Zarin Ahmad
In June 2014, history repeated itself when three Muslims were killed and over 50 injured in Aluthgama, Sri Lanka. Almost 100 years ago, in May 1915, communal violence erupted between Sinhala Buddhists and Muslims in Kandy, Sri Lanka.
The 1915 riot was a spontaneous expression of deep economic hostilities with Muslim traders. This time the island’s Muslim community finds itself at the receiving
end of a concerted and well thought-out attack by the jubilant Sinhala-Buddhists in a post-war Sri Lanka. The militant Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), an off-shoot of another hard-line Sinhala organisation the Jathika Hela
Urumaya (JHU) is spearheading a movement against Muslims. Over the past two years, the BBS has organised a systematic and structured attack on Muslim
places of worship, dress-code, dietary practices, and business establishments. In February 2013, the BBS went on an aggressive campaign against ‘halal’
certification of foods that follow Islamic dietary guidelines. Later, the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama withdrew the ‘halal’ certification in the domestic market
‘in the interest of peace’. Soon after, the Islamic dress- code of the ‘abaya’ became the new bone of contention and drew the ire and disdain of the BBS. Since 2012, the
BBS has been distributing pamphlets to discourage people from buying products from Muslim-owned establishments.
Why has there been this aggressive campaign against Muslims, and what has been the Muslim response in the island’s politics? The answer lies in the island’s
complex political history. Muslim identity in Sri Lanka grew within and as a result of competing Sinhala and Tamil identity assertions. Muslims are the third largest
community in the island-nation. According to the 2011 census, they constitute 9.7 per cent of the country’s population. Despite a sizeable number, they are scattered across the country, particularly in the eastern
province, and in Colombo. Ethnically they comprise Sri Lankan Moors, Indian Moors, Malays, Memons and Bohras. The term ‘Moor’ was used by the Portuguese,
and later the Dutch, to refer to Muslims of mixed Arab origin living in the coastal cities of Sri Lanka. A majority of the island’s Muslims claim their ancestral connection to Arab maritime traders – that predates the
birth of Islam. Except southern Muslims who are bilingual (i.e they speak Tamil and Sinhala), Muslims are predominantly Tamil-speaking. In a country sharply divided along linguistic lines, they formed an identity on the basis of religion.
Due to a history of persecution (under Portuguese and Dutch rules from the 1600s to the beginning of the 1900s), scattered geography, and competing Sinhala
and Tamil nationalisms, Muslims have by and large maintained a low-profile in the complex dynamics of the island’s politics. However, in the 1980s, when the fight
for a Tamil homeland was happening literally in their backyard, Muslims could not remain out of the fray.
They opposed a merger of Northern and Eastern Provinces fearing that they would become a ‘minority within a minority’.
They demanded that the predominantly Muslim areas in the Eastern Province should be linked together as a single political and administrative entity. This was also the period when their political and electoral identity crystallised with the formation of the island’s first effective Muslim political party, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) under the aegis of the late MHM Ashraff. Socially, Muslims expressed an identity based on their religion to distinguish themselves from Tamils.
However, despite being geo-politically located in the locus of the war, Muslims did not resort to militancy like their Tamil counterparts. In the immediate post-war political dynamics, the SLMC initially supported the opposition coalition. However, the lasting impact of the total obliteration of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 and the
overwhelming electoral victories of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) hereafter put minorities, particularly Muslims, on the political back foot and an
end to a viable opposition. The SLMC joined the ruling coalition in 2010.
This brings us back to our initial question – why is there a systematic attack against Sri Lankan Muslims? First, this could be yet another reflection of rising Islamophobia in the Indian Ocean region as asserted by
Justice Minister and SLMC leader, Rauf Hakeem.
Second, the demographic number game has been critical in Sri Lankan politics. The 2011 census indicated a positive curve in the Muslim population. This growth is
perceived as an upsurge of growing Muslim domination. Third, the military victory over the LTTE in 2009 gave the Sinhala Buddhist hardliners a strong ‘imagined’ sense of preserving the ‘homeland’ for themselves.
In a much delayed response to the riots of June 2014, Hakeem threatened Muslim radicalisation and claimed that Sri Lanka could become a fertile ground for 'outside' forces. Going by the history of Sri Lankan
Muslims, this may well be another strong statement by the SLMC to assert to its electorate that it is the only party that stands up for Muslim rights. But what is
more disturbing is the growing latent hostility in a section of the majority mind-set.
25 Jul 2014
SRI LANKA AND MYANMAR: UNDERSTANDING THE RISE OF BUDDHIST RADICALISM
Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy
Over the past three years, there has been an evident surge of Buddhist radicalism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, with the clergy being increasingly involved in violence
against minorities, especially Muslims. Both countries have sizeable Muslim populations, and while the situation in Myanmar is the worse of the two, Sri Lanka
is not too far behind.
The general deduction is that the current state-of- affairs is a consequence of paranoia over losing one’s culture, Islamophobia, and a typical assertion of the
majority over the minority. However, there must also be a closer examination. How did the practitioners of Buddhism – widely perceived as the most peaceful religion in the world – come to resort to violence? Given how a majority of victims in both countries have been Muslims, how much of a role has Islamophobia played?
Is there a non-theological reason for the proliferation of religious violence?
The Situation Today In Myanmar, a large section of the society comprises monks, given the large-scale enlisting to monasteries that took place during the Junta years. The clergy holds a moral high ground in Myanmarese society, and has a
strong social standing. Throughout the decades of military dictatorship, Myanmar’s clergy fought another issue – the high global attrition rate among schools of
Theravada Buddhism. Therefore, protecting the culture became the mainstay, and, knowingly and/or unknowingly, aided the cultivation of non-violent radicalisation among the monks. When this met
Islamophobia, it resulted in a violent campaign against 400,000 Rohingya Muslims. Naypyidaw could have
easily intervened but it has its own agenda: to wash its hands off the economic costs of providing for thousands of people when its resource basket is already heavily strained. There is a strong ethnic bias element too.
Rohingyas do not find favour with the Rakhine Buddhists for their ethnic origins, and given their Muslim faith, Islamophobia has been a side-effect.This, combined with the high social position occupied by the
clergy, has resulted in a plausible tacit deal.
In Sri Lanka, action and literature against religious minorities began 40 years ago, soon after the government decided to stop funding the Sangha.
Although the victims were not Muslims alone at the start, since the early 2000s, the focus of violent Buddhist radical actions has been Sri Lanka’s Muslim population.
In Sri Lanka, three key ethnicities are identified: Sinhalas, Tamils and Muslims. This makes it evident that despite being a religious and not an ethnic construct, Muslims (who have ancestral links to Arab
traders, Tamils, and Malays) are considered to be of another ethnicity – one that is identified by the their religious faith. However, the Sri Lankan Buddhist radical
clergy does not target Muslims alone. They began by targeting minorities, and with increasing Islamophobia, they have concentrated their attacks primarily on
Muslims. In Sri Lanka, almost all political parties have monks in their membership. The monks’ entry into the political arena they otherwise shunned began just before
World War II, and has today become a part of Sri Lankan politics. Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Situational Differences The basic difference in the nature of nexus between the Buddhist clergy and the political class in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is that in Myanmar, the clergy has strong socio-political standing and cannot be ignored, and is therefore co-opted; and in Sri Lanka, the clergy – fairly strong but one that is also influenced by modern Sinhala nationalist ideology – is used by the political class as pawns during election campaigns and/or
employed to legitimise various government decisions.
However, the split that the Sri Lankan Sangha went through, over three decades ago, resulted in the fragmentation of the clergy. With no direct material support from the government, each group tries to outdo the other to ensure funding that is provided only by wealthy benefactors – who fund only the most radical groups.
In Myanmar, the Buddhist clergy is united and has an upper hand to an extent – or at least an even hand – and the government is in a quid pro quo arrangement with them to secure their individual interests. In Sri
Lanka, the Buddhist clergy is becoming increasingly radicalised due to competition for sources of funds – a problem that arose primarily due to ideological differences in the Sangha itself and its implications on
political preferences – and the government’s use of the monks for political benefit. Furthermore, in Myanmar, violence against Rohingya Muslims has a lot to do with their ethnic and historical Bengali origins than their faith alone while that is not the case in Sri Lanka.
There are indeed several other factors at play in Sri Lanka, such as the 2004 Anti-Conversion Bill, and the politics and politicisation of the Ministry of Buddha
Sasana, among others, and in Myanmar, its citizenship laws. Understanding the core differences between what is unfolding in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is crucial therefore to develop custom-made solutions for each.
Evidently, the central factor sustaining these crises is money and/or the lack of it. Financial factors being the bulwark for the sustenance of violence only means it will
be easier to resolve than if it were purely ideological.
Over the past three years, there has been an evident surge of Buddhist radicalism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, with the clergy being increasingly involved in violence
against minorities, especially Muslims. Both countries have sizeable Muslim populations, and while the situation in Myanmar is the worse of the two, Sri Lanka
is not too far behind.
The general deduction is that the current state-of- affairs is a consequence of paranoia over losing one’s culture, Islamophobia, and a typical assertion of the
majority over the minority. However, there must also be a closer examination. How did the practitioners of Buddhism – widely perceived as the most peaceful religion in the world – come to resort to violence? Given how a majority of victims in both countries have been Muslims, how much of a role has Islamophobia played?
Is there a non-theological reason for the proliferation of religious violence?
The Situation Today In Myanmar, a large section of the society comprises monks, given the large-scale enlisting to monasteries that took place during the Junta years. The clergy holds a moral high ground in Myanmarese society, and has a
strong social standing. Throughout the decades of military dictatorship, Myanmar’s clergy fought another issue – the high global attrition rate among schools of
Theravada Buddhism. Therefore, protecting the culture became the mainstay, and, knowingly and/or unknowingly, aided the cultivation of non-violent radicalisation among the monks. When this met
Islamophobia, it resulted in a violent campaign against 400,000 Rohingya Muslims. Naypyidaw could have
easily intervened but it has its own agenda: to wash its hands off the economic costs of providing for thousands of people when its resource basket is already heavily strained. There is a strong ethnic bias element too.
Rohingyas do not find favour with the Rakhine Buddhists for their ethnic origins, and given their Muslim faith, Islamophobia has been a side-effect.This, combined with the high social position occupied by the
clergy, has resulted in a plausible tacit deal.
In Sri Lanka, action and literature against religious minorities began 40 years ago, soon after the government decided to stop funding the Sangha.
Although the victims were not Muslims alone at the start, since the early 2000s, the focus of violent Buddhist radical actions has been Sri Lanka’s Muslim population.
In Sri Lanka, three key ethnicities are identified: Sinhalas, Tamils and Muslims. This makes it evident that despite being a religious and not an ethnic construct, Muslims (who have ancestral links to Arab
traders, Tamils, and Malays) are considered to be of another ethnicity – one that is identified by the their religious faith. However, the Sri Lankan Buddhist radical
clergy does not target Muslims alone. They began by targeting minorities, and with increasing Islamophobia, they have concentrated their attacks primarily on
Muslims. In Sri Lanka, almost all political parties have monks in their membership. The monks’ entry into the political arena they otherwise shunned began just before
World War II, and has today become a part of Sri Lankan politics. Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Situational Differences The basic difference in the nature of nexus between the Buddhist clergy and the political class in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is that in Myanmar, the clergy has strong socio-political standing and cannot be ignored, and is therefore co-opted; and in Sri Lanka, the clergy – fairly strong but one that is also influenced by modern Sinhala nationalist ideology – is used by the political class as pawns during election campaigns and/or
employed to legitimise various government decisions.
However, the split that the Sri Lankan Sangha went through, over three decades ago, resulted in the fragmentation of the clergy. With no direct material support from the government, each group tries to outdo the other to ensure funding that is provided only by wealthy benefactors – who fund only the most radical groups.
In Myanmar, the Buddhist clergy is united and has an upper hand to an extent – or at least an even hand – and the government is in a quid pro quo arrangement with them to secure their individual interests. In Sri
Lanka, the Buddhist clergy is becoming increasingly radicalised due to competition for sources of funds – a problem that arose primarily due to ideological differences in the Sangha itself and its implications on
political preferences – and the government’s use of the monks for political benefit. Furthermore, in Myanmar, violence against Rohingya Muslims has a lot to do with their ethnic and historical Bengali origins than their faith alone while that is not the case in Sri Lanka.
There are indeed several other factors at play in Sri Lanka, such as the 2004 Anti-Conversion Bill, and the politics and politicisation of the Ministry of Buddha
Sasana, among others, and in Myanmar, its citizenship laws. Understanding the core differences between what is unfolding in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is crucial therefore to develop custom-made solutions for each.
Evidently, the central factor sustaining these crises is money and/or the lack of it. Financial factors being the bulwark for the sustenance of violence only means it will
be easier to resolve than if it were purely ideological.
COMBATING MAOISM: LESSONS FROM JHARKHAND
Saneya Arif
According to the Jharkhand assessment 2014 report by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) data base, Jharkhand today stands second, after Andhra Pradesh,
in countering Maoism in the country.This commentary tries to analyse the positive changes that shows a decline in Maoism in the state, changes in the central government’s policy responsible for the aforementioned achievement, and the lessons that other states of India
can learn from Jharkhand to combat Maoism in their states.
What are the positive changes?
According to the SATP assessment, the figures show that the total number of Maoist related incidents in the state has come down to 4 incidents in 2014 from 383
incidents in 2013. No death has been recorded among the civilians and security force personnel in the current year. In 2013, the deaths stood at 120 and 30 respectively. There has also been a decrease in the
number of Maoist deaths, which has come down to 2 deaths in 2014 from 12 in 2013.
