Peace effort likely an illusion

Like every recent president preceding him, President Bush put on a showpiece of diplomacy at Annapolis where Israelis and Palestinians met in the presence of representatives from several Arab countries, the United States and others as witnesses to "peace talks."

Part of me wants to believe this is a bona fide attempt by the Bush administration to settle the conflict in the Middle East. However, the realist in me knows better. That part of me knows this is merely an illusion that has all the semblance of reality but when all is said and done it remains an illusion.

Indeed that nasty part of me tells me that:
The timing is rather strange. Why now? If the Bush administration was really serious about peace in the Middle East, it should have shown its care and benevolence a few years ago. Instead it gave multiple green lights and encouragement to Israel to bomb the dickens out of the Palestinians, as well as invade Lebanon and to drop cluster bombs that are to this day killing and maiming humans and animals alike.

How can there be peace when official Israeli policy promotes the building of settlements on confiscated Palestinian lands. Bush is fully aware because he is paying for the cost of construction. As things stand, there is no Palestine left out of which to make a Palestinian state.

The Bush administration attempted to starve the Palestinians into submission. Its position is: Those who recognize Israeli claims and conditions are "good Palestinians" because they will be satisfied with any crumbs handed them. Those who don't and are willing to stand up for their rights are terrorists. It just so happens that elections are proving they have more support than the Palestinians who are represented at Annapolis. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the U.S./Israeli-promoted and -financed Palestinian Authority, does not represent the Palestinians but only a small segment of them. What he gives away will not necessarily be accepted by the majority of Palestinians, who regard Abbas and the authority as mere domesticated Palestinians in the service of Israel and the United States.

Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated he is willing to talk peace but made it clear the talking can go on indefinitely. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is following the same strategy. But to maintain interest in talking, he increased the pot to include East Jerusalem. By doing that, the illusion of negotiations is kept alive. Yet in reality, Jewish settlements are encircling the city to ensure that no part of it will go back to Palestinians or a Palestinian state.

The issue of Palestine can't be easily settled. It is an issue of forcibly establishing one country at the expense of another and in the process, every part of the vanquished country will either be absorbed or discarded. Much of Palestine has been absorbed and the only part Israel is likely to discard is Gaza, and it will obviously be more than happy to see Gaza, the source of its current problem, ceded to Egypt. And in its continuing attempt at diluting the remaining Palestinian population, Israel will continue importing settlers.

Hamas, the major Palestinian actor, is not there. And it is not there because the Bush administration decided that since it doesn't recognize Israel, it is a terrorist organization. Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world don't recognize Israel, so why don't they qualify for the same honor? Israeli and American interests may sometimes meet but certainly don't coincide. It needs a wise administration to realize that tiny countries should not be making foreign policy for a great power, but that is another story.

Finally, without Hamas there will be no peace. It is the pivotal missing ingredient. Is that by accident? I am sorry but no matter how much I fault my negative side for thinking bad, I think it has this one right.

U.S. Muslims can best disarm the Arab world's extremists

This week, a Spanish court passed jail sentences on seven defendants after finding them guilty of involvement in the Madrid commuter train bombings.

Three were sentenced to thousands of years in prison, but they will probably serve a maximum of 40 years. Most surprising was the acquittal of an accused ringleader of all charges.

I am surprised at the verdicts and strongly feel that if they are really guilty, they should have been dealt with more sternly for such a crime against humanity. What gives them the right to take innocent lives by hijacking my faith and subjugating it to this act of violence?

In such situations, I wish these trials were taking place in Saudi Arabia, where if found guilty, they would have to pay with their heads for murdering innocents. What did the Spaniards, who have usually been very sympathetic to Arabs and Arab causes, do to deserve such treatment?

I find it difficult to comprehend such behavior, let alone rationalize it. Indeed, I have come to loathe what these guys do and look with extreme suspicion at what they say.
The term in Arabic to describe this unfortunate state of affairs is "Jahilliya," which means a state of ignorance. Islam has supposedly come to lift people from this Jahilliya, yet these terrorists are using Islam to revert to a pre-Islamic state. And these nuts are not the only ones.

