Tag Archives: Middle East

national news, political news

What will president say about his tenure

right_way

President Obama vows a different kind of State of the Union speech.

Such events usually involve a lengthy laundry list of policy proposals. Frankly, they bore the daylights out of me.

I prefer loftier rhetoric for these events.

What might the president say? The pessimists have laid down their marker. The country is going to hell; we’re in danger of being attacked; the economic recovery isn’t as good as it should be; most Americans think we’re heading along the “wrong track.”

My hunch is that Barack Obama is going to sound significantly more optimistic. To wit:

  • We’ve added millions of new jobs over the past seven years.
  • Joblessness has been cut in half.
  • The budget deficit, which was more than $1 trillion annually when Obama took office, has been cut by more than half.
  • Automakers, the housing industry and financial institutions are back.
  • Stocks are way up (the recent correction notwithstanding).
  • We’re still the most powerful nation on Earth . . . by a long shot.
  • We haven’t been attacked by a terrorist group.
I’m not naïve to think there are no problems. Yes, the Middle East remains a powder keg. Then again, when has it not been?
Barack Obama will have much on which to hang his hat by the time he leaves office.
But he’s not going to assuage the critics. Not for a second.
International news, national news, political news

Nation founded and built by refugees wants what?

immigrants

I feel like the Linda Blair head-spinning character in “The Exorcist” while I listen to some of these arguments that we need to ban refugees from entering the United States of America.

Why?

Well, consider that our very founding occurred because Europeans sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to flee religious persecution. They came here, set up villages and encampments and eventually founded a secular government that expressly forbids the creation of a state-sponsored religion.

Our nation then grew. We received a statue in the late 1880s, erected it in New York harbor and welcomed more refugees to our land.

Throughout the centuries, refugees and other immigrants helped build the greatest country in world history. My four grandparents were among those who came here, not as refugees, but as immigrants looking to create better lives for themselves.

Now the discussion has devolved into whether we should accept refugees who are fleeing civil war in the Middle East. Many of us fear that those refugees will include terrorists burning with the desire to harm Americans.

I share the concern. Really, I do. However, I refuse to believe we should act fearfully. Yes, we need to be vigilant to protect our nation against those who seek to do harm. Then again, we’ve always had that concern. The United States — or any nation with an open-door policy toward immigrants — always has been vulnerable to attack from those posing as mere opportunity-seekers.

But are we a nation founded and built by immigrants that is now going to slam the door shut on those who still believe this is the Land of Opportunity?

I hope this is not what we’re becoming.

 

International news, media news

Good call on Person of Year, Time magazine

angela-merkel

OK, so Time didn’t pick Donald Trump as its Person of the Year after all.

Instead, the venerable magazine went with someone who’s actually accomplished something, been a force for positive change and has earned her spurs leading a continent that’s going through some monumental change.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel gets the nod as Person of the Year.

I am fascinated by Time’s description of her upbringing.

She grew up in East Germany, which used to call itself the “German Democratic Republic.” As Time notes, the communist-run dictatorship was neither “democratic” or a “republic.” It was run by tyrants. Thus, young Angela developed an early craving for freedom and liberty.

She and the rest of her country got it when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the communist dictatorship fell apart.

Merkel’s ascent to power was dramatic. Once there, she became Europe’s most powerful leader, which is saying something, given that the continent is populated by several powerful heads of government — such as the British prime minister and the president of France.

Check out this passage from Time’s article on the selection: “At a moment when much of the world is once more engaged in a furious debate about the balance between safety and freedom, the Chancellor is asking a great deal of the German people, and by their example, the rest of us as well. To be welcoming. To be unafraid. To believe that great civilizations build bridges, not walls, and that wars are won both on and off the battlefield. By viewing the refugees as victims to be rescued rather than invaders to be repelled, the woman raised behind the Iron Curtain gambled on freedom. The pastor’s daughter wielded mercy like a weapon.”

The reference here is to the refugee crisis exploding in the Middle East. Merkel has “wielded mercy like a weapon.”

Let’s pay attention on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

 

International news, military news

Women play key role in defending Israel

female pilots

This picture showed up on my Facebook news feed today and it brings to mind something I witnessed six years ago during a four-week tour of Israel.

Yes, more women fly F-16s than drive cars in Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to thrash Saudi cultural norms. I am, though, going to remember one of the major takeaways from my tour of Israel.

It is that the country must rely on every single able individual — men and women — who are able to serve in the armed forces.

Israel has a mandatory conscription law. If memory serves, men must serve three years in the military; women are called up for two. And, yes indeed, women are ordered to perform dangerous duty in defense of their country, such as flying high-performance tactical jet aircraft; for that matter, so are American women.

I arrived in Israel in early May 2009 as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange team. One of the first sites we visited was a military museum in Be’er Sheva, a modern city on the edge of the Judean Desert.