The report also records that Maoist attacks on economic targets such as railways, telephone exchanges, mines, transmission poles, panchayat bhawans and school buildings have also reduced, which
testify that Maoists have not been involved in any major incidents in Jharkhand after 2013. According to former Director General of Police (DGP) GS Rath, the police force in Jharkhand today has the greatest number of
mine resistant vehicles, which has helped in bringing down the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) killings due to land mines laid by Maoist outfits. Electoral success in the state allegedly owes much to the nexus
between politicians and Maoists, which has also contributed to Maoist mainstreaming. Publicly, however, politicians present an anti-Maoist agenda, as observed by Professor BK Sinha of the Political Science
department of St Xavier’s College, Ranchi. During election season, Maoists release statements about not voting, which prompt the politicians to initiate bargaining with them.
What changes in central government policy could have led to this success?
In 2006, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Maoism the biggest challenge to India’s internal security. He stated that any development in tribal areas must also ensure that the tribal population has a stake
in it, even after it has been adequately compensated for displacement. Jharkhand, after Andhra Pradesh, has been the only state to take this very seriously. Soon
after, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) was implemented in Jharkhand. It ensured
rights over minor forest produce to Gram Sabhas and removed interference by the government departments.
The government of Jharkhand has also achieved remarkable success in persuading around a dozen hardcore Maoists to join mainstream society by ensuring their rehabilitation through the programme,
Nayi Disha. According to Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Pravin Kumar, the volume of CRPF deployment in Jharkhand, which used to be three battalions six years
ago, has today increased to fourteen battalions.
According to him, the state government has taken the setting up of a unified command for joint action against Maoism seriously. Even the funds received under the
integrated action plan (IAP) for development in the Maoism-affected areas in Jharkhand have been fully utilised.
What lesson can other states learn from the Jharkhand experience?
Other Maoists-affected states can learn valuable lessons from operation Anaconda conducted by the state in Saranda forest. Paramilitary forces established camps here for the first time. In Saranda, massive
recoveries were made and at least five Maoist training camps were busted. As a result, the outfit was disbanded and all senior leaders left the area. Similar
camps were also established near the Chandwa- Daltenganj route and with a similar level of success.
Furthermore, the government of Jharkhand has laid stress on police modernisation. It strengthened its intelligence, granted promotions to personnel, imparted
training and strengthened police stations in affected areas, all of which also brought down the number of kangaroo courts operating in the area.
According to the Jharkhand assessment 2014 report by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) data base, Jharkhand today stands second, after Andhra Pradesh,
in countering Maoism in the country.This commentary tries to analyse the positive changes that shows a decline in Maoism in the state, changes in the central government’s policy responsible for the aforementioned achievement, and the lessons that other states of India
can learn from Jharkhand to combat Maoism in their states.
What are the positive changes?
According to the SATP assessment, the figures show that the total number of Maoist related incidents in the state has come down to 4 incidents in 2014 from 383
incidents in 2013. No death has been recorded among the civilians and security force personnel in the current year. In 2013, the deaths stood at 120 and 30 respectively. There has also been a decrease in the
number of Maoist deaths, which has come down to 2 deaths in 2014 from 12 in 2013.
The report also records that Maoist attacks on economic targets such as railways, telephone exchanges, mines, transmission poles, panchayat bhawans and school buildings have also reduced, which
testify that Maoists have not been involved in any major incidents in Jharkhand after 2013. According to former Director General of Police (DGP) GS Rath, the police force in Jharkhand today has the greatest number of
mine resistant vehicles, which has helped in bringing down the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) killings due to land mines laid by Maoist outfits. Electoral success in the state allegedly owes much to the nexus
between politicians and Maoists, which has also contributed to Maoist mainstreaming. Publicly, however, politicians present an anti-Maoist agenda, as observed by Professor BK Sinha of the Political Science
department of St Xavier’s College, Ranchi. During election season, Maoists release statements about not voting, which prompt the politicians to initiate bargaining with them.
What changes in central government policy could have led to this success?
In 2006, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Maoism the biggest challenge to India’s internal security. He stated that any development in tribal areas must also ensure that the tribal population has a stake
in it, even after it has been adequately compensated for displacement. Jharkhand, after Andhra Pradesh, has been the only state to take this very seriously. Soon
after, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) was implemented in Jharkhand. It ensured
rights over minor forest produce to Gram Sabhas and removed interference by the government departments.
The government of Jharkhand has also achieved remarkable success in persuading around a dozen hardcore Maoists to join mainstream society by ensuring their rehabilitation through the programme,
Nayi Disha. According to Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Pravin Kumar, the volume of CRPF deployment in Jharkhand, which used to be three battalions six years
ago, has today increased to fourteen battalions.
According to him, the state government has taken the setting up of a unified command for joint action against Maoism seriously. Even the funds received under the
integrated action plan (IAP) for development in the Maoism-affected areas in Jharkhand have been fully utilised.
What lesson can other states learn from the Jharkhand experience?
Other Maoists-affected states can learn valuable lessons from operation Anaconda conducted by the state in Saranda forest. Paramilitary forces established camps here for the first time. In Saranda, massive
recoveries were made and at least five Maoist training camps were busted. As a result, the outfit was disbanded and all senior leaders left the area. Similar
camps were also established near the Chandwa- Daltenganj route and with a similar level of success.
Furthermore, the government of Jharkhand has laid stress on police modernisation. It strengthened its intelligence, granted promotions to personnel, imparted
training and strengthened police stations in affected areas, all of which also brought down the number of kangaroo courts operating in the area.
CAN IRAQ DISINTEGRATION BE PREVENTED?
KP Fabian
At present, it is difficult to see how the ongoing implosion of Iraq can be stalled and reversed. The world started taking note of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who
has been declared as ‘caliph’ of an ‘Islamic State’ claiming sovereignty over a stretch of territory from Aleppo in north-western Syria to Diyala in north-eastern Iraq only when Mosul fell on June 20. But, his forces
had taken over Raqqa, Syria, in March 2013, and Falluja, Iraq, in January 2014.
ISIL, a breakaway group from al Qaeda in Iraq, is basically a part of the Sunni Resistance to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US had made
unsuccessful, half-hearted, and not always judicious attempts to build an Iraq that could accommodate the three main groups: the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. But, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who took
office in 2006 with support from the US and Iran carried out a policy of alienating the Sunnis and the Kurds. His reckless partisan policies created the conditions for the emergence of a formation called Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) to grow and derive support from the Sunni population.
Once the situation in Syria was found favorable, the ISI extended its operations to Syria and changed its name to the ISIL. Levant essentially comprises Syria, Jordan,
pre-Israel Palestine, and Lebanon.
The ISIL has approximately $2 billion, weapons mainly of US origin, and many of their men are in US army combat uniforms, even with interceptor body armour. They have Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters. Their manpower comprises young men from Chechnya, UK, France, Jordan and elsewhere who have joined them,
reminiscent of the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.
While the ‘caliphate’ might not have the strength to take over Baghdad, the fact remains that it will be enormously difficult for the government in Baghdad, under al-Maliki or his successor, to recapture the
territory already under the control of the ‘caliphate’.
This means there is already a Sunnistan in Iraq with a part of Syria also in it. The Kurds spread across Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran number about 30 million. They have their national ambitions. Saladin the Great who fought the Christians during the Crusades and captured Jerusalem in 1187
was a Kurd. After World War I, the Kurds were promised autonomy under the Treaty of Sevres (1920), but it was never implemented. Following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the US imposed a no-fly zone in Iraqi Kurdistan enabling the Kurds to progressively assert independence
from Saddam Hussein’s central government in Baghdad. Under the US occupation, Iraqi Kurds gained further and the current constitution provides for virtual autonomy.
There is much tension with al-Maliki who has withheld money from the regional government that dug a pipe line to Ceyhan in Turkey to sell oil, without permission.
The first tanker reached Israel recently.
Since the 1960s, Israel has been cultivating the Kurds and now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly endorsed an independent state for Iraqi Kurds.
They might hold a referendum soon on independence.
The main reason the US has sent military to Iraq is to ensure safety of its embassy. US President Barack Obama does not want a repeat of the humiliating helicopter escape of its ambassador from Saigon in 1975. If Baghdad witnesses carnage with Sunnis and Shias killing each other, it will reflect badly on Obama’s performance as commander in chief. The US might not
mind a disintegrated Iraq in the long run. Iran too might conclude that it is not worth sacrificing men and money to retain Iraq as a single entity. Thus, Iraq might have a
Kurdistan, one or more Sunnistans, and a Shiistan. The Shiistan will remain Iran’s protectorate.
The Arab Spring, when it started in 2011 as a move towards democracy, did not affect India’s interests adversely. India had reasons to welcome a move towards democracy. But when the Spring lost its way, except in Tunisia, and political instability with civil war fuelled by extremist violence and ideology set in, India
realised that it had reasons to worry on many counts. First, there are over 7 million Indians in the Arab world, most of them in the Gulf where currently there is no
political instability. The difficulty in arranging for evacuation of 44 nurses from Kerala held up in Tikrit is an example of the problems to be confronted from time
to time. India did arrange for evacuating 176,000 of its nationals from Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-1991. Second, the oil prices have shot up forcing an increase in petrol
prices, boosting inflation. Third, the worsening Shia- Sunni tension can have an adverse impact on the two groups who have hitherto lived in peace in India. There
are reports of some young Shia men wanting to go to Iraq. The government should be able to prevent them from going.
India has no means of influencing the course of events in Iraq or Syria, but that is not exactly India's fault as external intervention has so far only aggravated the
crisis. There are about ten thousand Indians in Iraq with the majority in Kurdistan and Basra. Fortunately, there is no immediate danger to them.
At present, it is difficult to see how the ongoing implosion of Iraq can be stalled and reversed. The world started taking note of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who
has been declared as ‘caliph’ of an ‘Islamic State’ claiming sovereignty over a stretch of territory from Aleppo in north-western Syria to Diyala in north-eastern Iraq only when Mosul fell on June 20. But, his forces
had taken over Raqqa, Syria, in March 2013, and Falluja, Iraq, in January 2014.
ISIL, a breakaway group from al Qaeda in Iraq, is basically a part of the Sunni Resistance to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US had made
unsuccessful, half-hearted, and not always judicious attempts to build an Iraq that could accommodate the three main groups: the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. But, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who took
office in 2006 with support from the US and Iran carried out a policy of alienating the Sunnis and the Kurds. His reckless partisan policies created the conditions for the emergence of a formation called Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) to grow and derive support from the Sunni population.
Once the situation in Syria was found favorable, the ISI extended its operations to Syria and changed its name to the ISIL. Levant essentially comprises Syria, Jordan,
pre-Israel Palestine, and Lebanon.
The ISIL has approximately $2 billion, weapons mainly of US origin, and many of their men are in US army combat uniforms, even with interceptor body armour. They have Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters. Their manpower comprises young men from Chechnya, UK, France, Jordan and elsewhere who have joined them,
reminiscent of the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.
While the ‘caliphate’ might not have the strength to take over Baghdad, the fact remains that it will be enormously difficult for the government in Baghdad, under al-Maliki or his successor, to recapture the
territory already under the control of the ‘caliphate’.
This means there is already a Sunnistan in Iraq with a part of Syria also in it. The Kurds spread across Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran number about 30 million. They have their national ambitions. Saladin the Great who fought the Christians during the Crusades and captured Jerusalem in 1187
was a Kurd. After World War I, the Kurds were promised autonomy under the Treaty of Sevres (1920), but it was never implemented. Following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the US imposed a no-fly zone in Iraqi Kurdistan enabling the Kurds to progressively assert independence
from Saddam Hussein’s central government in Baghdad. Under the US occupation, Iraqi Kurds gained further and the current constitution provides for virtual autonomy.
There is much tension with al-Maliki who has withheld money from the regional government that dug a pipe line to Ceyhan in Turkey to sell oil, without permission.
The first tanker reached Israel recently.
Since the 1960s, Israel has been cultivating the Kurds and now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly endorsed an independent state for Iraqi Kurds.
They might hold a referendum soon on independence.
The main reason the US has sent military to Iraq is to ensure safety of its embassy. US President Barack Obama does not want a repeat of the humiliating helicopter escape of its ambassador from Saigon in 1975. If Baghdad witnesses carnage with Sunnis and Shias killing each other, it will reflect badly on Obama’s performance as commander in chief. The US might not
mind a disintegrated Iraq in the long run. Iran too might conclude that it is not worth sacrificing men and money to retain Iraq as a single entity. Thus, Iraq might have a
Kurdistan, one or more Sunnistans, and a Shiistan. The Shiistan will remain Iran’s protectorate.
The Arab Spring, when it started in 2011 as a move towards democracy, did not affect India’s interests adversely. India had reasons to welcome a move towards democracy. But when the Spring lost its way, except in Tunisia, and political instability with civil war fuelled by extremist violence and ideology set in, India
realised that it had reasons to worry on many counts. First, there are over 7 million Indians in the Arab world, most of them in the Gulf where currently there is no
political instability. The difficulty in arranging for evacuation of 44 nurses from Kerala held up in Tikrit is an example of the problems to be confronted from time
to time. India did arrange for evacuating 176,000 of its nationals from Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-1991. Second, the oil prices have shot up forcing an increase in petrol
prices, boosting inflation. Third, the worsening Shia- Sunni tension can have an adverse impact on the two groups who have hitherto lived in peace in India. There
are reports of some young Shia men wanting to go to Iraq. The government should be able to prevent them from going.
