Hokie Horror

I was reminded recently just how far my home in Virginia feels these days as we raise our family here in Oregon. In my mind, the horror of the Virginia Tech shootings was juxtaposed with the bucolic memories I have of a quieter Blacksburg.

In the days that followed the murders, I heard from several Oregon-based natives of the Old Dominion mourning the loss of life and the stigma that will now be attached to a much loved Virginia institution. Beyond the usual bond that anyone might have to others from their home state, this event focused those kindred feelings. Everyone from Virginia is a Hokie now - even Cavaliers. Even the Queen of England -the unofficial Sovereign of the “Pearl Colony” was moved this week to spend time mourning with families of the victims. She was in Virginia this week to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown.

The loss of so many promising lives is appalling. Equally appalling is the continued loss of life in Iraq. On the day after the shootings in Blacksburg, Baghdad suffered the worst car bombing deaths since the beginning of the war to “liberate” the Iraqi people. 170+ souls were deleted from the list of the living and added to the growing list of statistics. Is anyone as nauseated by all of this death as I am? I refuse to take a side on the issue of whether we should or should not continue with that part of the mission unaccomplished. I simply don't understand the complexities. I do know I am tired of hearing about people dying for no other reason than someone else thinks their death will strike a poignant political cord with their opponents - whoever they are.

Iran versus the world

Let's imagine for a moment that we are Iran. We just had the world's only superpower invite itself into our troubled neighbors country -- a long-time enemy. We have had a long-running "jones" for the superpower. And, we are not exactly in the peak of economic health. In short, we have destablization written all over our faces. So, we decide to puff out our chest a little with some nuclear rocket rattling. We are the skinny punk in the neighborhood, afterall. We don't want any trouble from the rough kids who moved in. If you think of it this way, Iran's recent bizarre actions make a lot of sense.

I have stray teens who wander up my street many nights to party. I live on the side of a hill with a wide expanse of park across the street. I don't like them even parking there, much less getting out and partying, drinking, etc. The same territorial instinct -- even though the street is not technically my territory -- comes in to play here. Iran may not be correct in its behavior, but we can at least understand their belligerent stance.

So, what's to be done?

The United States needs to keep reminding the Iranians that we aren't interested in them. We also need to remind them that playing with dangerous weapons and flashing them about is no way to behave. In short, tell them that "We get it." They don't like us and they don't want us influencing the rest of their neighbors (or worse). The U.S. must also stop increasing the pressure through encouraging Israeli military bluster toward's the Iranians.

Historically, not since Alexandar the Great, has the West found Iran (then Persia) of much interest. Sure, the British liked it for a while. And, we liked it because of the oil, but history shows that the region has never quite been our cup of tea. So, let's leave it to them and focus on trying to improve our own culture. I am finding it increasingly painful to accept American troops in Iraq when we continue to have hunger, poverty and sick children who go un-helped here.

Today -- Easter Sunday 2007 -- 10 American soldiers were killed in Iraq. And, the emotionally unstable Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Shiites in Baghdad, has declared jihad on the American Military. We promised months ago to bring stablity to Baghdad. We have not succeeded and al-Sadr's had enough of our unfulfilled promises. He's, frankly, pissed at the wrong people. But, the sooner we are out of there, the sooner he can get on with the delayed battle he must have with his Sunni enemies. In short, I think we are simply in the way. We need to get out of the way and let these people fight it out. Does anyone believe that peace is going to result before both sides have had a chance to clobber each other?

I think it's important to ask for God's blessing to reach into the hearts of Sunni and Shiite alike to ask them to embrace each other for good instead of terror. I know I am praying for calm. It's likely in vain, however. Evil is apparently going to prevail in the short-run. We should stand on the sideline until the fight is over.

Let's Respond to Putin, Not React

Speaking at the Munich Conference on Security Policy today, Russian President, Valdimir Putin, apparently got the news media in a lather. Unfortunately, as I write this Putin's speech is not available in English; only Russian. Certainly, we must pay very close attention to even the slightest nuance of negativity from the Russian President. But, I think in this case the media is over-reacting.