It was at that museum where we were told that enemy jets can cross the width of Israel in less than five minutes. The individual who told us that was a young woman who was serving in the Israeli air force.

Later on our tour, I stayed in the home of a family in Karmiel. One of my hosts was a young woman, the daughter of the couple who owned the home, who had just gotten out of the Israeli military. She informed me of her country’s insistence that all young people don the uniform of their country. Israel does grant religious exemptions to Hasidic Jews — which I also learned is a source of some tension among less-observant Israelis.

But the women of that small but mighty country are asked to step up and to do their part. Who should doubt that the entire country is on notice to serve? It comprises slightly more than 8,000 square miles; it is home to around 7 million residents. It is surrounded by nations with which it has gone to war multiple times since Israel’s founding in 1948.

Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. However, it holds the Golan Heights, which once belonged to Syria … and we all know what’s happening there.

It’s good to put some things in perspective as we consider the cost of war and whether we’re asking everyone to commit to its defense.

In Israel, such a commitment becomes essential for the embattled nation’s very survival.

International news, national news, political news

Refugees or criminals? Which is it?

immigration-9

One of my very best friends in the whole, wide world is a lawyer who lives in California.

I’ve known Tim Lundell since I was in high school. He was my best man and we’ve shared a lot of emotions over many years.

Tim posted this comment today on Facebook.

“Isn’t it funny? In Europe they have ‘desperate migrants, embarking on a perilous journey in search of a better life.’ Here, according to certain politicians, we have ‘illegal immigrants who rape and murder.’ I guess it’s just a matter of humanitarian perspective.”

The target of Tim’s barb, I’m certain, is Donald Trump, who’s gained considerable mileage over his rants about illegal immigrants who come to the United States from points south … meaning Mexico and beyond. Republican primary voters are eating this stuff up, giving Trump a tremendous boost in the current public opinion polling

I do not dispute the notion that some of those who come into this country without the proper documentation come here to do harm, just as Trump has said.

But many others do come here to seek a better life, just as those who are fleeing the Middle East and heading for places such as Greece, Italy, France and Germany are doing.

I’ll also acknowledge that the influx of immigrants into Europe has spawned a considerable backlash from right-wing extremists, who contend that the refugees present a considerable danger to the European way of life.

However, as we keep debating the issue of whether to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States, shouldn’t we keep in mind that many of them are here for the right reasons and are not here to commit crimes?

The blanket condemnation of illegal immigrants does not square with the reality of why many of them are here in the first place. They are here to make a better life for their families.

I am not suggesting they all should be granted amnesty, or that they shouldn’t be required to start the process of obtaining legal immigrant status.

Let us just try to understand that people come here for a lot of reasons — and many of them have no intention of committing crimes against the country they want to call home.

 

 

 

International news, local news, national news

Where is LBJ when you need him?

1 Comment

Barack H. Obama needs to channel Lyndon B. Johnson.

In a big way.

President Obama’s negotiating team — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — has just brokered a deal that cuts off Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

But not only are congressional Republicans opposed to the deal — which is no surprise in the least — but congressional Democrats appear to be skeptical of the deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/key-democrats-skeptical-of-iran-deal-120123.html?hp=t1_r

How does LBJ play into this? I’m trying to imagine congressional Democrats bucking ol’ Lyndon, who was legendary in his ability to cajole his former congressional colleagues into seeing things his way.

Vote with me, or else I’m going to make your life holy hell, he would tell friend and foe alike. There was not disputing LBJ’s sincerity. When he said he’d make congressmen and women’s lives uncomfortable, he meant it.

Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney, who is no slouch as a political observer, once told me he thought Obama’s greatest weakness as president was his lack of congressional relationships. He served only three years in the Senate before being elected president in 2008 and hadn’t built a large cache of friends on Capitol Hill upon whom he could depend when the going gets tough.

It’s going to get quite tough in the weeks ahead as the president seeks to sell the details of his Iran nuclear deal to members of both parties.

Imagine Democrats telling Lyndon Johnson that they’re skeptical of a deal negotiated by a presidential team of the same party.

As for President Obama’s efforts to sell this deal — which I believe has the potential for bringing a more comprehensive peace to the Middle East — well, good luck, Mr. President.

International news

Iran deal struck; now the fight begins

iran nuke deal

At some level, I totally understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suspicion of Iran.

When a country’s leader declares his mission to wipe your country off the map, you take such threats seriously. That’s what Iranian leaders have vowed to do to Israel.

Bibi doesn’t trust the Iranians as far as he can toss any of them.

However, is the deal struck with Iran by the United States and other world powers a waste of time and effort? I do not believe so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/us-world-powers-historic-deal-iran-120076.html?hp=rc1_4

They’ve reached a deal that — on paper — eliminates Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. In return, the world powers will lift the economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

That’s the deal breaker, according to critics in Washington — namely the Republican congressional leaders, who vow to kill the deal.