India has no means of influencing the course of events in Iraq or Syria, but that is not exactly India's fault as external intervention has so far only aggravated the
crisis. There are about ten thousand Indians in Iraq with the majority in Kurdistan and Basra. Fortunately, there is no immediate danger to them.
INDIA: XVII MOUNTAIN CORPS
Amit Saksena
On 1 January 2014, the flag of the newly sanctioned XVII Corps was hoisted at its interim headquarters in Ranchi, which kick-started the process of fielding a
credible Indian deterrent force on the Northeastern front, from Arunachal Pradesh to Ladakh in Jammu &
Kashmir. In a largely Pakistan-centric architecture of troop distribution, this Mountain Strike Corps (MSC) is the first China-oriented offensive formation to be
deployed by India. However, based on the Indian experience in weapon procurement, as well as the disjointed collaboration between auxiliary agencies, the viability of this endeavour is doubtful. The feasibility of playing catch-up, at the expense of modernisation and strategic development on other fronts, must be validated
by the Government of India.
Fiscal Constraints Monetary apprehension is a very strong factor against the operationalisation of this corps, and an analysis of the 2014-15 defense budget validate these concerns.
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) has reportedly commissioned a massive INR 64,000 crore over the next 7 financial years to float the MSC. This fund will cover all the major expenses of the project, from infrastructure to recruitment and logistical
expenditure of the additional 80,000 troops that the Army intends to commit to this corps. With an alarmingly high revenue expenditure (almost 82 per cent) vis-Ã -vis its existing force of 12,00,000 troops, the
addition of a further 80,000 troops will send the fiscal budget through the ceiling. Out of the INR 73,444 crore capital allocation for the three forces, 96 per cent has already been earmarked for installments on previous purchases, leaving a meager INR 2955 crore free for new acquisitions. Compared to the annualINR 8,000 crore needed to float the MSC, there is no overt
indication of where the rest of the money is coming from.
Logistical Development and Topographical Constraints Till very recently, one of the major stumbling blocks in military infrastructure development along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been the delay in environmental clearance. This project will require close collaboration between the Ministries of Finance and Environment, the Border Roads Organisation, and the Indian Army and Air Force (IAF). It should be noted that China presently fields five fully-operational airbases, an extensive rail network and over 58,000 km of roads in
the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). This allows Beijing to move over 30 divisions (each with over 15,000 soldiers) to the LAC, outnumbering Indian forces by at least 3:1.
In addition to the roads, the Army and the Air Force will require credible contractors to take on the task of building and developing military-centric installments in
the region. High-altitude bases for light and stationary artillery, barracks for troops, ammunition, intelligence and logistics nodes, and training centres will have to be
developed. The inhospitable weather conditions in which contractors may be unwilling to work can prove to be a
serious roadblock. For instance, since 2009 the IAF has been trying to recruit contractors for upgrading the
existing Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) along the Chinese border, with no success.
Empowering the Mountain Strike Corps
India, despite being the largest importer of defense equipment, does not have an ironed-out procurement policy. The military industrial complex in India fares
worse than most other countries.
A Hasty Decision? Many strategists and defense personnel have noted the
impetuous nature of the decision to instate a MSC. If Chinese incursions have acted as a catalyst for raising this strike corps, then the government should have better evaluated other alternatives before making this decision. As articulated by Rear Adm (Retd) K Raja Menon, “A geographically limited one axis offensive will not destabilise the PLA, but a flotilla of nuclear
submarines and a three carrier air group in the Indian Ocean can economically cripple mainland China.”
Another concern is the increasingly ‘infantry heavy’ nature of the Indian Army. Most major militaries of the world today are concentrating on modernisation efforts
rather than adding extra boots on the ground. In the last three decades, the PLA has reduced and restructured its divisional formations to slash troop count by almost half. The Ministry of Defense’s ambitious Future-Infantry Soldier as a System (F-
INSAS) programme initiated in 2007 is past its 2013 deadline as the government continues to spend on projects such as the MSC.
Indeed, looking ahead, a conventional war between India and China in the future appears to be a unlikely prospect. China recently overtook the UAE as India’s
largest economic partner, with bilateral trade reaching US$49.5 billion halfway through the 2013-14 fiscal year. Both India and China also have in place countless
bilateral treaties, and are collaborators in many international forums on economic development and scientific research. A border dispute spawning into a war would be detrimental to both. In the same vein, the concept of a MSC against China is a necessary routine threat assessment exercise, and should go forward.
What is paramount to this endeavour is a clear and transparent synergy of all the involved parties, and a well-structured, time-stamped blueprint for its successful implementation and operationalisation.
On 1 January 2014, the flag of the newly sanctioned XVII Corps was hoisted at its interim headquarters in Ranchi, which kick-started the process of fielding a
credible Indian deterrent force on the Northeastern front, from Arunachal Pradesh to Ladakh in Jammu &
Kashmir. In a largely Pakistan-centric architecture of troop distribution, this Mountain Strike Corps (MSC) is the first China-oriented offensive formation to be
deployed by India. However, based on the Indian experience in weapon procurement, as well as the disjointed collaboration between auxiliary agencies, the viability of this endeavour is doubtful. The feasibility of playing catch-up, at the expense of modernisation and strategic development on other fronts, must be validated
by the Government of India.
Fiscal Constraints Monetary apprehension is a very strong factor against the operationalisation of this corps, and an analysis of the 2014-15 defense budget validate these concerns.
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) has reportedly commissioned a massive INR 64,000 crore over the next 7 financial years to float the MSC. This fund will cover all the major expenses of the project, from infrastructure to recruitment and logistical
expenditure of the additional 80,000 troops that the Army intends to commit to this corps. With an alarmingly high revenue expenditure (almost 82 per cent) vis-Ã -vis its existing force of 12,00,000 troops, the
addition of a further 80,000 troops will send the fiscal budget through the ceiling. Out of the INR 73,444 crore capital allocation for the three forces, 96 per cent has already been earmarked for installments on previous purchases, leaving a meager INR 2955 crore free for new acquisitions. Compared to the annualINR 8,000 crore needed to float the MSC, there is no overt
indication of where the rest of the money is coming from.
Logistical Development and Topographical Constraints Till very recently, one of the major stumbling blocks in military infrastructure development along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been the delay in environmental clearance. This project will require close collaboration between the Ministries of Finance and Environment, the Border Roads Organisation, and the Indian Army and Air Force (IAF). It should be noted that China presently fields five fully-operational airbases, an extensive rail network and over 58,000 km of roads in
the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). This allows Beijing to move over 30 divisions (each with over 15,000 soldiers) to the LAC, outnumbering Indian forces by at least 3:1.
In addition to the roads, the Army and the Air Force will require credible contractors to take on the task of building and developing military-centric installments in
the region. High-altitude bases for light and stationary artillery, barracks for troops, ammunition, intelligence and logistics nodes, and training centres will have to be
developed. The inhospitable weather conditions in which contractors may be unwilling to work can prove to be a
serious roadblock. For instance, since 2009 the IAF has been trying to recruit contractors for upgrading the
existing Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) along the Chinese border, with no success.
Empowering the Mountain Strike Corps
India, despite being the largest importer of defense equipment, does not have an ironed-out procurement policy. The military industrial complex in India fares
worse than most other countries.
A Hasty Decision? Many strategists and defense personnel have noted the
impetuous nature of the decision to instate a MSC. If Chinese incursions have acted as a catalyst for raising this strike corps, then the government should have better evaluated other alternatives before making this decision. As articulated by Rear Adm (Retd) K Raja Menon, “A geographically limited one axis offensive will not destabilise the PLA, but a flotilla of nuclear
submarines and a three carrier air group in the Indian Ocean can economically cripple mainland China.”
Another concern is the increasingly ‘infantry heavy’ nature of the Indian Army. Most major militaries of the world today are concentrating on modernisation efforts
rather than adding extra boots on the ground. In the last three decades, the PLA has reduced and restructured its divisional formations to slash troop count by almost half. The Ministry of Defense’s ambitious Future-Infantry Soldier as a System (F-
INSAS) programme initiated in 2007 is past its 2013 deadline as the government continues to spend on projects such as the MSC.
Indeed, looking ahead, a conventional war between India and China in the future appears to be a unlikely prospect. China recently overtook the UAE as India’s
largest economic partner, with bilateral trade reaching US$49.5 billion halfway through the 2013-14 fiscal year. Both India and China also have in place countless
bilateral treaties, and are collaborators in many international forums on economic development and scientific research. A border dispute spawning into a war would be detrimental to both. In the same vein, the concept of a MSC against China is a necessary routine threat assessment exercise, and should go forward.
What is paramount to this endeavour is a clear and transparent synergy of all the involved parties, and a well-structured, time-stamped blueprint for its successful implementation and operationalisation.
22 Jul 2014
THE DAY OF THE HAWK
Pat Buchanan
The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie
was premeditated mass murder. Gadhafi was taking revenge for Reagan's raid on Tripoli in 1986.
The downing of KAL 007, flying from
Anchorage to Seoul, was mass murder in thebsecond degree. Seeing an aircraft intrude into Russian air space, Soviet officers brutally ordered it shot down.
The downing of the Malaysian airliner that
took the lives of 298 men, women and
children was not deliberate terrorism. No one wanted to massacre those women and
children.
It was a horrendous military blunder, like the U.S. shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus by the Vincennes in 1988.
That U.S. cruiser thought it was coming under attack. And Ukraine's separatists thought they were firing at an army plane.
The distinctions are as important as those
between first- and second-degree murder,
and manslaughter.
The respective reactions confirm this.
Gadhafi concealed his role in the Scotland
slaughter. Moscow was defiant in the KAL
case. America was apologetic over the
Iranian airliner.
Today, Vladimir Putin, with an indictment
being drawn up against him, is blaming
Ukraine for the war out of which the tragedy came.
But though Putin did not order the plane shot down, the horror of it all has put him in a box. And the course he pursues could
determine the future of U.S.-Russian relations for his tenure.
For the rebels in Ukraine are seen as Putin's
proxies. They have been armed and advised
by Russia. And it was a Russian SA-11 that
brought the airliner down.
While the separatists say they got the surface- to-air missiles from an army depot, there is evidence the missile was provided by Russia, and Russians may have advised or assisted in the fatal launch.
This crisis has caused President Obama to
insist that Putin cut off the rebels. And if he
does not rein them in, and abandon their
cause, Putin is likely to face new U.S.-EU
sanctions that could cripple his economy and push his country further out into the cold.
And the ostracism of Putin and the sinking of Russia's economy is what some in the West have long had in mind.
The Day of the Hawk is at hand.
John McCain and John Bolton are calling for
punitive sanctions, declaring Russia an
adversary, putting defensive missiles and U.S.
troops in Eastern Europe, and arming Kiev.
"That's just for openers," says McCain, who
wants "the harshest possible sanctions on
Vladimir Putin and Russia."
"So first, give the Ukrainians weapons to
defend themselves and regain their
territory," McCain adds, "Second of all, move some of our troops into areas that are being threatened by Vladimir Putin."
Right. Let's get eyeball to eyeball with the
Russians again.
In this "moment of moral and strategic clarity about the threat that Vladimir Putin's regime poses to world order," the Wall Street Journal said this weekend, we should send "arms to Ukraine until Mr. Putin stops arming the separatists."
The Washington Post urges "military
assistance to Ukraine" and sanctions "to force Mr. Putin to choose between continued aggression in Ukraine and saving the Russian economy."
But if aiding rebels in overthrowing their
government is "aggression," is that not
exactly what we are doing in Syria?
Hopefully, those who prodded the U.S. to send surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels are having second thoughts today.
But before we sink the Russian economy and send weapons to Ukraine, perhaps we should consider the potential consequences.
If Kiev, bolstered by U.S. weapons, decides to go in for the kill in Eastern Ukraine, Putin
will face a choice: Back down and let his
allies be defeated and routed, or move his
army into Ukraine to protect them.
Heretofore, Putin has not done so, clearly
because he does not wish to annex Luhansk
and Donetsk, which would have been a
cakewalk for the army he had on Ukraine's
border after the Crimea crisis.
And should Ukraine, with U.S. arms, win its
war in the east, what is to stop it from
sending troops to recapture Crimea, which
would surely cross any "red line" of Vladimir Putin.
Arming Ukraine, and putting U.S. prestige on the line for a victory by Kiev over the rebels in the east and Russians in the south, is a formula for a war Ukraine cannot win, unless the United States comes in to win it for them.
Then we could be on the escalator to
something unthinkable. Sanctions on Russia can cripple her economy.
But Russia can also cripple the economies of
Ukraine and Europe. Declaring Putin persona non grata may make
us feel good about ourselves, but it could also mean Russia tightening ties to Beijing, and breaking up the U.S.-led sanctions regime on Iran.
Russia is on the other side in Ukraine, but in
battling the Taliban and Islamic State, al-
Qaida and the al-Nusra Front, she is on our
side. That "moral and strategic clarity" exists only in uncomplicated minds.
The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie
was premeditated mass murder. Gadhafi was taking revenge for Reagan's raid on Tripoli in 1986.
The downing of KAL 007, flying from
Anchorage to Seoul, was mass murder in thebsecond degree. Seeing an aircraft intrude into Russian air space, Soviet officers brutally ordered it shot down.
The downing of the Malaysian airliner that
took the lives of 298 men, women and
children was not deliberate terrorism. No one wanted to massacre those women and
children.
It was a horrendous military blunder, like the U.S. shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus by the Vincennes in 1988.
That U.S. cruiser thought it was coming under attack. And Ukraine's separatists thought they were firing at an army plane.
The distinctions are as important as those
between first- and second-degree murder,
and manslaughter.