The tagline of the conference is Peace through Dialogue. It was an appropriate place to provoke an intense discussion. You can read what stirred everyone here. I can understand what the fuss is about, but I urge us all to listen in this case and keep our mouth's shut for a moment. This goes for you Senator's McCain and Lieberman.

According to the BBC (light years ahead of CNN and most everyone else as usual), Mr Putin's spokesman Dimitry Peskov said the speech was "not about confrontation, it's an invitation to think." And think we should. President Putin's ruminations on American policy is something we should all be turning a keen ear to. For example, I can imagine why Russia would be concerned with our intentions and our actions. I am not convinced that the world is safer. Is anyone? If so, then that's another subject to debate at another time. I am only speaking for myself now. I don't feel safer since 9/11. Why should the Russians?

In an interview with National Interest, Peskov had this to say about one of our arch-enemies, Iran, "We are the last country in this world that would want to have a nuclear weapon at its southern borders. Let’s not forget that the problem of a potentially nuclear Iran is much more vivid for us than for some other remote countries." It seems pretty obvious that the regions closest to Russia are not stable. Of course, many have never been.

The brinksmanship between Washington and Tehran has done nothing to calm Russian nerves, apparently. If we listen carefully, Russia's president may be asking us to be the "bigger man" here and stop the threats we are lobbing in Iran's direction. Our brothers in Israel should also button it. Anyone who is watching closely can see that Iran is blowing smoke. If I were Iran, I'd be doing the same thing. With America staring coldy in my direction twirling a pistol, what do any of us expect?

Because we don't have a translation of the speech, we don't know right now what other nuanced issues Mr. Putin raised. Even if he did not mention the other key reasons for global instability like poverty, illiteracy and global communications making the gulf between the haves and have nots seem wider than at any point in history, the speech should be judged in total.

Mr. Putin, apparently the Western media is spoiling to spark a debate. They are right to do this. The floor is now yours again. Some of us are going to do the best way can to listen to what you have to say. If you aren't focusing some of your energy on other issues out of American control, we may not be so eager to listen next time. I'll keep an open mind in the meantime.

Let's face it. We are never going to respect cultures that don't believe in equality for women

Islam is not the enemy. Every thinking person in the West should know this well by now. The enemy is ignorance and it's dirty offspring: tribalism, sectarianism and most other isms of one kind or another.

Here's what the Quaran says about women so we might put this issue to rest for good:

"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........."

The reason the West is headed for a full-scale showdown with so-called Islamists is simple: They have hijacked their own religion and Western Democracies have no respect for it.

I am not posting here to debate the merits of either view. I see both sides of this debate as having valid and important points to make. But, I must choose a side. And that side is with the inevitable march of progress in women's rights and equality.

Those Islamic governments who are creating cultures where women can participate as equals to men will be more successful in the long-run. It's axiomatic. Those who supress the natural rights of all human beings to live a life of liberty coupled with the ability to pursue happiness -- or unhappiness if they choose -- will be less successful.

It goes deeper than that. Success is a relative term, after all. The earth is a mess. We can't afford to leave anyone on the sidelines of a problem that is going to require a lot of - if you'll forgive the redneckism -- assholes and elbows to fix. Arab civilizations were the most advanced in the world. They are now the most backward and moribund. We all should be doing what we can to encourage their return to glory.

Why so-called "wise men" are leaving large portions of the brain power of their communities untapped is puzzling. It is time for our government to do whatever we can to support those organizations that are trying to help women achieve equality in Islamist societies. Better to do this calmly and steadfastly today than over the point of a sword tomorrow. Although, the jihadists seem to prefer the sword.

I have patiently met with and discussed these issues with Muslim friends. I am amazed at the thoughtfulness of Islam and the kindness of those who believe. But, their places of worship continue to separate men from women. I don't judge that. I merely point out that it is an examphttp://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifle of the kind of separate but equal doctrine that never really works as history has shown.

