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.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