The respective reactions confirm this.
Gadhafi concealed his role in the Scotland
slaughter. Moscow was defiant in the KAL
case. America was apologetic over the
Iranian airliner.
Today, Vladimir Putin, with an indictment
being drawn up against him, is blaming
Ukraine for the war out of which the tragedy came.
But though Putin did not order the plane shot down, the horror of it all has put him in a box. And the course he pursues could
determine the future of U.S.-Russian relations for his tenure.
For the rebels in Ukraine are seen as Putin's
proxies. They have been armed and advised
by Russia. And it was a Russian SA-11 that
brought the airliner down.
While the separatists say they got the surface- to-air missiles from an army depot, there is evidence the missile was provided by Russia, and Russians may have advised or assisted in the fatal launch.
This crisis has caused President Obama to
insist that Putin cut off the rebels. And if he
does not rein them in, and abandon their
cause, Putin is likely to face new U.S.-EU
sanctions that could cripple his economy and push his country further out into the cold.
And the ostracism of Putin and the sinking of Russia's economy is what some in the West have long had in mind.
The Day of the Hawk is at hand.
John McCain and John Bolton are calling for
punitive sanctions, declaring Russia an
adversary, putting defensive missiles and U.S.
troops in Eastern Europe, and arming Kiev.
"That's just for openers," says McCain, who
wants "the harshest possible sanctions on
Vladimir Putin and Russia."
"So first, give the Ukrainians weapons to
defend themselves and regain their
territory," McCain adds, "Second of all, move some of our troops into areas that are being threatened by Vladimir Putin."
Right. Let's get eyeball to eyeball with the
Russians again.
In this "moment of moral and strategic clarity about the threat that Vladimir Putin's regime poses to world order," the Wall Street Journal said this weekend, we should send "arms to Ukraine until Mr. Putin stops arming the separatists."
The Washington Post urges "military
assistance to Ukraine" and sanctions "to force Mr. Putin to choose between continued aggression in Ukraine and saving the Russian economy."
But if aiding rebels in overthrowing their
government is "aggression," is that not
exactly what we are doing in Syria?
Hopefully, those who prodded the U.S. to send surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels are having second thoughts today.
But before we sink the Russian economy and send weapons to Ukraine, perhaps we should consider the potential consequences.
If Kiev, bolstered by U.S. weapons, decides to go in for the kill in Eastern Ukraine, Putin
will face a choice: Back down and let his
allies be defeated and routed, or move his
army into Ukraine to protect them.
Heretofore, Putin has not done so, clearly
because he does not wish to annex Luhansk
and Donetsk, which would have been a
cakewalk for the army he had on Ukraine's
border after the Crimea crisis.
And should Ukraine, with U.S. arms, win its
war in the east, what is to stop it from
sending troops to recapture Crimea, which
would surely cross any "red line" of Vladimir Putin.
Arming Ukraine, and putting U.S. prestige on the line for a victory by Kiev over the rebels in the east and Russians in the south, is a formula for a war Ukraine cannot win, unless the United States comes in to win it for them.
Then we could be on the escalator to
something unthinkable. Sanctions on Russia can cripple her economy.
But Russia can also cripple the economies of
Ukraine and Europe. Declaring Putin persona non grata may make
us feel good about ourselves, but it could also mean Russia tightening ties to Beijing, and breaking up the U.S.-led sanctions regime on Iran.
Russia is on the other side in Ukraine, but in
battling the Taliban and Islamic State, al-
Qaida and the al-Nusra Front, she is on our
side. That "moral and strategic clarity" exists only in uncomplicated minds.
WHAT NEEDS RESETTING
Mona Charen
The bodies of 298 passengers and crew of
Malaysia Air Flight 17, 80 of them children,
lie unburied in a Ukrainian field while
Vladimir Putin's men fire their weapons into the air to keep international investigators from approaching the site. Yes, "Putin's men." Calling them "Russian separatists" unnecessarily dignifies them. They are supplied, armed and trained by the despot in the Kremlin.
At the very least, Putin is responsible for
arming these dangerous actors. At most, it's
possible the missile wasn't fired by
Ukrainians at all, but by Russians, which
would answer President Barack Obama's
question: "What do they have to hide?" The
SA-11 is apparently a complex system
requiring four well-trained weapons
specialists to operate. In either case, the man with blood on his hands is Putin.
Obama began relations with Russia with a
"reset." The premise of this new start was that relations between our nations had
deteriorated due to the policies of former
President George W. Bush.
But Obama was following the same trajectory as his predecessor. Bush, too, began with high hopes for Putin. He was even taken in, for a short time, by Putin's profession of religious faith -- surely one of the biggest cons of modern diplomacy. As Bush watched Putin commit one aggressive act after another, both domestically and internationally, he wised up. Midway through his second term, journalist Peter Baker writes, when Tony Blair said he was more worried than ever about Putin, Bush replied, "You should be."
Bush may have clung too long to the hope of
moderating the criminal in the Kremlin, but
Obama had even less excuse. He had the
benefit of Bush's experience. He had
witnessed Putin's invasion of Georgia in
2008, his unflagging support for Iran and
Syria, his use of oil and gas to intimidate
Ukraine and other nations, his obliteration of democracy in Russia, his muzzling of the
press, and his systematic murder of domestic critics. Funny that Obama would have thought that responsibility for the decay in relations should be laid at the feet of Bush.
When Putin took command of the FSB (the
KGB renamed), Russia was enduring
international criticism for its war in
Chechnya. Moscow apartment complexes
experienced a wave of bombings that killed
several hundred. Putin pointed the finger at
Chechens, and the enraged Russian people
endorsed the continuation of the war.
Some members of the Kovalev Commission,
appointed to investigate the bombings,
expressed interest in accounts of possible FSB
responsibility for the attacks. Here's what
happened to them: Sergei Yushenkov, co-
chairman of the commission and a member
of the Liberal Russia party, was assassinated
in front of his apartment; Yuri
Shchekochikhin, another commission
member, independent journalist and Duma
member, was poisoned with thallium; and
Mikhail Trepashkin was arrested on a
weapons charge that later morphed into an
espionage case. He was tried in a closed
military proceeding and condemned to four
years in prison.
A KBG defector, Alexander Litvinenko, wrote
a book called "Blowing Up Russia" alleging
that the FSB was responsible for the Moscow
bombings. He died, slowly, of poisoning with
polonium-210. Litvinenko had also accused
Putin of arranging the murder of Anna
Politkovskaya -- a Russian journalist and
critic of Putin and the Chechnya war. She was
gunned down in the elevator of her
apartment in 2006.
Putin has applied the logic of the Moscow
bombings (stoke hatred of others to rally
Russians around himself) to relations with
other nations. Russian state TV, after labeling
the elected government in Kiev, Ukraine, as
Nazi for months, recently accused the
Ukrainian army of crucifying a 3-year-old
boy. Russian media feature an almost daily
diet of conspiracies supposedly concocted by
Americans to undermine and humiliate
Russia.
For about the 100th time, Obama this week
warned Putin that if he didn't cooperate in
the Malaysia plane investigation, he would
risk "isolating" Russia from the international
community.
Putin doesn't seek to be part of any
community. He seeks to be feared -- and he
should be. A look back at recent history
shows clearly that he is incapable of shame
and deaf to conscience. In light of this,
Obama can at least do a few things: 1) arm
the Ukrainians with something considerably more lethal than MREs; 2) stop placing phone calls to the Kremlin -- we should have nothing to say to him; 3) fast-track liquefied natural gas export permits; and 4) freeze the assets of Putin and his cronies just as we did to Saddam Hussein.
The thing that needs a reset is our perception of Putin.
The bodies of 298 passengers and crew of
Malaysia Air Flight 17, 80 of them children,
lie unburied in a Ukrainian field while
Vladimir Putin's men fire their weapons into the air to keep international investigators from approaching the site. Yes, "Putin's men." Calling them "Russian separatists" unnecessarily dignifies them. They are supplied, armed and trained by the despot in the Kremlin.
At the very least, Putin is responsible for
arming these dangerous actors. At most, it's
possible the missile wasn't fired by
Ukrainians at all, but by Russians, which
would answer President Barack Obama's
question: "What do they have to hide?" The
SA-11 is apparently a complex system
requiring four well-trained weapons
specialists to operate. In either case, the man with blood on his hands is Putin.
Obama began relations with Russia with a
"reset." The premise of this new start was that relations between our nations had
deteriorated due to the policies of former
President George W. Bush.
But Obama was following the same trajectory as his predecessor. Bush, too, began with high hopes for Putin. He was even taken in, for a short time, by Putin's profession of religious faith -- surely one of the biggest cons of modern diplomacy. As Bush watched Putin commit one aggressive act after another, both domestically and internationally, he wised up. Midway through his second term, journalist Peter Baker writes, when Tony Blair said he was more worried than ever about Putin, Bush replied, "You should be."
Bush may have clung too long to the hope of
moderating the criminal in the Kremlin, but
Obama had even less excuse. He had the
benefit of Bush's experience. He had
witnessed Putin's invasion of Georgia in
2008, his unflagging support for Iran and
Syria, his use of oil and gas to intimidate
Ukraine and other nations, his obliteration of democracy in Russia, his muzzling of the
press, and his systematic murder of domestic critics. Funny that Obama would have thought that responsibility for the decay in relations should be laid at the feet of Bush.
When Putin took command of the FSB (the
KGB renamed), Russia was enduring
international criticism for its war in
Chechnya. Moscow apartment complexes
experienced a wave of bombings that killed
several hundred. Putin pointed the finger at
Chechens, and the enraged Russian people
endorsed the continuation of the war.
Some members of the Kovalev Commission,
appointed to investigate the bombings,
expressed interest in accounts of possible FSB
responsibility for the attacks. Here's what
happened to them: Sergei Yushenkov, co-
chairman of the commission and a member
of the Liberal Russia party, was assassinated
in front of his apartment; Yuri
Shchekochikhin, another commission
member, independent journalist and Duma
member, was poisoned with thallium; and
Mikhail Trepashkin was arrested on a
weapons charge that later morphed into an
espionage case. He was tried in a closed
military proceeding and condemned to four
years in prison.
A KBG defector, Alexander Litvinenko, wrote
a book called "Blowing Up Russia" alleging
that the FSB was responsible for the Moscow
bombings. He died, slowly, of poisoning with
polonium-210. Litvinenko had also accused
Putin of arranging the murder of Anna
Politkovskaya -- a Russian journalist and
critic of Putin and the Chechnya war. She was
gunned down in the elevator of her
apartment in 2006.
Putin has applied the logic of the Moscow
bombings (stoke hatred of others to rally
Russians around himself) to relations with
other nations. Russian state TV, after labeling
the elected government in Kiev, Ukraine, as
Nazi for months, recently accused the
Ukrainian army of crucifying a 3-year-old
boy. Russian media feature an almost daily
diet of conspiracies supposedly concocted by
Americans to undermine and humiliate
Russia.
For about the 100th time, Obama this week
warned Putin that if he didn't cooperate in
the Malaysia plane investigation, he would
risk "isolating" Russia from the international
community.
Putin doesn't seek to be part of any
community. He seeks to be feared -- and he
should be. A look back at recent history
shows clearly that he is incapable of shame
and deaf to conscience. In light of this,
Obama can at least do a few things: 1) arm
the Ukrainians with something considerably more lethal than MREs; 2) stop placing phone calls to the Kremlin -- we should have nothing to say to him; 3) fast-track liquefied natural gas export permits; and 4) freeze the assets of Putin and his cronies just as we did to Saddam Hussein.
The thing that needs a reset is our perception of Putin.
BORDERING ON MADNESS
Thomas Sowell
In a recent confrontation between protesters against the illegal flood of unaccompanied children into the United States and counter- protests by some Hispanic group, one man from the latter group said angrily, "We are asvgood as you are!"
One of the things that make the history of
clashes over race or ethnicity such a history
of tragedies around the world is that --
regardless of whatever particular issue sets
off these clashes -- many people see the
ultimate stakes as their worth as human
beings. On that, there is no room for
compromise, but only polarization. That is
why playing "the race card" is such an
irresponsible and dangerous political game.
The real issue when it comes to immigration is not simply what particular immigration policy America should have, but whethervAmerica can have any immigration policy at all.
A country that does not control its own
borders does not have any immigration
policy. There may be laws on the books, but
such laws are just meaningless words if
people from other countries can cross the
borders whenever they choose.
One of the reasons why many Americans are
reluctant to keep out illegal immigrants -- or
even to call them "illegal immigrants," instead
of using the mealy-mouthed word
"undocumented" -- is that most Hispanics they
encounter seem to be decent, hard-working
people.
This column has pointed out, more than once, that I have never seen Mexicans standing on a street corner begging, though I have seen both whites and blacks doing so.
But such impressions are no basis for
deciding serious issues about immigration
and citizenship. When we do not control our own borders, we have no way of knowing
how many of those coming across those
borders are criminals or even terrorists.
We have no way of knowing how many of
those children are carrying what diseases that
will spread to our children. And we already
know, from studies of American children, that
those who are raised without fathers in the
home have a high probability of becoming
huge, expensive problems for taxpayers in
the years ahead, and a mortal danger to
others.
A hundred years ago, when there was a huge
influx of immigrants from Europe, there were
extensive government studies of what those
immigrants did in the United States. There
were data on how many, from what countries,
ended up in jail, diseased or on the dole.
There were data on how well their children
did in school.
As with most things, some immigrant groups did very well and others did not do nearly as well. But today, even to ask such questions is to be considered mean-spirited.
