democracy,” Hesham al Ashry said in an interview with Fox News in his Cairo tailor shop. The devout Muslim is a main organizer in a group called the Salafists, which is working to bring Shariah law to Egypt. They, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, have risen quickly in the past eight months to fill the power vacuum left in post-Mubarak Egypt.

The past eight months have given a scary preview of what al Ashry’s opportunity might mean. It was a Salafy Cleric who called for the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cario, the rocket and suicide bomb attack on a southern Israeli highway which killed 8 and injured more than 40 was launched from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and it was the Army which intervened in a peaceful Coptic Christian protest killing more than two dozen.

“They (the army) are completely frantic, they are (overwhelmed) by these every week demonstrations…the country is going bust. The economy is going down. They are unable to get it to rest (stop),” Sawiris, who says there is only a 20% chance of next month’s election producing a liberal or secular Muslim government, said.

And it looks like the Vatican has been infected with communist. They are calling for a world central bank to help solve the unfair distribution of wealth around the world

The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a "global public authority" and a "central world bank" to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.[...]

'The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,' it said.

It condemned what it called "the idolatry of the market" as well as a "neo-liberal thinking" that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.

'In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,' it said, adding that world economics needed an 'ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations.[...]

"In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of 'central world bank' that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks," it said.

The document, which was being presented at a news conference later on Monday, acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.

"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world."

I don't know how influential the Vatican is. I know at one point it was an influential force in world politics. Today, they might just be a bunch of people wearing clown suits that have no power or influence in the world. But their thought is the prevailing thought among world leaders today.

While the death of Gaddafi and the pulling out of American troops from Iraq might make Obama look good and increase his chances of winning reelection, these and other developments in the Middle East does not appear to be shaping up to be good for America, Israel, the West, or freedom in general. What has been happening in the Middle East is that America has been supporting its enemies whether by fighting a war for them, giving them money, or handing a country to our enemies. So much for the flowering of "democracy" in the Middle East.

Middle East Update: America Encouraging And Helping Its Enemies

It is still looking like what the Arab Spring might not be such a good thing for Israel and the West. Remember that the Arab Spring was encouraged and cheered on by our President and media with organismic praise. Also Egypt was given money by Western nations; and in the case of Libya, the West fought a war against our enemies who were the enemies of a less dangerous enemy.

It looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is still becoming the dominant political force in Egypt and is still somewhat unfriendly to Israel:

The Muslim Brotherhood's new message is very similar: all Islamic men in Egypt, whoever they may be, should stand and be counted as members of Hamas. Whether one sees this message as analogous in the sense of ideology, however, would likely be a matter of perspective.[...]

The aim of the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is with other anti-Zionist Muslims throughout the world, is to have the followers of Islam hold dominion over the holy land that Israel now occupies, to be governed by Islamic law. To them, having the Jewish "apes" and "pigs" govern with the notion of "freedom" and allowing equal worship at holy sites in Jerusalem is a slap in the face to the prophet who has promised the right to govern that region to Muslims. Therefore, they would much rather see Islamic clerics and mullahs allowing preferential rights to be granted for Muslims, while non-Muslims are subjugated, as Allah intended (Surah 9:29).[...]

The Muslim Brotherhood has held rallies recently that have seen the incineration of Israeli flags and the exhibition of Nazi symbols, complete with taunts to Israelis suggesting that "the gas chambers are ready." It seems rather interesting for a group that has denied the Holocaust to clearly reference the means of its historical practices. Apparently, the infidels' false history is not without its charms in the Brotherhood's eyes.

But think about the implications of what we see every day, but fail to recognize. A burgeoning regime in Egypt, under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, is threatening the Israeli ambassador's life. They have openly declared themselves to be not only in league with terrorists, but among the terrorists of Hamas, and therefore they have proclaimed themselves terrorists. Mohamed ElBaradei, a possible Brotherhood candidate for Egyptian leadership, has stated that he would go to war with Israel if it attacks Gaza. This means that any of Israel's numerous and necessary retaliatory strikes upon Gaza could result in war with Egypt, their historic enemy whose strength Israel has bolstered in efforts to achieve the longstanding peace that the Brotherhood would so readily break.

Their is a direct link between the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Germany. And if you listen to their current spiritual leader, he praises Hitler for carrying out his punishment against the Jews. So why did America encourage the recent Egyptian revolution when it was clear at the time that the Muslim Brotherhood would become the dominant political force in Egypt? And why is America and the West sending Egypt money? What will this lead to?

And I love this article where the Libyan rebel military commander who was a member of a terrorist group that sent fighters into Iraq and Afghanistan is trying to explain how he is not going to support terrorism against the West:

TRIPOLI, Libya - The rebels' Tripoli military commander, a former leader of an Islamic militant group that sent fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan, insisted Friday that the new Libya will shun extremism and won't become a breeding ground for terrorism.