I watch Arabic satellite, and a program called "Zawaya," which means "corners" or "views," recently caught my attention. It deals with oddities in the Arab world and, believe me, there were more than a few. Few surpass the action of a Saudi who divorced his wife because he caught her alone watching a male presenter on television. He accused her of committing an act that didn't conform to religious practices. He equated her action with being alone with a male not related to her.

First, I think it is shameful that such people still exist, and second, I am happy for her that she got rid of that idiot. Women have no business being married to such fools.

What is the solution? Simply stated, there must be serious social and political revolutions and soul-searching. Arab society cannot continue to shrug off these atrocities because, in some instances, they are the norm, not the exception.

It also cannot develop with blind emulation of others. If Arabs want to change, careful selection of what is most beneficial and compatible with their societies must precede any emulation. Indeed, Arabs must ask themselves the difficult questions that relate to their faith, women, children and jobs. Change, while inevitable, is not easy and is usually accompanied by dislocations and uncertainty. Therefore, Arabs and Muslims must be willing to embrace change and not see it as a threat.

The mere fact that official and private Arab satellite media outlets are chatting about these issues and people are calling in to express their views is a good beginning. However, much more needs to be done.
Muslim Americans from the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world have an important role to play in all this. They live in free and open societies that permit them to think and flourish in ways they have never done before. They have an important part to play as role models of tolerance, education and understanding.

Many Muslim Americans are devout, but they have also found a way to make their beliefs congruent with the societies in which they live. The mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters are well-educated. They work and interact with men not related to them, still maintain their dignity and don't have fingers pointed at them.

Indeed, Muslims in free societies are the best message to Muslims in not-so-free societies that there is no contradiction between being a Muslim and being modern and free.

Blackwater mirrors attitude of the U.S.

Blackwater USA is a private American security firm that provides services to the U.S State Department. It charges exorbitant prices to chaperone U.S. diplomats and their guests in and out of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Yet unlike the U.S. armed forces, Blackwater mercenaries are not accountable to anyone. They are primarily composed of former military members attracted by the generous pay and the opportunity to relive the lawless American Wild West in Iraq.

U.S. soldiers hate them and detest their arrogance because they make life difficult for enlisted men. Armed to the teeth and riding Hummers, they show little respect for Iraqi life or property. Last week, they killed at least nine civilians and claimed self-defense.
Blackwater expects to extricate itself from this episode without any damage. They know they are exempt from Iraqi law and sovereignty.

Justice mandates that they should not be exempt from punishment. Many American servicemen have complained about the behavior of Blackwater mercenaries and the ill feeling they generate against the United States and its military, but no one on this side of the Atlantic is listening.

Having said that, I think the problem lies not with Blackwater mercenaries but with America's attitude toward Iraqis and Arabs in general. It is a relationship void of respect and filled with hate. Americans have little respect for Arabs or Muslims and even less for Iraqis. Therefore, it is natural that a reciprocal relationship would emerge, one categorized by hate and lack of respect on both sides.

During the age of colonialism, the British referred to Arabs and Indians as "wogs," and now the Americans refer to the Iraqis as "hajis." I refuse to believe it never dawned on the U.S. government that, from the beginning, its policies showed little respect for Iraqis. It is this lack of respect that led to the despicable events at Abu Ghraib and the stiff opposition America is facing in the region.

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is only partially correct in his assertion that America went to Iraq for oil. To this we need to add the Bush administration's need to punish those who have, for the first time in its history, brought it to its knees. And, since it could not punish the Arabs of the Persian Gulf or Egypt because it needed them, Iraq offered the best opportunity and, in the process, promoted terrorist organizations to justify its war on terror.
Poppycock?

Perhaps, but try to be an Arab or a Muslim in America today. These communities were the first to feel that hatred and disrespect. Their legal and civil rights were flouted and applications for citizenships or adjustments of legal status were refused. Their primary religion was ridiculed and equated with backwardness and terror.

Logically, if Arab Americans were forced to experience that treatment, does anyone think Iraqis are immune from it? Well, they were not, and Blackwater is proving that today.