Such information as we have today shows
that immigrants from some countries have far more education than immigrants from some other countries, and do not end up being supported by the taxpayers nearly as often as immigrants from other countries. But such information is seldom mentioned in discussions of immigrants, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world.
Questions about immigration and citizenship are questions about irreversible decisions that can permanently change the composition of the American population and the very culture of the country -- perhaps in the direction of the cultures of the countries from which illegal immigrants have fled.
During the era of epidemics that swept across Europe in centuries past, people fleeing from those epidemics often spread the diseases to the places to which they fled.
Counterproductive and dangerous cultures
can be spread to America the same way.
Willful ignorance is not the way to make
immigration decisions or any other decisions.
Yet the Obama administration is keeping
secret even where they are dumping illegal
immigrants by the thousands, in communities far from the border states.
Looking before we leap is not racism -- except in the sense that anything the Obama administration doesn't like is subject to being called racist.
Americans who gather to protest the high-
handed way this administration has sneaked illegal immigrants into their communities can expect the race card to be played against them. The time is long overdue to stop being intimidated by such cheap -- and dangerous -- political tactics.
In a recent confrontation between protesters against the illegal flood of unaccompanied children into the United States and counter- protests by some Hispanic group, one man from the latter group said angrily, "We are asvgood as you are!"
One of the things that make the history of
clashes over race or ethnicity such a history
of tragedies around the world is that --
regardless of whatever particular issue sets
off these clashes -- many people see the
ultimate stakes as their worth as human
beings. On that, there is no room for
compromise, but only polarization. That is
why playing "the race card" is such an
irresponsible and dangerous political game.
The real issue when it comes to immigration is not simply what particular immigration policy America should have, but whethervAmerica can have any immigration policy at all.
A country that does not control its own
borders does not have any immigration
policy. There may be laws on the books, but
such laws are just meaningless words if
people from other countries can cross the
borders whenever they choose.
One of the reasons why many Americans are
reluctant to keep out illegal immigrants -- or
even to call them "illegal immigrants," instead
of using the mealy-mouthed word
"undocumented" -- is that most Hispanics they
encounter seem to be decent, hard-working
people.
This column has pointed out, more than once, that I have never seen Mexicans standing on a street corner begging, though I have seen both whites and blacks doing so.
But such impressions are no basis for
deciding serious issues about immigration
and citizenship. When we do not control our own borders, we have no way of knowing
how many of those coming across those
borders are criminals or even terrorists.
We have no way of knowing how many of
those children are carrying what diseases that
will spread to our children. And we already
know, from studies of American children, that
those who are raised without fathers in the
home have a high probability of becoming
huge, expensive problems for taxpayers in
the years ahead, and a mortal danger to
others.
A hundred years ago, when there was a huge
influx of immigrants from Europe, there were
extensive government studies of what those
immigrants did in the United States. There
were data on how many, from what countries,
ended up in jail, diseased or on the dole.
There were data on how well their children
did in school.
As with most things, some immigrant groups did very well and others did not do nearly as well. But today, even to ask such questions is to be considered mean-spirited.
Such information as we have today shows
that immigrants from some countries have far more education than immigrants from some other countries, and do not end up being supported by the taxpayers nearly as often as immigrants from other countries. But such information is seldom mentioned in discussions of immigrants, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world.
Questions about immigration and citizenship are questions about irreversible decisions that can permanently change the composition of the American population and the very culture of the country -- perhaps in the direction of the cultures of the countries from which illegal immigrants have fled.
During the era of epidemics that swept across Europe in centuries past, people fleeing from those epidemics often spread the diseases to the places to which they fled.
Counterproductive and dangerous cultures
can be spread to America the same way.
Willful ignorance is not the way to make
immigration decisions or any other decisions.
Yet the Obama administration is keeping
secret even where they are dumping illegal
immigrants by the thousands, in communities far from the border states.
Looking before we leap is not racism -- except in the sense that anything the Obama administration doesn't like is subject to being called racist.
Americans who gather to protest the high-
handed way this administration has sneaked illegal immigrants into their communities can expect the race card to be played against them. The time is long overdue to stop being intimidated by such cheap -- and dangerous -- political tactics.
THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE: PROMOTING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
PR Chari
In a barely noticed event, forty bishops, scholars and activists had gathered in the Catholic University of Notre Dame in end-April to explore how the world could
eliminate nuclear weapons. University President Rev Jenkins cited Pope John XIII’s message after the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) that “nuclear weapons are morally
tolerable only for the purpose of nuclear deterrence, and even then, only as a step on the way toward progressive disarmament.”
Apropos, non-proliferation advocates had met in New York in May 2014 for a two-week Preparatory Committee meeting to pave the way for the NPT Review
Conference in 2015. The bland statement issued by them after their confabulations urged the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to hasten their efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament in an "irreversible, transparent and verifiable manner," as envisaged in Article VI of the NPT. However, the preparatory meeting also expressed its disappointment that a conference to discuss the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, visualised at the last NPT Review
Conference in 2010, has not yet been held. It is no secret that this proposal is directed against Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal, which has motivated its regional neighbours to stockpile chemical
and biological weapons to deter Israel. More distressingly, the Preparatory Committee meeting could not even negotiate a final document for being placed
before the 2015 NPT Review Conference.
In other negative developments, India, though not a NPT signatory, has revealed that it had tested an intermediate-range ballistic missile from an underwater
platform. They are planned to equip its nuclear submarine INS Arihant. North Korea has declared that it means to carry out a fourth nuclear test. Analysts
believe this would accelerate Pyongyang’s development of a miniaturised warhead to be delivered by a ballistic missile. South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye warned
that another nuclear test by Pyongyang would trigger a “nuclear domino” effect, since both South Korea and Japan would be under great domestic pressure from
their alarmed people to develop and deploy nuclear weapons to deter North Korea. Neither country is believed to be very far from becoming a nuclear weapon
power if they so choose in view of their advanced atomic energy programmes. Efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear progress by bringing its uranium enrichment
programme under safeguards have received a setback with the rise of Islamic (Sunni) forces in Syria and Iraq. Iran is needed to balance these disruptive forces. Its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons might, therefore, get placed on the backburner. Should Iran go nuclear a
“nuclear domino” effect could ensue in the Gulf and Middle East regions with many regional countries seeking nuclear weapons to deter Iran. Further, the technological abilities of several developing countries
have been growing rapidly. Non-proliferation efforts cannot succeed much longer by gating the spread of technology, but require the difficult political issues
driving nuclear proliferation to be addressed.
In its latest Annual Report on Armament and Disarmament the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has assessed the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide to be around
16,300, with 93 per cent being held by the US and Russia. The remaining are held by the seven other NWS viz. UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. SIPRI has noted that India and Pakistan continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles, and that there is no” genuine willingness to work toward complete
dismantlement of their nuclear arsenals. The long term modernization programs under way in these states suggest that nuclear weapons will remain deeply
embedded elements of their strategic calculus.” The modernisation of the nuclear arsenals held by the US and Russia like in the sphere of missile defense has gained much attention, but the steady efforts being
made by other NWS to improve their arsenals proceed under the radar screen. Naturally, the non-nuclear adherents to the NPT view these developments askance,
and their resentments could surface in the 2015 Review Conference with threats to withdraw from the NPT. The question now arises whether nuclear non- proliferation is a lost cause and whether nuclear
disarmament remains a desirable but elusive goal? The simple answer to this despairing question is “No.” Why?
Nuclear weapons are different in that they can effect global destruction in very short time frames; the consequent radiation effects would last for centuries And, this massive devastation could occur, not by
deliberate use, but by accident. The nuclear age is replete with examples of near-misses that could have led to the use of nuclear weapons by misapprehension or inadvertence. Nuclear theology urges that these weapons are irreplaceable to provide deterrence against adversaries. But reliance on nuclear weapons is hazardous and is becoming less effective with the
passing years. Again, why? There is little controversy that, at present, the main security threat to nations arises from terrorism and non-military threats like climate change or migration. Nuclear weapons have no utility to meet
them.
In a barely noticed event, forty bishops, scholars and activists had gathered in the Catholic University of Notre Dame in end-April to explore how the world could
eliminate nuclear weapons. University President Rev Jenkins cited Pope John XIII’s message after the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) that “nuclear weapons are morally
tolerable only for the purpose of nuclear deterrence, and even then, only as a step on the way toward progressive disarmament.”
Apropos, non-proliferation advocates had met in New York in May 2014 for a two-week Preparatory Committee meeting to pave the way for the NPT Review
Conference in 2015. The bland statement issued by them after their confabulations urged the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to hasten their efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament in an "irreversible, transparent and verifiable manner," as envisaged in Article VI of the NPT. However, the preparatory meeting also expressed its disappointment that a conference to discuss the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, visualised at the last NPT Review
Conference in 2010, has not yet been held. It is no secret that this proposal is directed against Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal, which has motivated its regional neighbours to stockpile chemical
and biological weapons to deter Israel. More distressingly, the Preparatory Committee meeting could not even negotiate a final document for being placed
before the 2015 NPT Review Conference.
In other negative developments, India, though not a NPT signatory, has revealed that it had tested an intermediate-range ballistic missile from an underwater
platform. They are planned to equip its nuclear submarine INS Arihant. North Korea has declared that it means to carry out a fourth nuclear test. Analysts
believe this would accelerate Pyongyang’s development of a miniaturised warhead to be delivered by a ballistic missile. South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye warned
that another nuclear test by Pyongyang would trigger a “nuclear domino” effect, since both South Korea and Japan would be under great domestic pressure from
their alarmed people to develop and deploy nuclear weapons to deter North Korea. Neither country is believed to be very far from becoming a nuclear weapon
power if they so choose in view of their advanced atomic energy programmes. Efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear progress by bringing its uranium enrichment
programme under safeguards have received a setback with the rise of Islamic (Sunni) forces in Syria and Iraq. Iran is needed to balance these disruptive forces. Its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons might, therefore, get placed on the backburner. Should Iran go nuclear a
“nuclear domino” effect could ensue in the Gulf and Middle East regions with many regional countries seeking nuclear weapons to deter Iran. Further, the technological abilities of several developing countries
have been growing rapidly. Non-proliferation efforts cannot succeed much longer by gating the spread of technology, but require the difficult political issues
driving nuclear proliferation to be addressed.
In its latest Annual Report on Armament and Disarmament the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has assessed the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide to be around
16,300, with 93 per cent being held by the US and Russia. The remaining are held by the seven other NWS viz. UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. SIPRI has noted that India and Pakistan continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles, and that there is no” genuine willingness to work toward complete
dismantlement of their nuclear arsenals. The long term modernization programs under way in these states suggest that nuclear weapons will remain deeply
embedded elements of their strategic calculus.” The modernisation of the nuclear arsenals held by the US and Russia like in the sphere of missile defense has gained much attention, but the steady efforts being
made by other NWS to improve their arsenals proceed under the radar screen. Naturally, the non-nuclear adherents to the NPT view these developments askance,
and their resentments could surface in the 2015 Review Conference with threats to withdraw from the NPT. The question now arises whether nuclear non- proliferation is a lost cause and whether nuclear
disarmament remains a desirable but elusive goal? The simple answer to this despairing question is “No.” Why?
Nuclear weapons are different in that they can effect global destruction in very short time frames; the consequent radiation effects would last for centuries And, this massive devastation could occur, not by
deliberate use, but by accident. The nuclear age is replete with examples of near-misses that could have led to the use of nuclear weapons by misapprehension or inadvertence. Nuclear theology urges that these weapons are irreplaceable to provide deterrence against adversaries. But reliance on nuclear weapons is hazardous and is becoming less effective with the
passing years. Again, why? There is little controversy that, at present, the main security threat to nations arises from terrorism and non-military threats like climate change or migration. Nuclear weapons have no utility to meet
them.
INDIA- BANGLADESH: AFTER SUSHMA SWARAJ'S VISIT
Delwar Hossain
Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made an official visit to Bangladesh as her maiden standaloneboverseas tour from 25 to 27 June, 2014 – which was
termed by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as “extremely fruitful and satisfying.” The spokesperson of the MEA added that Swaraj was returning with an
understanding that “it is an excellent beginning in addressing each others’ concerns and work together with the spirit of good neighbourliness.” It was one of
the rare comprehensive visits by any Indian External Affairs Minister to Bangladesh.
There was an extraordinary effort to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. Swaraj held a series of meetings with the top leadership in Bangladesh including the
President Abdul Hamid, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Leader of the Opposition, Raushan Ershad, and the
former leader of the opposition and the President of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Khaleda Zia, and held delegation-level talks with her Bangladeshi
counterpart A. H. Mahmud Ali. Her meeting with Khaleda Zia has been a notable event considering the troubled nature of domestic politics in Bangladesh.
Despite her high profile official meetings and engagement, what has become extremely significant during her visit was her speech to the civil society audience organised by the Bangladesh Institute of
International and Strategic Studies (BIISS). It drew attention of the elite across the sections of society in Bangladesh. She was able to communicate with the
people about the new Indian government’s view on Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh have enormous interests about the perspectives and strategies of the
new Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Quite rightly so the current Bangladesh government has worked with India’s Dr. Manmohan
Singh administration in its last term when both Dhaka and New Delhi went an extra mile to reduce gaps and embark upon new and bold initiatives to strengthen
bilateral relations. The people of Bangladesh want to see a smooth journey to stronger ties between the two
nations based on the existing friendly relations.