More on this as I ponder it. It's a complex issue that cannot be neatly described. That being said, though, there is an inevitability to this issue that must be addressed by our leaders. Now with a female Speaker of the House of Representatives, I hope the issue will be more considered more intently.

Until next time.

P.S. Want to read more on this subject from a first person viewpoint: The Muslim Woman dot org.

For Israel: A Nature Park for Peace?

So, this just in from our friend, MJ Rosenberg at theIsrael Policy Forum in D.C. MJ makes a compelling case for why the Middle East Peace Process is in a critically important phase. Until I read this, I was not aware that a) Israel and its primary enemy du jour (i.e., Syria) have been meeting for two years in secret trying to build a peace framework and b) a public park available to both Israel's citizens and Syrias could take the place of a no-man's land buffer zone between the two countries. Can you imagine what the zone between North and South Korea would like if it were turned into a park for both nations? Fascinating. Very creative. All parties to this kind of thinking should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for simply thinking up such a brilliant idea.

Of course, both Syria and Israel deny that the secret meetings ever happened. But, the more we share of this news around the world the more likely we are to see a small ray of hope that the people there could live in peace for once.

Here's what MJ has to say for background...

The 1973 war between Israel and Egypt cost Israel 3,000 young lives. In the end, Israel got peace with Egypt but at the price of surrendering the the Sinai. Had they negotiated with Egypt earlier -- as they were encouraged to do by President Nixon, they would have only lost about 3 miles of the Sinai. (It is worth noting that the pro-Israel community’s backing of Israel’s resistance to Nixon’s “pressure” contributed to the worst disaster in Israel’s history–a demonstration that unthinking and uncritical “support” is, in fact, anything but.

It is just possible that another colossal missed opportunity is in the making right now. According to the highly respected and well-connected reporter in the region, Israeli and Syrian representatives – meeting secretly over a two year period ending in July 2006 – agreed on the framework of a peace treaty.

The plan allegedly provides for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Syria and Israel would be separated by a buffer zone in the form of a nature park, open to citizens of both countries.

Israel would retain exclusive control over the coveted waters of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee. Demilitarized and reduced military presence zones, provisions for early warning stations and international security oversight, would be established. And, of critical importance, Syria would end its support for Hezbollah and distance itself from Iran. Likewise, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal would be forced to leave Damascus.

Once these mutual commitments are met, a full peace treaty would be signed and normal relations established.

Encouragingly, the Bush administration appears to be moving away from its hard-line on dealing with Syria. Perhaps, taking a page from the Baker-Hamilton report, it is concluding that our disdain for the Assad regime should not prevent us from engaging Syria. Not if doing so will lead Syria to stop its trouble-making on the border with Iraq and drive a wedge between Iran and Syria (not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah).

Nevertheless, Olmert should not hesitate to explore the Syrian option. The possibility that Syria is ready for peace is too important to ignore. Any peace feeler is worthy of exploration, especially one as promising as this.

By pursuing the Syrian track Israel could succeed in eliminating the threat from its most implacable neighbor. Peace with Syria would remove Iran's entry point into Israel's immediate neighborhood and halt its arms supply, virtually destroying Hezbollah. And Hamas would be almost totally isolated.

Anyone who believes this is not a gamble worth considering simply does not understand what the stakes for America and Israel really are.

But wait. There's good news. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is, according to media reports, ready to make a major push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with a view toward reaching an agreement by the time President Bush leaves office. That explains why the Vice President has, apparently, encouraged the unofficial Israeli-Syrian talks (or, at least, not opposed them).

Bush, Cheney and Rice may understand that success in Iraq looks increasingly unlikely and that, by comparison, achieving a final status Israel-Palestinian agreement would be relatively easy. It's legacy time. The Bush administration should go for it.

As for the pro-Israel community and the Congress, it should recall the lesson of 1971. Supporting Israel by supporting the status quo is no support at all. Just visit the military cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem and imagine it without the 3,000 graves of soldiers who died heroically in an utterly preventable war.