There is no victory in this war, and there is no kissing and making up. The relationship for the next 50 years has begun. And judging by all indicators, it will make little difference who leads America.
In the meantime, if the U.S. government wants peace with Arabs and Muslims, it needs to work hard on achieving it. And the first thing it can do is respect its own Arab and Muslim citizens.

Bush successor will inherit tremendous global disarray

Well, we're entering the home stretch in one of the most obvious political failures of government the United States has ever experienced.

I would like to hear the administration's satraps and blind supporters explain away the political and economic mess the country and, by extension, the world are in.

Thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, and millions more Iraqis have been turned into refugees in and outside their country. The world is worse off for meeting George W. Bush.
For those who don't give a hoot about the world, let's look at the United States. Aside from the abridgement of American freedoms, along with a slew of lies and useless posturing, this administration has hit Americans in their pocketbooks and jobs.

The cost of living has increased to a level that makes shopping for food a seriously expensive endeavor. A huge number of Americans can't make ends meet because inflation has eaten away at their earnings. Health care is beyond most people, some who foolishly chance to either not sign up or, to save money, choose plans that provide them with catastrophic care only.

And don't let the unemployment figures fool you: One can be employed but remain poor.

Oil prices have hit the $80 mark and will continue to increase, because little has been done by the administration to stymie the increase. Most important, little money has been allocated for alternate fuel research and almost no increases in fuel efficiency have been mandated. Since oil executives had their meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney a few years ago, the price of a barrel of oil has increased by $35.

But perhaps most serious is the increase in the national debt, which jumped by $3.6 trillion in less than six years.

No use crying over spilled milk, but what will the next leader inherit? I feel sorry for Bush's successor, for there is little that he or she can do to fix this mess and the United States can't afford to remain in a mess. When a hegemony is in disarray, the whole system follows.

The global economic system is currently supported and maintained by the United States. Irrespective of the strength of the euro or any other currency, no country can provide the liquidity for the global economy to function or provide a market the size of the American market.

Maybe in 40 or 50 years, China will emerge as an economic powerhouse to rival the United States, but for that to happen, Chinese quality of life and income need to drastically improve.
Hegemonic weakness can also lead to flare-ups in the system. It is the job of the hegemony to ensure stability and set up parameters to contain any conflict that might emerge.

In short, it is not easy being a leader of the most powerful country in the world because one needs the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the strength of Samson.

Making policy for America is, in the final analysis, making policy for the world. I don't need to go into detail or elaborate on the impact of the United States on the world. Suffice it to say that Americans have a huge burden on their shoulders, for when they pick a leader, they define the future of the globe.

Small wonder, then, that so many people in the world are angry at Bush. We can, of course, dismiss them and tell them to mind their own business since America is free to do what it wants.

But can we really? The answer is no, for whether we like it or not, our actions have a direct consequence on every life in the planet. The United States set up this system of interdependence after World War II, and until the next hegemony comes along, we can't arbitrarily change the rules of the game. So, Americans, choose wisely.

Red tape sends message: Breaking rules gets results

In a mobile and rapidly changing society such as the United States, it is normal to expect some turnover in governmental agencies.

Yet I was unaware of how serious this had become until recently, when an acquaintance who was granted political asylum in the 1990s called to express his anger and disgust at the manner in which he was being treated by the Department of Homeland Security.

It seems that when the DHS was created by merging many agencies, a large number of experts in middle and upper management were unhappy with the state of affairs and opted to retire or find other jobs. This left the new security agency woefully deficient in institutional memory.

Indeed, a recent report on National Public Radio claimed the department has lost so many people that few, if any, remember events and policies of the late 1990s.

My acquaintance invested in a small business to support himself and his new family and embarked on the next step in attaining permanent residency. In May 2001, he asked the Department of Justice to adjust his status to a legal resident.

As usual in these cases, Justice mandated a slew of letters of support from organizations recognized by the U.S. government.
He received letters of support from other asylees, Amnesty International and American citizens. He got letters of support from Libyan political organizations opposed to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. These organizations had worked closely with the State Department and other agencies to undermine Gadhafi during the Reagan administration, when the colonel was the "Daddy Warbucks of terrorism" and "the most dangerous man in the world."