Political circles in Bangladesh are sharply divided on the
impact of Sushma Swaraj’s visit on domestic politics of
the country. Experts and activists leaning towards the
opposition parties termed the visit as a paradigm shift in India’s role in the matrix of political forces in Bangladesh. One analyst argued that the visit outlined
the parameters within which the Bharatiya Janata Partyb(BJP) government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh. It is marked by a major step away from the
way the Congress did. He further adds that New Delhi will not play any favorites and relations will be between
country-to-country and government-to-government.
Conversely, pro-government elites claim that the visit was hugely positive for the current government. Thebemphasis on government-to-government relations or
focus on building strong institutions and promoting abculture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differencesbstrengthen the ruling political regime’s positions. More
importantly, in the realm of foreign policy it is not the priority of any government to influence domestic politics for the sake of domestic politics. Instead, it is national
interests that dictate terms. Therefore, the visit rightly prioritised on the issue of boosting bilateral ties where both the government and the opposition have stakes.
Swaraj’s speech on “India-Bangladesh Relations: A Framework for Cooperation” at the BIISS gathering has been widely discussed in Bangladesh’s civil society. In
her speech, Swaraj emphasised on comprehensive and equitable partnership, mutually beneficial relations, youth development and youth-led development, people– to-people to contact, and inter-linkages to move forward in South Asia. She referred to the fact that both India and Bangladesh shed blood together in 1971 and
she did not forget to mention Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the architect of Bangladesh. The Minister enthralled the audience in Dhaka as she spoke,
“I come to Bangladesh with a message of friendship and goodwill from the newly elected Government in India. I come with the goal of enhancing our relationship and
mutual understanding. I come with the belief that the potential of our partnership is vast. I come with the faith that the people of both our countries desire and deserve closer relations and concrete results…. Our
desire is that India and Bangladesh should flourish together as two equal partners. We share not just our past but also our future.”
It is less than a month since Swaraj visited Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the two nations witnessed another game changing moment in their bilateral relations when a verdict from the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) based in The Hague was delivered on 7 July 2014. The verdict resolved the long standing maritime
dispute between Dhaka and New Delhi. The sharing of the disputed maritime region has been the essence of the verdict which both the nations have already identified as a new step towards building strong
partnership between the two countries. However, a section of people in Bangladesh have been out to malign the verdict by raising the issue of the South Talpatti Island. They argue that Bangladesh has lost its claim on this historic island that was quickly dismissed by the maritime law experts in the country. Following
Swaraj’s visit, the PCA verdict on maritime boundary dispute is another milestone in consolidating Bangladesh-India bilateral relations.
Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made an official visit to Bangladesh as her maiden standaloneboverseas tour from 25 to 27 June, 2014 – which was
termed by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as “extremely fruitful and satisfying.” The spokesperson of the MEA added that Swaraj was returning with an
understanding that “it is an excellent beginning in addressing each others’ concerns and work together with the spirit of good neighbourliness.” It was one of
the rare comprehensive visits by any Indian External Affairs Minister to Bangladesh.
There was an extraordinary effort to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. Swaraj held a series of meetings with the top leadership in Bangladesh including the
President Abdul Hamid, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Leader of the Opposition, Raushan Ershad, and the
former leader of the opposition and the President of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Khaleda Zia, and held delegation-level talks with her Bangladeshi
counterpart A. H. Mahmud Ali. Her meeting with Khaleda Zia has been a notable event considering the troubled nature of domestic politics in Bangladesh.
Despite her high profile official meetings and engagement, what has become extremely significant during her visit was her speech to the civil society audience organised by the Bangladesh Institute of
International and Strategic Studies (BIISS). It drew attention of the elite across the sections of society in Bangladesh. She was able to communicate with the
people about the new Indian government’s view on Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh have enormous interests about the perspectives and strategies of the
new Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Quite rightly so the current Bangladesh government has worked with India’s Dr. Manmohan
Singh administration in its last term when both Dhaka and New Delhi went an extra mile to reduce gaps and embark upon new and bold initiatives to strengthen
bilateral relations. The people of Bangladesh want to see a smooth journey to stronger ties between the two
nations based on the existing friendly relations.
Political circles in Bangladesh are sharply divided on the
impact of Sushma Swaraj’s visit on domestic politics of
the country. Experts and activists leaning towards the
opposition parties termed the visit as a paradigm shift in India’s role in the matrix of political forces in Bangladesh. One analyst argued that the visit outlined
the parameters within which the Bharatiya Janata Partyb(BJP) government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh. It is marked by a major step away from the
way the Congress did. He further adds that New Delhi will not play any favorites and relations will be between
country-to-country and government-to-government.
Conversely, pro-government elites claim that the visit was hugely positive for the current government. Thebemphasis on government-to-government relations or
focus on building strong institutions and promoting abculture of tolerance, inclusion and respect for differencesbstrengthen the ruling political regime’s positions. More
importantly, in the realm of foreign policy it is not the priority of any government to influence domestic politics for the sake of domestic politics. Instead, it is national
interests that dictate terms. Therefore, the visit rightly prioritised on the issue of boosting bilateral ties where both the government and the opposition have stakes.
Swaraj’s speech on “India-Bangladesh Relations: A Framework for Cooperation” at the BIISS gathering has been widely discussed in Bangladesh’s civil society. In
her speech, Swaraj emphasised on comprehensive and equitable partnership, mutually beneficial relations, youth development and youth-led development, people– to-people to contact, and inter-linkages to move forward in South Asia. She referred to the fact that both India and Bangladesh shed blood together in 1971 and
she did not forget to mention Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the architect of Bangladesh. The Minister enthralled the audience in Dhaka as she spoke,
“I come to Bangladesh with a message of friendship and goodwill from the newly elected Government in India. I come with the goal of enhancing our relationship and
mutual understanding. I come with the belief that the potential of our partnership is vast. I come with the faith that the people of both our countries desire and deserve closer relations and concrete results…. Our
desire is that India and Bangladesh should flourish together as two equal partners. We share not just our past but also our future.”
It is less than a month since Swaraj visited Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the two nations witnessed another game changing moment in their bilateral relations when a verdict from the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) based in The Hague was delivered on 7 July 2014. The verdict resolved the long standing maritime
dispute between Dhaka and New Delhi. The sharing of the disputed maritime region has been the essence of the verdict which both the nations have already identified as a new step towards building strong
partnership between the two countries. However, a section of people in Bangladesh have been out to malign the verdict by raising the issue of the South Talpatti Island. They argue that Bangladesh has lost its claim on this historic island that was quickly dismissed by the maritime law experts in the country. Following
Swaraj’s visit, the PCA verdict on maritime boundary dispute is another milestone in consolidating Bangladesh-India bilateral relations.
INDIAN RATIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL: MISCHIEVOUS REPORTS MISS ITS SIGNIFICANCE
Manpreet Sethi
On 26-27 June 2014, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its plenary meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The
discussion on India’s membership was reportedly on the agenda. Meanwhile, on 23 June, India announced its decision to ratify the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Government of India and the
IAEA for the application of safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities (AP). India has been progressively, and on schedule, been implementing the Separation Plan
accepted in 2006 as part of the process of India’s exceptionalisation and conclusion of the India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Ratification of the AP
was one of the last few major commitments, even though the document itself had been expeditiously concluded in July 2009. The conclusion of this formality too now marks the end of India’s fulfillment of its
promises in exchange for its entry into international nuclear commerce.
The idea and logic of India’s exceptionalisation, however, has still not been accepted by many non- proliferation hardliners in the US and other Western
capitals, irrespective of the myriad steps that have been taken by India. Not surprisingly, therefore, mischievous
reports on India’s nuclear activities surface at opportune times. Expectedly, just before the NSG meeting that was to consider India’s membership, IHS Jane’s sprung an article alleging that India was “expanding a covert uranium enrichment plant that
could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons.”
The timing and content of the report was mischievous on two fronts: first, from the point of view of the impending consideration of India’s NSG membership;
and second, from the point of view of drawing attention away from the import of the ratification of the AP by
India.
India's uranium enrichment plant at Rattenhalli, Mysore,
is not covert. It has been well known for decades and is
meant to meet the low enriched uranium fuel
requirements of nuclear powered submarines. India’s
nuclear doctrine, based as it is on the threat of assured
retaliation, requires a sea-based deterrent capability to
support a credible no first use. This, in fact, is a
requirement much greater than the need for a large
arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. It is the assuredness
of retaliation to cause unacceptable damage that is
necessary to deter, and even non-thermonuclear
weapons can wreak such damage given the density of
population in this part of the world. Therefore, India's
enriched uranium requirements are of greater criticality
for assuring survivability through a credible SSBN fleet,
than for building an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Indian ratification of the AP is not an
insignificant development. Since 1997, when the AP was
first concluded as a tool for strengthening the IAEA
safeguards system in the wake of the suspected
weapons programmes in states of proliferation concern,
the AP has been ratified by 123 countries. It is considered a necessary confidence building measure in providing assurance on the exclusively peaceful nature
of a national nuclear programme. The US has been amongst the forerunners seeking its universalisation as a pre-condition for civilian nuclear cooperation.
There are three types of APs – the Model AP with Non- nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) that accept comprehensive safeguards; Voluntary Offer Agreements
with Nuclear Weapon States (NWS); and a version of the Model AP with other States prepared to accept measures provided for in the Model AP. India is the only
‘other State’ that has offered to accept an AP tailored to its specificities but that would pursue safeguards effectiveness and efficiency.
In the case of India, not only does the AP grant special
rights to the IAEA to conduct inspections (such as the
right to declare any Agency official as an inspector, grant of multiple entry visas to facilitate short-notice/ surprise inspections, and unrestricted unattended
monitoring on civilian designated sites), but also reinforces India’s commitment to ensure that its export controls conform to the best international standards. Of
course, there are some provisions of the Model AP that are applicable to the NNWS that do not form a part of the Indian AP. But this is hardly surprising given India’s
particular circumstances. Critics forget India’s exceptional circumstances which necessitated the exceptionalisation in the first place. This in no way undermines India’s intention of placing its declared
facilities under IAEA oversight. Of course, there will be others that remain outside the IAEA purview, just as there are in other states with nuclear weapons. The APs
of all NWS have conditioned access on the basis of national security exclusions.
However, fears that India will use/expand these to indulge in an arms race or for accumulating a large arsenal belie a complete lack of understanding of India’s
concept of nuclear deterrence. Credible minimum deterrence and no first use are the basic attributes of the Indian nuclear doctrine. These are alien to most
Western analysts who cannot understand that India has no need to indulge in a foolhardy exercise of warhead accumulation seeking parity or superiority.
As a believer in the security benefits of non-proliferation, even as a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-member,
India has displayed more conformity with the letter and spirit of the NPT than many of its subscribers. Its participation in the IAEA safeguards regime by extending
enhanced safeguards on an expanding nuclear programme, and committing India to export controls as also international safety and security standards only
adds to this.
On 26-27 June 2014, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its plenary meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The
discussion on India’s membership was reportedly on the agenda. Meanwhile, on 23 June, India announced its decision to ratify the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Government of India and the
IAEA for the application of safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities (AP). India has been progressively, and on schedule, been implementing the Separation Plan
accepted in 2006 as part of the process of India’s exceptionalisation and conclusion of the India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. Ratification of the AP
was one of the last few major commitments, even though the document itself had been expeditiously concluded in July 2009. The conclusion of this formality too now marks the end of India’s fulfillment of its
promises in exchange for its entry into international nuclear commerce.
The idea and logic of India’s exceptionalisation, however, has still not been accepted by many non- proliferation hardliners in the US and other Western
capitals, irrespective of the myriad steps that have been taken by India. Not surprisingly, therefore, mischievous
reports on India’s nuclear activities surface at opportune times. Expectedly, just before the NSG meeting that was to consider India’s membership, IHS Jane’s sprung an article alleging that India was “expanding a covert uranium enrichment plant that
could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons.”
The timing and content of the report was mischievous on two fronts: first, from the point of view of the impending consideration of India’s NSG membership;
and second, from the point of view of drawing attention away from the import of the ratification of the AP by
India.
India's uranium enrichment plant at Rattenhalli, Mysore,
is not covert. It has been well known for decades and is
meant to meet the low enriched uranium fuel
requirements of nuclear powered submarines. India’s
nuclear doctrine, based as it is on the threat of assured
retaliation, requires a sea-based deterrent capability to
support a credible no first use. This, in fact, is a
requirement much greater than the need for a large
arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. It is the assuredness
of retaliation to cause unacceptable damage that is
necessary to deter, and even non-thermonuclear
weapons can wreak such damage given the density of
population in this part of the world. Therefore, India's
enriched uranium requirements are of greater criticality
for assuring survivability through a credible SSBN fleet,
than for building an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Indian ratification of the AP is not an
insignificant development. Since 1997, when the AP was
first concluded as a tool for strengthening the IAEA
safeguards system in the wake of the suspected
weapons programmes in states of proliferation concern,
the AP has been ratified by 123 countries. It is considered a necessary confidence building measure in providing assurance on the exclusively peaceful nature
of a national nuclear programme. The US has been amongst the forerunners seeking its universalisation as a pre-condition for civilian nuclear cooperation.
There are three types of APs – the Model AP with Non- nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) that accept comprehensive safeguards; Voluntary Offer Agreements
with Nuclear Weapon States (NWS); and a version of the Model AP with other States prepared to accept measures provided for in the Model AP. India is the only
‘other State’ that has offered to accept an AP tailored to its specificities but that would pursue safeguards effectiveness and efficiency.