What is happening in the Middle East is that America and the West is supporting its enemies through several different channels: by sending billions of dollars a year to the Middle East for oil that in turns goes towards funding terrorist and radical Mosques that breed terrorist, giving moral and financial support to a revolution that leads to an anti-Western political regime, and actually fighting a war for our enemies. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Some News

Some news to keep abreast of the changes occurring in the world. Portugal is seeking a bailout from the European Union after its Parliament rejected austerity measures,

Portugal's prime minister said Wednesday his country has asked for financing assistance from the European Union due to its high debts and difficulty raising money on international markets.[...]Portugal becomes the third financially troubled eurozone country after Greece and Ireland to request assistance from Europe's bailout fund and the International Monetary Fund.[...] Such an announcement had long been expected as Portugal, one of the 17-nation eurozone's smallest and weakest economies, struggled to finance its economy. Following a rejection of additional austerity measures by its parliament last month, Portugal has seen its borrowing costs rise to unsustainably high levels.

It looks like another EU country has fallen. Instead of making very painful budget cuts, Portugal has decided to receive a bailout. This will no doubt require that Portugal cede some of its sovereignty to the larger international governing body as happened in the case of Ireland and Greece. This bit of news needs to be put into the larger context of the EU debt sovereign debt crisis and Dominique Strauss-Kahn's recent speech to understand what how this piece fits into the still nebulous large puzzle that is being put together. Every time period is one of change so this transformation is nothing new.

The IMF managing director has made some comments on the direction that the global economy is headed,

In a speech entitled “Global Challenges, Global Solutions”[...] Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), called for a new approach to economic policymaking in the wake of the recent global crisis. He singled out three areas for improvement: a new approach to macroeconomic and financial sector policies, a new approach to social cohesion, and a new approach to cooperation and multilateralism.[...]Middle East, noting that it is going through an 'historic transformation' as 'citizens are seeking greater freedom, and a fairer distribution of economic opportunities and resources'.[...]'In designing a new macroeconomic framework for a new world', he stated, 'the pendulum will swing—at least a little—from the market to the state, and from the relatively simple to the relatively more complex'.[...]Mr. Strauss-Kahn called for policymakers to pay more attention to inequality and social cohesion. 'The lethal cocktail of prolonged high unemployment and high inequality can strain social cohesion and political stability, which in turn affects macroeconomic stability.' He suggested that inequality, which was a factor in the Middle East, might also have been among the root causes of the global crisis, and that sustainable global growth is associated with more equal income distribution.[...]Mr. Strauss-Kahn stressed the virtues of enhanced cooperation and multilateralism in the post-crisis world, noting that 'the great challenges of today all require a collective solution'. [ All emphasis is mine.]

I disagree with some of what is stated in this speech, most notably that in the new global economic framework the state will have a larger role, but my disagreement does not negate the realities of the world that we live in nor does it mean that this should not happen. The lost of social cohesion due to high unemployment, inflation, and overall bad economy will pose a very real threat to global stability, the Middle East and Europe are a prime example. This unequal distribution of wealth, "inequality", being spoken of sounds like the main theme of "The Communist Manifesto". This problem begs the question: who or what entity will solve this inequality? Government or the private sector? Well the pendulum is swinging a new direction. The challenges that the world faces will require "collective solution". If the nations of the world, the collective, are all socialist, then what will that solution be?

Americans took a pay cut because of inflation, "You may not have noticed it when you opened up your paycheck last month, but you just took a pay cut. Wages in America are flattening as inflation surges, therefore real income growth is actually negative, according to the latest data from the Labor Department. " If I had to make a guess I would say that real inflation will peak around thirty percent.

And El Baradei of Egypt has decided to challenge Israel's right to exist and promise to declare war on them. There is nothing like a peaceful uprising of the youth in the name of democracy.

Some interesting and exciting news.

The Muslim Brotherhood Is Becoming A Major Political Force In Egypt

Those that stated that the uprisings in the Middle East and especially Egypt might not be a good thing were ridiculed and scoffed at, but now it seems as if the uprisings might not actually be leading to democracy and freedom. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming a major player in the new Egypt is of interest because the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization unfriendly towards the West whose members included some of the 911 hijackers and a spiritual and intellectual leader that hates Israel, a big understatement. Israel's--our traditional ally and the only free nation is that region of the world--dependence on Egypt to maintain stability is an important factor to keep in mind as it appears they might be loosing an ally, if you could characterize Egypt's and Israel's relationship as such. The uprisings in Egypt were heralded with organismic praise by the media to include our President, who encouraged it, as an uprising comprised of the young and idealist that were seeking freedom, democracy, and "change" whose outcome would lead to democracy. If what is stated in this article is true, then this is a good indication of what the uprisings in the Middle East, at least Egypt, are possibly leading to: an outcome that is not good for freedom or world stability.

It looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming a major player in the new Egypt. "In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes. It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment. [...] 'There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,' said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. 'It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.'[...]'We are all worried,' said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone'

As Thomas Sowell points out what history shows being over optimist about the youth rising up in the name of revolution,

What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.