Apparently, today few, if any, in Homeland Security have the foggiest idea who Gadhafi is, let alone any of the organizations America supported in opposing the Libyan dictator.

In any event, the DHS decided to retroactively classify organizations that opposed Gadhafi in the 1980s as terrorist organizations, and hence because of my acquaintance's support for these organizations, it planned to deny him adjustment of status.

The DHS did this in spite of the fact that the State Department refused to classify these Libyan organizations as supporters of terrorism or put them on its list of terrorist organizations. And, ironically, full American recognition of Gadhafi has not been granted because of the dictator's miserable human rights record and his failed attempt to assassinate the Saudi king a few years ago.

Unfortunately, after 9-11, the State Department has no say in immigration issues, and these poor legal immigrants have to deal with idiosyncratic decisions based on ignorance.

A number of things bother me about this episode. First, it is important that DHS screen all applicants for U.S. residency to ensure they are who they claim to be. However, to turn against people and organizations whose interests coincided with ours and whom we recognized as legitimate and just is truly shameful.

What message does this send to anyone helping America promote democracy? Has the Bush administration now changed its tune on why it went to Iraq, and are human rights and democracy issues swept under the rug?

Second, what kind of legal system permits such retroactive imposition of new laws?

Third, it seems that in the current political environment, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, with one agency saying something and another the opposite. What happened to the records? In this computer-driven age, records must exist, even if all the employees have left. If it can't keep track of such simple issues, how will the DHS keep track of who goes in and out of this country?

Fourth, my sympathy goes out to all individuals touched by such incompetence and mismanagement. But my true sympathy goes to the Department of Homeland Security for this paralysis and lack of wisdom that resulted from the loss of its institutional memory.

Finally, this kind of treatment reinforces the assumption that when it comes to immigration to the U.S., why would any desperate individual do things legally and wait in line for his turn?

It would have been much easier for my acquaintance to come in illegally and wait for the next amnesty, when he and 11 million others would be legalized, no questions asked.

It's time to demand more from leaders

Lately, President Bush has lost not one but two confidants. Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, his trusted underlings, have flown the coop to greener pastures.

There is no doubt in my mind that very soon they will be in positions to make millions of dollars.

And as the reader can see, I say "make," not "earn." Neither has earned a single cent in all the time he spent working for this president, who, coincidently, has also not earned his salary.

It would have been cheaper for Americans to let him play cowboy in Crawford than president in Washington.

And my sincere hope is to see him back in Texas for good, where he can do little harm to anyone except himself. He has done enough harm to the world, and it's about time for him to stop even if he still has one more year to go in his tenure.

I don't give two hoots about any of his underlings or how much income they can finagle for their services to special interests while in government. I do, however, dislike the idea of continuing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a former president for doing a lousy job that has undermined the health, wealth and security of the United States.

The United States is in disarray, with its citizens disunited and turned against each other along religious, social or political criteria. Its economy is in tatters, plagued by mushrooming public and private debts, deficit spending, loss of industries and a decaying infrastructure. No one should be surprised at this state of affairs, for they are the hallmarks of post-World War II Republican Party rule.

As usual, Democrats will change much of that, and they will try to fix what the Republicans screw up but, unfortunately, the Republicans will come back to screw it up again. American economic recessions more often than not result from and follow Republican governments.

But putting all these issues aside, it is imperative in this globalized world to elect an American leadership that is well versed in international affairs, a leadership that has an understanding of world history, geography, politics and perhaps a foreign language or two. Americans must expect and demand more from their leaders than the current mediocrity.

President Bush will be forever linked to his failures and thus will fade away, because Americans do not like to be reminded of failures. He can't change that, but he can prevent more humiliation for the institution of the presidency.

First, Bush must not blame Iran for his screw-up in Iraq, nor use that as an excuse to involve the U.S. in another war. Political vacuums cannot exist, and the illegal invasion of Iraq created a political vacuum that Iran is much better suited to fill than the United States.
A little knowledge of power politics and the region's history would have been enough to put the brakes on any Middle Eastern adventure. Another policy of containment might need to be developed with a number of actors in the region, something the new president can figure out and develop.