Hold on. There’s also language in the agreement that reserves the right to reinstate the sanctions if Iran reneges on any element of the deal. There also are inspection requirements that Iran will be forced to allow. Show us the progress you’re making, Iranian leaders, in dismantling your nuclear program … or else!

To no one’s surprise, the GOP presidential candidates vow to toss the deal into the trash if they’re elected president next year. For his part, President Obama remains confident that Congress would uphold a veto if he chooses to nix whatever moves the GOP makes to nix the agreement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-got-lawmakers-react-kill-deal-120083.html?hp=t1_r

Moreover, as is usually the case with the critics, they aren’t offering alternatives. All they’re saying is that they hate the deal. Democrats are leery, too. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland said: “It is in America’s national security interest that Iran is blocked from ever having a nuclear weapon. There is no trust when it comes to Iran.

Oh, and Netanyahu’s concern about his country’s security? Barack Obama has declared — for the umpteenth time — that the United States remains as committed as ever to protecting its strongest and most reliable Middle East ally. What more must the president do to persuade critics — on this issue — he means what he says?

Yes, the agreement is  historic. Let’s make it stick.

International news, Uncategorized

SCOTUS hands White House an unexpected victory

The Supreme Court has decided that the United States needs to remain neutral in an ancient debate over who controls one of the world’s holiest cities.

The issue is a passport and whether the parents of a child born in Jerusalem could put the word “Israel” on the document’s listing of one’s place of birth.

It’s kind of convoluted. The court — in a 6-3 decision — sided with the executive branch of government, which contended that “Jerusalem” should stand alone on passports, given the contentious nature of the debate over who actually controls the city.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-strikes-down-jerusalem-passport-law?cid=sm_fb_lastword

Longstanding policy had stated that passports marking the place of birth of those who hold them shouldn’t put Jerusalem in Israel, as it remains a key sticking point in the on-going dispute between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority.

The American citizens of a boy born in Jerusalem in 2002 wanted his passport to contain the word “Israel.” Congress enacted a bill declaring that birth certificates could identify the birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel if parents requested. President Bush signed the bill into law, but complained that it interfered with the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

The court sided with the executive branch.

I’ve been to Jerusalem. Much of it clearly is in Israel. The Israeli government has its capital there. However, the city also is divided by a large, forbidding wall, on the other side of which is the West Bank, governed by the Palestinian Authority.

The Supreme Court has decided correctly in not interfering in this most sensitive dispute.

As NBC News’s Pete Williams reported: “The administration, under presidents of both parities, has insisted that because sovereignty over Jerusalem is one of the major sticking points in any Middle East peace agreement, the U.S. would remain neutral. Being forced to say that Jerusalem was under the control of Israel, the idea went, would be taking sides.”

 

military news, national news, political news

‘Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war’

Wow!

Lindsey Graham today offered the most compelling campaign argument against his own candidacy I’ve ever heard.

The South Carolina Republican, who’s running for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination, said it flat out. “Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244022-graham-dont-vote-for-me-if-youre-anti-war

Well, senator, no worries there.

What he told “Morning Joe” on MSNBC is that he’s going to be the “war candidate.” He plans, if elected to the presidency, to send more troops into Iraq; he also plans to send troops into Syria; he plans to enlist Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and whichever other regional ally will join, to help American troops defeat the Islamic State and then keep the peace.

Oh, how long will they be there? “A long time,” he said.

There’s no exit strategy. No timetable. No end to the bloodshed.

Get ready for battle, he warned.

Oh, if you’re tired of fighting a war, don’t vote for me, he said.

No-o-o-o-o problem. You’ve got a deal, Sen. Graham.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal worth the gamble

The more I read about the Iran nuclear deal framework, the more inclined I am to give it a chance to work.

It’s not going to gather much support among Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. They’re going to oppose it no matter what, given that it was hammered out by a negotiating team sent to the bargaining table by President Barack Obama.

The Los Angeles Times has editorialized correctly that the framework requires some patience, but that it does hold the promise of making the Middle East safer.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran-nuclear-framework-20150403-story.html

The critical point, according to the Times, lies in the verification process.

Nuclear agency officials will have ample opportunity to ensure that Iran complies with its pledge to reduce its centrifuges. Iran also has agreed to limits on its enrichment of uranium. The economic sanctions? They’ll remain until Iran complies. If it doesn’t, the sanctions remain.

That won’t stop congressional Republicans from a knee-jerk opposition to the agreement. They are dead set against this deal. Their reasons baffle me. They use fiery demagoguery language by referring to the U.S.-led negotiating team to the “appeasers” who gave Europe away to Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

How about settling down?

This framework could fall apart. There remain a lot of details to work out. Absent a binding agreement, Iran will be free to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon as it sees fit. What then? Do we bomb them? Do we start a war in the Middle East? Do we really want to let the bombs fly, putting the entire region at risk?

The agreement needs a chance to work.