History says otherwise. After Russia's czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba, when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro and in Iran when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollahs.

It is not inevitable that bad regimes are replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.

It also looks like Yemen is about to fall,

Of all the uprisings and protests that have swept the Middle East this year, none is more likely than Yemen to have immediate damaging effects on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Yemen is home to al-Qaida’s most active franchise, and as President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government crumbles, so does Washington’s influence there.[...]Further complicating U.S. efforts to build a new partnership in Yemen is the fact that one of the driving forces behind the protests is the country’s fundamentalist Islamic opposition party, known as Islah. The party’s spiritual leader, Sheik Abdel-Majid al-Zindani, is on a U.S. list of terrorists and has been described as a loyalist of Osama bin Laden. Though experts caution that Islah today is held together by shared opposition to Saleh, the group’s ties to al-Zindani would make it harder for Washington to justify spending more money to arm or stabilize an Islah-led Yemen.

This is a short post that I might add to later. The point of this post is to show that the uprisings in the Middle East are looking like they will lead to an outcome that will not be good for Israel, America, the West, or the world especially considering that terrorist organizations seem to be the ones benefiting and getting a foothold in the new governments being formed as a result of the uprisings. Given the world's dependence on that region's supply of "black gold", there is a potential for some problems ahead for the world and definitely Israel. I am not going to try and predict or state what will happen as the result of recent events in the Middle East, although it is not hard to know. But I am willingly to bet the outcome will not be good. The events in the Middle East are definitely worth keeping up to date.

Will The Middle East Uprisings Lead To Democratic Governments?

According to Thomas Sowell, the answer is probably not. It does prick one's heart to see evil and tyrannical dictators being ousted by the people that they have been ruling. But as has been noted on this blog, the uprisings are not completely about a repressed people rising up demanding freedom. A major driving force behind these uprisings were "gut-level economics" and inflation that is in part the result of the recent actions know as QE 2 by the Federal Reserve. So what is likely to be the end result of these uprisings? Will it lead to free representative-democracies or the same repressive regimes? Sowell:

Those who see hope in the Middle East uprisings seem to assume that they will lead in the direction of freedom or democracy. There is already talk about the "liberation" of Egypt, even though the biggest change there has been that a one-man dictatorship has been replaced by a military dictatorship that has suspended the constitution.

Perhaps the military dictatorship will be temporary, as its leaders say, but we have heard that song before. What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.

History says otherwise. After Russia's czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba, when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro and in Iran when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollahs.

It is not inevitable that bad regimes are replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.

The fact that Egyptians or others in the Middle East and elsewhere want freedom does not mean that they are ready for freedom. Everyone wants freedom for himself. Even the Nazis wanted to be free to be Nazis. They just didn't want anybody else to be free.

There is very little sign of tolerance in the Middle East, even among fellow Muslims with different political or religious views, and all too many signs of gross intolerance toward people who are not Muslims.

Freedom and democracy cannot be simply conferred on anyone. Both have preconditions, and even nations that are free and democratic today took centuries to get there. [[What are these preconditions? Basic fundamental philosophical beliefs held by the people of that nation.]]

If there was ever a time when people in Western democracies might be excused for thinking that Western institutions could simply be exported to other nations to create new free democracies, that time has long passed.

It is easy to export the outward symbols of democracy-- constitutions, elections, parliaments and the like-- but you cannot export the centuries of experience and development that made those institutions work. All too often, exported democratic institutions have meant "one man, one vote-- one time."

We should not assume that our own freedom and democratic form of government can be taken for granted. Those who created this country did not.

As the Constitution of the United States was being written, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what he and the other writers were creating. He replied, "A republic, madam-- if you can keep it." Generations later, Abraham Lincoln also posed it as a question whether "government of the people, by the people and for the people" is one that "can long endure."

Just as there are nations who have not yet developed the preconditions for freedom and democracy, so there are some people within a nation who have not. The advance toward universal suffrage took place slowly and in stages.

Too many people, looking back today, see that as just being biased against some people.

But putting the fate of a nation in the hands of the illiterate masses of the past, many with no conception of the complexities of government, might have meant risking the same fate of "one man, one vote-- one time."

Today, we take universal literacy for granted. But literacy has not been universal, across all segments of the American population during all of the 20th century. Illiteracy was the norm in Albania as recently as the 1920s and in India in the second half of the 20th century.

Bare literacy is just one of the things needed to make democracy viable. Without a sense of responsible citizenship, voters can elect leaders who are not merely incompetent or corrupt, but even leaders with contempt for the Constitutional limitations on government power that preserve the people's freedom.

We already have such a leader in the White House-- and a succession of such leaders may demonstrate that the viability of freedom and democracy can by no means be taken for granted here.

If governments do emerge that are not friendly to America and the West, this could lead to higher oil prices and oil being used as a weapon by these new governments against their enemies. It seems that there is a lot going on under the surface and a lot of connections with other political groups here in America and around the world that are influencing these riots.