Second, the president needs to stop, in word and in deed, his newfound support of dictatorships. Dictatorships breed radicalism in all its forms, and by supporting them, he will undermine his successor's ability to maneuver.

Third, he should tell the American people that he is sorry for letting them down, then follow that by keeping silent and spending as much time as he can in Crawford.

On a trip away from America, I realized: How safe is my country

Going overseas provides American travelers with unique opportunities to view other peoples, cultures and societies. It also gives them a chance to put their development and themselves in a larger global context.

A recent trip overseas has made me appreciate aspects of American life that most Americans take for granted. And I am not talking about the bounty of food or jobs or the quality of life that a sizable number of Americans enjoy.

I am referring to policies relating to health and safety that are missing from the lives of most people in the world.

I have come to appreciate those painted lanes on the streets and the lights that regulate traffic flow. I now have no complaints about no-left-turn signs that limit congestion and slowdowns.

I heartily appreciate all government attempts to reduce pollution by forcing manufacturers to install gadgets, be they filters or catalytic converters. One doesn't appreciate these policies until being caught at midday in downtown Shanghai, Cairo or Lima, where neither buses nor the majority of cars have any emission control mechanisms.

In these environments, a white shirt turns dark in minutes from the soot and smoke belched by these mechanical marvels. Worse, longtime exposure to these pollutants is sure to send thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, to hospitals every year.

I have come to appreciate the nutrition labels and expiration dates on food containers. Around the globe, thousands, if not millions, become sick or die annually after consuming foods without expiration dates.

When traveling, the warning not to drink the water must be taken seriously. In the United States, we take the availability of clean drinking water for granted. This is not the case in much of the world, where water is far from safe. Much of this is due to the absence or enforcement of policies that prohibit the introduction of dangerous bacteria into the water by humans.

Most developing countries are in dire need of public administrative techniques. It is an issue of how to do things and organize matters in ways that facilitate change and evaluation.

In Lima, for example, there is no public transportation system. Anyone who can afford to buy an old truck or bus can transport people. No special skill training is required to get a taxi license.
I have seen the highest mountain roads without guard rails where tiny mistakes by drivers can send buses full of people to their doom.

Maybe the Peruvian government doesn't have the funds to pay for a public transportation system, but it certainly could ensure that those who are transporting people do so safely and in viable vehicles. And it doesn't cost much to put barriers on dangerous mountain roads.
Shantytowns throughout the developing world spring up unhindered. They are a disgrace to any society and should not be permitted to exist. However, if they must exist, they should be regulated and established in areas that provide necessary services.

There are ways the United States and other developed countries can help. Institutions of higher learning are the best vehicle for providing that assistance. They are the key to training foreign students in the necessary skills to run societies, not governments.

Public administration should be the primary field of education, with heavy doses of internships to enable students to get hands-on experiences with city and state agencies. More important is providing them with the ability to identify problems before they happen and to develop policies and procedures that deal with any that emerge. It is not easy, but the return is phenomenal.

Indeed, spending $10 million — the cost of one military aircraft — on training kids from Zambia, Peru or Egypt on how to run their societies is far more valuable.

Finally, America is an excellent source of training for most needed policies, except homeland security. After passing through some of the security procedures at U.S. airports, my suggestion is not to teach the American way because it is not only awful but, as indicated by the long lines, quite inefficient and useless.

Libya's nonsense fools West

In a recent interview with the Al-Jazeera network, Col. Moammar Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi admitted that Libya engaged in the physical torture of five Bulgarian female nurses and one Palestinian doctor.

They were accused of intentionally infecting 400 Libyan children in the city of Benghazi with HIV. It now appears that their interrogators threatened to kill them, raped the nurses and subjected the doctor to electric shock.

The resulting coerced confession was used by Gadhafi's kangaroo court to sentence them to death. And were it not for the outrage displayed by two European countries and others in the world, six innocent people would have been murdered.