In the case of India, not only does the AP grant special
rights to the IAEA to conduct inspections (such as the
right to declare any Agency official as an inspector, grant of multiple entry visas to facilitate short-notice/ surprise inspections, and unrestricted unattended
monitoring on civilian designated sites), but also reinforces India’s commitment to ensure that its export controls conform to the best international standards. Of
course, there are some provisions of the Model AP that are applicable to the NNWS that do not form a part of the Indian AP. But this is hardly surprising given India’s
particular circumstances. Critics forget India’s exceptional circumstances which necessitated the exceptionalisation in the first place. This in no way undermines India’s intention of placing its declared
facilities under IAEA oversight. Of course, there will be others that remain outside the IAEA purview, just as there are in other states with nuclear weapons. The APs
of all NWS have conditioned access on the basis of national security exclusions.
However, fears that India will use/expand these to indulge in an arms race or for accumulating a large arsenal belie a complete lack of understanding of India’s
concept of nuclear deterrence. Credible minimum deterrence and no first use are the basic attributes of the Indian nuclear doctrine. These are alien to most
Western analysts who cannot understand that India has no need to indulge in a foolhardy exercise of warhead accumulation seeking parity or superiority.
As a believer in the security benefits of non-proliferation, even as a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-member,
India has displayed more conformity with the letter and spirit of the NPT than many of its subscribers. Its participation in the IAEA safeguards regime by extending
enhanced safeguards on an expanding nuclear programme, and committing India to export controls as also international safety and security standards only
adds to this.
DOMESTIC POLITICKING IN PAKISTAN: IT'S NOT CRICKET,STUPID!
Sushant Sareen
For someone whose understanding of politics is limited to drawing banal cricketing analogies, the phrase ‘it’s
not cricket’ aptly describes the sort of politics Imran Khan is indulging in these days. His threat of leading a ‘Long March’ (how Mao must be twisting in his grave
over the Pakistani mutilation of the original Long March) to Islamabad to shake up the political system – he is himself isn’t clear on what he actually wants – is not cricket because it brazenly violates the basic rules
of the political game set in the constitution. It is also not cricket in the sense that a five year term in government is not the same as a five-day test match in which the two contending sides get to play two innings
each.
That Khan isn’t clear on what he hopes to get out of
the ‘Long March’ (or is it Tsunami March or Azadi
March?) is evident because he keeps shifting the
goalposts depending on what catches his fancy at a
particular time. He started with demanding a vote
verification in four constituencies, went on to demand a
mid-term election, retracted to demanding an audit of
the entire election (inspired by Afghanistan). The end-
game – how he hopes to get his demand met, what he
will do if the government continues to stonewall, and
what the consequences of any widespread disturbance
in Islamabad could be, including the outside chance of a
derailment of the democratic process – has obviously
not been thought through by him. Not only is his timing
wrong (barely a year after the general election he is
demanding a mid-term poll), he has also not factored in
the possibility that even if he managed to grab power,
he would then be faced with similar efforts to overthrow
him. In other words, it will be back to the sordid politics
of the 1990s.
Imran Khan suddenly became hyperactive against the
government after the military establishment seemed to
get into a tussle with incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif’s government leading many analysts to suspect
that he had been put up to the task by the powers that
be. Despite being seen as riding on the back of the
military to queer the pitch for the Nawaz Sharif
government, Imran Khan was careful to keep parroting
his commitment to democracy, even though he is doing
everything to undermine it. Even if he can’t force the
Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PMLN) out of office
through his agitation, he would have weakened the
civilian dispensation to a point where it would be forced
to lean on the crutches of the military, or at least
remain extremely diffident, before the military. That the
PMLN government has come to such a pass with just
about a year in office is a sorry statement on the
fragility of the democratic process in Pakistan.
It is not just Imran Khan who is on the march against
the government. The somewhat comical cleric from
Canada, Tahirul Qadri, has also been on the warpath,
selling an instant revolution to his acolytes as if it were
some kind of instant coffee. Politically, Qadri is a non-
entity. But like many other God-men, and such like in
the subcontinent, Qadri has his following which probably
runs into a million or more. His game is even less
nuanced than Khan’s because he makes no bones about
completely overthrowing the system. Ironically, he calls
his ‘revolution’ legal and constitutional! Qadri has been
given a leg up by the horribly botched strong-arm used
by the PMLN government against Qadri’s Lahore
headquarters, killing around a dozen people and injuring
some 100 in police firing.
Individually, however, neither Qadri nor Khan can oust
the government. Hence, efforts by quintessential
establishment flunkies and Tonga politicians (whose
support base can fit on a horse-driven Tonga) like the
Chaudaries of Gujarat and Sheikh Rasheed of
Rawalpindi to bring them together. But this appears to
be an uphill task because while Khan has some kind of
a stake in the system, Qadri is a misguided missile
seeking to destroy everything without any clear idea of
how and what to replace it with. What is more, they
have their problems on who will lead and their
suspicions on who will retreat first leaving the other in
the lurch. Meanwhile, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)
which was fast becoming irrelevant and leaderless, with Asif Zardari in his bunker, Bilawal active only on twitter
and the party is disarray, disunited (especially in Punjab) and directionless, has also started making noises against the government and in support of Khan.
But even if the PPP joined the opposition ranks, unless the army casts its lot with the forces arraigned against the government, it is unlikely that Sharif would lose power anytime soon.
Despite its problems with the government, the army
doesn’t seem quite ready to either force mid-term
elections, or usher in a medium-term interim
government of technocrats, or even take over power
directly. Even the praetorian Pakistan army knows that
doing any such thing would tantamount to jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. It would rather put up with
a weak government that subordinates itself to the
military than tempt fate or worse by destabilising the
government or ousting it. Of course, if massive
disturbances break out as a result of the agitations
being planned by Khan, Qadri and Co. then all bets are
off. If things come to such a pass, then Imran Khan will
have to cool his heels in the pavilion, his dreams and delusions of leading Pakistan shattered.
The most remarkable thing in the unfolding political drama in Pakistan is the swiftness with which Nawaz Sharif has lost political capital and managed to box himself into a corner because of wrong political decisions. He could still recover lost ground, but that
will require political cunning, coolness and compromise, none of the things he is known for.
For someone whose understanding of politics is limited to drawing banal cricketing analogies, the phrase ‘it’s
not cricket’ aptly describes the sort of politics Imran Khan is indulging in these days. His threat of leading a ‘Long March’ (how Mao must be twisting in his grave
over the Pakistani mutilation of the original Long March) to Islamabad to shake up the political system – he is himself isn’t clear on what he actually wants – is not cricket because it brazenly violates the basic rules
of the political game set in the constitution. It is also not cricket in the sense that a five year term in government is not the same as a five-day test match in which the two contending sides get to play two innings
each.
That Khan isn’t clear on what he hopes to get out of
the ‘Long March’ (or is it Tsunami March or Azadi
March?) is evident because he keeps shifting the
goalposts depending on what catches his fancy at a
particular time. He started with demanding a vote
verification in four constituencies, went on to demand a
mid-term election, retracted to demanding an audit of
the entire election (inspired by Afghanistan). The end-
game – how he hopes to get his demand met, what he
will do if the government continues to stonewall, and
what the consequences of any widespread disturbance
in Islamabad could be, including the outside chance of a
derailment of the democratic process – has obviously
not been thought through by him. Not only is his timing
wrong (barely a year after the general election he is
demanding a mid-term poll), he has also not factored in
the possibility that even if he managed to grab power,
he would then be faced with similar efforts to overthrow
him. In other words, it will be back to the sordid politics
of the 1990s.
Imran Khan suddenly became hyperactive against the
government after the military establishment seemed to
get into a tussle with incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif’s government leading many analysts to suspect
that he had been put up to the task by the powers that
be. Despite being seen as riding on the back of the
military to queer the pitch for the Nawaz Sharif
government, Imran Khan was careful to keep parroting
his commitment to democracy, even though he is doing
everything to undermine it. Even if he can’t force the
Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PMLN) out of office
through his agitation, he would have weakened the
civilian dispensation to a point where it would be forced
to lean on the crutches of the military, or at least
remain extremely diffident, before the military. That the
PMLN government has come to such a pass with just
about a year in office is a sorry statement on the
fragility of the democratic process in Pakistan.
It is not just Imran Khan who is on the march against
the government. The somewhat comical cleric from
Canada, Tahirul Qadri, has also been on the warpath,
selling an instant revolution to his acolytes as if it were
some kind of instant coffee. Politically, Qadri is a non-
entity. But like many other God-men, and such like in
the subcontinent, Qadri has his following which probably
runs into a million or more. His game is even less
nuanced than Khan’s because he makes no bones about
completely overthrowing the system. Ironically, he calls
his ‘revolution’ legal and constitutional! Qadri has been
given a leg up by the horribly botched strong-arm used
by the PMLN government against Qadri’s Lahore
headquarters, killing around a dozen people and injuring
some 100 in police firing.
Individually, however, neither Qadri nor Khan can oust
the government. Hence, efforts by quintessential
establishment flunkies and Tonga politicians (whose
support base can fit on a horse-driven Tonga) like the
Chaudaries of Gujarat and Sheikh Rasheed of
Rawalpindi to bring them together. But this appears to
be an uphill task because while Khan has some kind of
a stake in the system, Qadri is a misguided missile
seeking to destroy everything without any clear idea of
how and what to replace it with. What is more, they
have their problems on who will lead and their
suspicions on who will retreat first leaving the other in
the lurch. Meanwhile, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)
which was fast becoming irrelevant and leaderless, with Asif Zardari in his bunker, Bilawal active only on twitter
and the party is disarray, disunited (especially in Punjab) and directionless, has also started making noises against the government and in support of Khan.
But even if the PPP joined the opposition ranks, unless the army casts its lot with the forces arraigned against the government, it is unlikely that Sharif would lose power anytime soon.
Despite its problems with the government, the army
doesn’t seem quite ready to either force mid-term
elections, or usher in a medium-term interim
government of technocrats, or even take over power
directly. Even the praetorian Pakistan army knows that
doing any such thing would tantamount to jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. It would rather put up with
a weak government that subordinates itself to the
military than tempt fate or worse by destabilising the
government or ousting it. Of course, if massive
disturbances break out as a result of the agitations
being planned by Khan, Qadri and Co. then all bets are
off. If things come to such a pass, then Imran Khan will
have to cool his heels in the pavilion, his dreams and delusions of leading Pakistan shattered.
The most remarkable thing in the unfolding political drama in Pakistan is the swiftness with which Nawaz Sharif has lost political capital and managed to box himself into a corner because of wrong political decisions. He could still recover lost ground, but that
will require political cunning, coolness and compromise, none of the things he is known for.
18 Jul 2014
IS OBAMA WAGING JIHAD?
Wayne Root
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or
emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we
have a foreigner and Muslim in the White
House. I've disagreed for six years now. We
have to take our President at his word. He
says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he
is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are
both Marxists and radical Muslim
sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one
of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime.
Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid
Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines
a Marxist? Someone who believes in
government control over the people. Someone
whose obsession is income redistribution.
Someone who dedicates his life to taxes,
spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy.
Since Obama is the biggest spender in history,
the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt
creator in history, and the biggest creator of
regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is
a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my
new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer
part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and
chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies
led to the Arab Spring. His policies have
certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His
approval rating in Israel at times has been
close to zero. His policies have emboldened
our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq
has led to the creation of a radical Islamic
state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to
Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet
never says a peep in defense of Christianity or
Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his
thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me,
"Don't listen to a man's words, watch his
actions." Americans are starting to wake up to
this reality. A recent NBC poll showed
Americans find Obama less trustworthy than
Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a
few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most
persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated
religious group in the world today is
Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and
many Christians killed by the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians
were pulled from their homes and murdered
execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in
Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian
churches being burned and Christians
murdered in Muslim countries around the
world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical
Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in
Syria and lectured us all on not being
prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted
desperately to put US troops in harm's way to
fight in this civil war that is none of our
business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals
banned carolers from singing Christmas songs,
banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained
the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to
accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards
from local school children because the cards
included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or
“God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some
military funerals. Christian military chaplains
have been harassed and banned from praying
in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the
Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden
religious ministers from participating in prayer
services on federal property. Christian minister
Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort
to ban him and other Christian leaders from
the National Day of Prayer observance at the
Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to
stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible
verses they wrote on their own personal dorm
room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military
lawyers claim the First Amendment does not
include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama
administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric
entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city
hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on
record as calling for the death penalty for
gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . .
and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border.
50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the
border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for
amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some
would call it an invasion). But the worst part is
that if 10-year-old children have figured out
they can just walk across the border, then so
have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may
already be in America because Obama chose
not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying
America from within by murdering the middle
class. But is there something even more
insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to
destroy America and murder the middle class,
to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-
Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll
let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-
born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation
otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it
gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of
our stomachs. Something is very wrong.
Everything we believe in…everything America
stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging
Jihad from inside the White House.
CHRISTIANS AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Jack Kerwick
If ever sober-minded folks thought that they
could take refuge in the Christian church from
the left-wing juggernaut that is our culture’s
zeitgeist, they can think this no more.
In the vestibule of the Lutheran church in
which my son’s summer camp is held, I
noticed that the most recent edition of The
Lutheran is devoted to the topic of “economic
inequality.”
Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and
ministry, quotes Luther who wrote that “the
poor” are routinely “defrauded” by the rich.
Matters, she declares, are “no less” true
“today.”
Dividing, as it does, the world into “makers”
and “takers,” “inequality” fosters the invidious
fiction that some, including some people,
including “some children,” are “worth more
than all the rest.” This, though, contradicts the
Christian’s belief that we are all “created in
God’s image [.]”