I don't think any sane person can believe the nonsense spewed by Gadhafi's regime. The problem is rat-infested hospitals, lack of decent medical care and a huge army of unqualified personnel.

To rid himself of a mushrooming problem, Gadhafi agreed to hand the accused to Bulgaria, where Libya claimed they would serve the sentences imposed on them by his court. Also as a condition for their release, the nurses and doctor gave up any rights to sue the Libyan government or demand any form of compensation for their treatment.
In return, the Gaddafi Foundation was supposed to monetarily compensate the families of the infected children.

Lost in all this is what exactly happened to the poor children and how they got infected with that awful disease. Naturally, the regime of the Libyan dictator cannot be blamed because it is immune from doing wrong. And if the nurses didn't do it, then who did? The Libyan dictatorship resents this kind of serious probing into its wrongdoings, and most probably we will never know what went on.

I blame the leaders of the so-called civilized world. This is what bothers me most about them. How can they praise such a foul regime? And how can they turn a blind eye to the atrocities and uncivilized behavior this monstrosity continues to perpetrate? This is a nasty, selfish and ignorant dictatorship that has brought misery to the lives of millions in Libya, the Middle East and the world. And for them to throw him a lifeline so he can continue his abuse of everything decent is an indication of the bankruptcy of their civilization.

The new French president wants to sell him nuclear reactors, and President Bush is re-establishing relations with Libya. The British are desperately trying to entice him to buy their missiles. Is the house of cards collapsing, and is Western society showing its true colors?
Dictatorship and mismanagement are eating away at the heart of the Middle East. People are angry at their regimes and are beginning to associate them with their Western benefactors.

It now seems that Bush's plan of bringing democracy to the Middle East has gone the way of the dodo. Replacing it is "the devil that we know is better than one we get to know."

But few realize that this posture is increasing the hold of dictatorships on the region, which in turn is giving rise to radicalism. More important, these dictators don't give two hoots about America or Western society. Their sole interest is keeping their absolute power. And if push comes to shove, they will covertly promote terrorism to ensure the West continues to back their objectives.

The shame in all this is the fact that the West has failed in its quest to free the Arabs of dictators, and now the Arab dictators have succeeded in imposing their dictatorship on the West.

Debates highlight the slim pickings

I had an opportunity to watch the most recent debate among the candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, and I was far from impressed. Of interest to me were their discussions on the economy, China and Iraq.

However, for some inexplicable reason, they were either unwilling or unable to think beyond the Bush era. This administration is perhaps one of the most miserable governments in American history. It is incumbent upon these candidates to be innovative in formulating new strategies that would dampen the impact of the current effete policies.

None of them articulated a vision of a new future.

Within the past decade, the world has radically changed and a new equilibrium has emerged. It is a new world characterized by globalization, a decline in American power, a fundamental shift in U.S. industrial output and the emergence of China as a huge industrial power.

I find it difficult to believe these guys and "the gal" when they promise to bring back manufacturing jobs that will never return to the United States. And while the idea of forcing China to stop playing with its currency rate might sound good, it will not change the balance of economic power much.

The fact is, a Chinese worker gets seven cents an hour, which translates into 70 cents for a 10-hour workday. No matter how much the yuan is worth, the gap between what American and Chinese workers earn will not narrow any time soon.

Additionally, China is practicing a predatory form of 18th-century capitalism that is oblivious to the needs and interests of other nation-states, the environment or the Earth's natural resources.

Indeed, China reminds me of the Borg on the television show "Start Trek: The Next Generation" or aliens whose sole purpose is to suck a planet barren and go onto the next one.

And to make matters worse, rather than invest in America's infrastructure and develop new industries beyond the reach of China technology, the Bush administration has opted to spend huge sums of money on disastrous foreign adventures.

China today is America's largest creditor. Some think that this makes the Chinese vulnerable, but the reverse is also true. As long as the U.S. keeps printing money and selling bonds, it will need someone to buy them and only those with excess cash do. How can the United States confront Chinese policies when it depends so much on it for the purchase of bonds and the import of so many consumer goods?

What is good for so-called "American" multinationals is not necessarily good for the United States, for they have been the primary vehicle for the outsourcing of American industries and exporters of American jobs. To add insult to injury, they do not pay taxes and use dogmatic administrations, such as the current one, to open America's coffers for them to raid at will.

The truth is, I will never trust a politician, Democrat or Republican, who accepts money from such predators.

I was also disappointed with the candidates' responses to the questions on Iraq. Only one of them advocated unconditional withdrawal. The others never gave a straight answer and talked about "phased withdrawal" and "redeployment." Most seemed oblivious to the fact that the current instability, including the emergence of al-Qaida, is primarily due to America's presence in the country and the region.

At the end of the debate, I was left with a hollow feeling — not as bad as the one I felt in the aftermath of the Republican debates, but a hollow feeling nonetheless. It left me wishing for that knight in shinning armor to ride up and help a country in distress.

Buying arms from U.S. is a bad deal for Saudis

The announcement by the Bush administration that it intends to sell $20 billion of military hardware to Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years is not as surprising as many commentators are leading us to believe.

So what is the truth in all this? Sherlock Holmes' eternal words come to mind: "After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

The first impossibility is that Saudi Arabia can defend itself. The Saudi defense forces are divided between its national guard and the regular military. The former is far better equipped and trained than the latter. However, the national guard is the primary organ for the defense of the regime, not the state. Hence, it is made up of individuals from tribes loyal to the Al-Saud family.

It is therefore evident that as long as mistrust of the regime remains, it will be unable to defend itself even if it buys 10 times the amount of weapons. Also, if history is an indicator, these new weapons will either remain crated or will be used to train U.S. military forces in the region.

During the Reagan administration, the Saudis spent billions on sophisticated Airborne Warning and Control Systems, or AWACs, and other hardware, as well as infrastructure. They certainly didn't use them, and very few Saudis even know what the inside of an AWAC looks like. American-made Saudi weapon systems were used by U.S. forces for training and later in the first Iraq war. When were they ever used by the Saudis?

This latest deal includes satellite-guided missiles and other smart bombs. Having such weapons might mean a great deal if Saudi Arabia owned satellites, but the Saudis don't, and they will have to rely on U.S. access to satellite technology. In short, the U.S. will have a say on when and where those weapons can be used, at least until the Saudis are able to put their own satellites in orbit.

The situation is much worse in the small states of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, also slated to receive new weapons. There are about 300,000 Qataris and less than a million citizens out of a population of 4 million in the UAE. To make matters worse, large chunks of the UAE military are made up of Pakistanis and other nationalities.

In the final analysis, none of these regimes, independently or combined, is any match for Iran militarily, and they will have to continue their reliance on the deterrence power of the United States. The cost will not be cheap, for that $20 billion will mushroom over 10 years to at least twice the amount in spare parts, maintenance, training, replacements, upgrades and so on.

More important, the sale will ensure the long-term presence of the U.S. in the region even if it is forced to leave Iraq next year.
If none of the above is convincing, one can regard it as the administration's departing gift to the military-industrial complex at a time when Europeans, particularly the British, are courting the Saudis in an attempt to sell them advanced Eurofighters in a multibillion-dollar deal.

The Israelis know this is a nonsense deal, and they are fully aware that it would not alter the balance of power in the region. But by not making a fuss, they would come out of the carnival without candy.
Israel will receive $9 billion in additional aid for a total of $30 billion over the next nine years. And unlike other recipients of U.S. aid, Israel can do with it what it desires without any accounting to Washington.

Going back to Sherlock, the deal is a miserable one for the Arabs because it will ensure a perpetual Saudi-Iranian conflict when there is little need for it. The Saudis are taking on President Bush's war and they will be sorry. Bush and most of America don't like them, and in the end they will gain the enmity of Iran.

Second, Saudi Arabia is America's largest creditor after China, but there are better ways to help the U.S. besides wasting money on military hardware destined to rust in a merciless desert.

Third, under the guise of balance, the increased aid to Israel will be used to make life more miserable for the Palestinians by building more settlements and expropriating more Palestinian lands.