“Congregations,” Everist writes, “need to
welcome, include and minister among people
across socioeconomic boundaries.” She assures
us that “we don’t need to fear those named ‘of
no worth’ becoming filled with power and
potential because,” she concludes, “together
we can become life-givers in the world.”
Where to begin?
For starters, the term “inequality” when used
in this context is both inaccurate and unfair.
“Equality” is a morally charged word. In this
respect it is not unlike “good,” “justice,”
“virtue,” and the like. Some of “the rich” that
Everist and her ilk loathe may know how to
cook their books, but Everist and her fellow
proponents of economic “equality” most
definitely know how to cook their arguments:
casting one’s position in the language of
“equality” is a sure-fire way of stacking the
deck in favor of one’s view from the outset.
That this is so becomes obvious once it’s
considered that the very same people who
incessantly bemoan “inequality” while arguing
for income and wealth redistribution are the
first to demand ever greater “diversity.” They
are the first to bludgeon us into “celebrating”
our differences.
Income/wealth “inequality,” however, is
diversity.
If we are going to promote real diversity, then
it is a foregone conclusion that there will be
differences, dramatic differences, in the life
choices that individuals make.
And this in turn means, necessarily, that there
will be staggering differences in the amount of
money that people earn, for among the choices
that people make throughout their lives is the
choice of, well, their livelihoods.
“Inequality,” in other words, is just the word
that the self-avowed champions of diversity
attribute to those instances of diversity that
aren’t to their liking.
If, as Professor Everist implies, those of us
who object to being coerced into working
longer hours for little to no pay for the sake of
realizing the redistributive scheme of some
ideologue’s imagination are the enemies of
“equality,” then she and her fellow travelers
are the enemies of diversity (to say nothing of
individuality and liberty).
Another critical point is that, whether by
accident or design, all too many contemporary
representatives of the church, like Professor
Everist, conflate the issue of “the poor” or “the
needy” with that of economic “inequality.” In
doing so, they radically misconstrue the
Gospel.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable
more than any other designed to emblematize
the ideal of Christian charity, features a man
of considerable means—the Samaritan—who
deployed some of his ample resources to help
a stranger in need.
Jesus, in other words, held up a reasonably
well-to-do, and possibly even wealthy, man as
the model of Christian love.
Christ also praised a Roman soldier, a man,
mind you, who was sufficiently well off to
have servants, as displaying more faith than
anyone— including the impoverished to whom
He ministered—in all of Israel.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich
members of the priestly class with whom Jesus
must’ve been particularly close, for not only
did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow
Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to
the Romans. Following Jesus’ crucifixion, both
prepared His body for burial in the tomb that
Joseph secured for Him.
The Christian’s vocation is to care for the
needy, for those in need. And this could
include anyone— regardless of his or her
socioeconomic circumstances. Unfortunately,
whether Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, the
contemporary Christian church’s almost
exclusive emphasis on “the poor” comes at the
cost of reducing the non-poor, and certainly
the rich, to the status of non-persons. As such,
the latter are for practical purposes rendered
objects, yes, but not proper objects of agape,
of Christian love.
No, the tireless campaign to demonize “the
rich”—as well as those of us who are not rich
but who object to the demonization of the rich
and the socialist fantasies of the demagogues—
renders “the rich” just objects.
Of course a great portion of Jesus’ ministry
was spent ministering to the poor. Yet a great
deal was also expended upon attending to the
needs of the non-poor—as well as those of the
rich .
And none of it was spent on the issue of
“economic inequality.”
If ever sober-minded folks thought that they
could take refuge in the Christian church from
the left-wing juggernaut that is our culture’s
zeitgeist, they can think this no more.
In the vestibule of the Lutheran church in
which my son’s summer camp is held, I
noticed that the most recent edition of The
Lutheran is devoted to the topic of “economic
inequality.”
Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and
ministry, quotes Luther who wrote that “the
poor” are routinely “defrauded” by the rich.
Matters, she declares, are “no less” true
“today.”
Dividing, as it does, the world into “makers”
and “takers,” “inequality” fosters the invidious
fiction that some, including some people,
including “some children,” are “worth more
than all the rest.” This, though, contradicts the
Christian’s belief that we are all “created in
God’s image [.]”
“Congregations,” Everist writes, “need to
welcome, include and minister among people
across socioeconomic boundaries.” She assures
us that “we don’t need to fear those named ‘of
no worth’ becoming filled with power and
potential because,” she concludes, “together
we can become life-givers in the world.”
Where to begin?
For starters, the term “inequality” when used
in this context is both inaccurate and unfair.
“Equality” is a morally charged word. In this
respect it is not unlike “good,” “justice,”
“virtue,” and the like. Some of “the rich” that
Everist and her ilk loathe may know how to
cook their books, but Everist and her fellow
proponents of economic “equality” most
definitely know how to cook their arguments:
casting one’s position in the language of
“equality” is a sure-fire way of stacking the
deck in favor of one’s view from the outset.
That this is so becomes obvious once it’s
considered that the very same people who
incessantly bemoan “inequality” while arguing
for income and wealth redistribution are the
first to demand ever greater “diversity.” They
are the first to bludgeon us into “celebrating”
our differences.
Income/wealth “inequality,” however, is
diversity.
If we are going to promote real diversity, then
it is a foregone conclusion that there will be
differences, dramatic differences, in the life
choices that individuals make.
And this in turn means, necessarily, that there
will be staggering differences in the amount of
money that people earn, for among the choices
that people make throughout their lives is the
choice of, well, their livelihoods.
“Inequality,” in other words, is just the word
that the self-avowed champions of diversity
attribute to those instances of diversity that
aren’t to their liking.
If, as Professor Everist implies, those of us
who object to being coerced into working
longer hours for little to no pay for the sake of
realizing the redistributive scheme of some
ideologue’s imagination are the enemies of
“equality,” then she and her fellow travelers
are the enemies of diversity (to say nothing of
individuality and liberty).
Another critical point is that, whether by
accident or design, all too many contemporary
representatives of the church, like Professor
Everist, conflate the issue of “the poor” or “the
needy” with that of economic “inequality.” In
doing so, they radically misconstrue the
Gospel.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable
more than any other designed to emblematize
the ideal of Christian charity, features a man
of considerable means—the Samaritan—who
deployed some of his ample resources to help
a stranger in need.
Jesus, in other words, held up a reasonably
well-to-do, and possibly even wealthy, man as
the model of Christian love.
Christ also praised a Roman soldier, a man,
mind you, who was sufficiently well off to
have servants, as displaying more faith than
anyone— including the impoverished to whom
He ministered—in all of Israel.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich
members of the priestly class with whom Jesus
must’ve been particularly close, for not only
did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow
Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to
the Romans. Following Jesus’ crucifixion, both
prepared His body for burial in the tomb that
Joseph secured for Him.
The Christian’s vocation is to care for the
needy, for those in need. And this could
include anyone— regardless of his or her
socioeconomic circumstances. Unfortunately,
whether Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, the
contemporary Christian church’s almost
exclusive emphasis on “the poor” comes at the
cost of reducing the non-poor, and certainly
the rich, to the status of non-persons. As such,
the latter are for practical purposes rendered
objects, yes, but not proper objects of agape,
of Christian love.
No, the tireless campaign to demonize “the
rich”—as well as those of us who are not rich
but who object to the demonization of the rich
and the socialist fantasies of the demagogues—
renders “the rich” just objects.
Of course a great portion of Jesus’ ministry
was spent ministering to the poor. Yet a great
deal was also expended upon attending to the
needs of the non-poor—as well as those of the
rich .
And none of it was spent on the issue of
“economic inequality.”
AN ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
Bill Tatro
Having lived most of my life in upstate New
York in the snow belt region, (between
Syracuse and Buffalo) I always found it
prudent to heed the advice of the weather man
when he proclaimed a major storm was
coming. Most people would make a mad dash
to the store to load up on such essentials as
bread and milk. That always confused me since
there is just so much milk you can drink and
bread that you can eat. I, on the other hand,
would make sure there was enough gasoline
to drive the generator in case the power went
out. Then I went for the milk (wine) and the
bread(steak), to each his own.
There were many times that the weatherman
was not necessarily wrong about a storm but
was wrong about the severity. A little egg on
his/her face. However, there were very few,
egg or not, that weren’t appreciative of the
warnings since, inconvenient or not they were
life threatening forecasts. We never took a
winter storm for granted.
People today, when viewing the current stock
market, would be well advised to listen to the
warnings about the coming storm. Like the
weatherman, who uses various measurements,
historical basis, and even life time experience,
so to do different “financial weathermen” in
forecasting the financial storm coming.
Excessive leverage, share buyback, nonexistent
cap ex, historic merger and acquisition pricing
would be the equivalent of temperature
inversions, moisture build up and wind flow
changes. The later would send us scurrying for
that proverbial milk and bread. However, the
former simply makes most folks yawn and ask
with a complacent smile, REALLY? AND?
Since weather has been so front and center in
justifying the poor economic results of the past
it may be wise to take a lesson from that same
weather, especially the kind that is
experienced in upstate New York.
The components for a major financial storm
continue to build every single day. We can
ignore them at our peril or we can realize that
it is not a question of if but of when.
Milk and bread anyone?
Having lived most of my life in upstate New
York in the snow belt region, (between
Syracuse and Buffalo) I always found it
prudent to heed the advice of the weather man
when he proclaimed a major storm was
coming. Most people would make a mad dash
to the store to load up on such essentials as
bread and milk. That always confused me since
there is just so much milk you can drink and
bread that you can eat. I, on the other hand,
would make sure there was enough gasoline
to drive the generator in case the power went
out. Then I went for the milk (wine) and the
bread(steak), to each his own.
There were many times that the weatherman
was not necessarily wrong about a storm but
was wrong about the severity. A little egg on
his/her face. However, there were very few,
egg or not, that weren’t appreciative of the
warnings since, inconvenient or not they were
life threatening forecasts. We never took a
winter storm for granted.
People today, when viewing the current stock
market, would be well advised to listen to the
warnings about the coming storm. Like the
weatherman, who uses various measurements,
historical basis, and even life time experience,
so to do different “financial weathermen” in
forecasting the financial storm coming.
Excessive leverage, share buyback, nonexistent
cap ex, historic merger and acquisition pricing
would be the equivalent of temperature
inversions, moisture build up and wind flow
changes. The later would send us scurrying for
that proverbial milk and bread. However, the
former simply makes most folks yawn and ask
with a complacent smile, REALLY? AND?
Since weather has been so front and center in
justifying the poor economic results of the past
it may be wise to take a lesson from that same
weather, especially the kind that is
experienced in upstate New York.
The components for a major financial storm
continue to build every single day. We can
ignore them at our peril or we can realize that
it is not a question of if but of when.
Milk and bread anyone?
GOING GREEN IN THE NAME OF TYRANNY
Gabriella Hoffman
It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans
want to preserve and protect the environment.
No one truly wants to live in squalor or
breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to
destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly
desires to harm the planet.
Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as
a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are
doing it, so it must be great—right? On the
surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re
told that “going green” will absolve us for our
supposed transgressions against the
environment. Certainly Mother Earth will
forgive us for developing our beautiful planet
while creating opportunities for prosperity and
social advancement!
What could possibly be wrong with the green
lifestyle?
Green on the outside yet red on the inside,
modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life,
anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel
away the “protect the planet” façade to
discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage
Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully
summarizes the goal of today’s
environmentalist movement:
The dirty little secret of the modern
environmental movement is that it has become
a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—
from carbon taxes, to renewable energy
standards, to crushing regulations on coal
plants—would impose high costs on the people
who can least afford to pay the green tab.
Support offshore drilling or commercial
fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be
killed off ! Reject the idea of “climate change”
and its alleged anthropogenic nature?
Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested .
Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—
their company is largely responsible for
deforestation . Think the world isn’t
overpopulated? Wrong—population control is
needed to reduce poverty.
In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and
business consultant who served as a member
of the group from 1971-86— testified before the
Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked
environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in
the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace
took a sharp turn to the political left, and
began to adopt policies that I could not accept
from my scientific perspective. Climate change
was not an issue when I abandoned
Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
is more affectionately known as the
Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of
executive order signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA
was originally created to promote conservation
and protect the health of Americans. Today,
that is not the case. When it’s not instructing
employees to stop defecating in hallways,
spending millions on conferences , or tinkering
with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-
fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting,
among many things.
Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who
encouraged the creation of the EPA , notes the
department’s radical shift from its original
purpose:
Activist groups realized the agency could be
used to alter our government by coming down
heavily on all human activities regardless of
their impact on the environment. From
approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and
regulations became less about science-based
environmental protection and more about
advancing extraneous ideological agendas.
In August 2010, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other organizations
petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing
tackle and ammunition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is
supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America
Fishing and National Shooting Sports
Foundation immediately voiced concern and
pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead
tackle and ammunition. Why?
Environmentalist groups resorted to
fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A
November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for
Disease concluded that “some individuals who
eat a great deal of wild game may have lower
blood lead levels than some other individuals
who eat little or no wild game but who have
other sources of lead exposure.” Had
corresponding legislation been considered,
industries beyond hunting and fishing —namely
law enforcement, military, and target shooting
—would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
label water as a pollutant . They were
successfully defeated in January 2013 when a
case filed by the Virginia Department and
Transportation and Fairfax County sued the
EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to
regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax
County’s Accotink Creek.
What can be done to curb the tide of eco-
socialism without hurting the environment?
First and foremost, the EPA should be
abolished or at least overhauled. It has too
much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have
small business interests in mind. Secondly,
alternative views on “climate change” need to
be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm
that the “climate change” theory is largely
exaggerated and that change in climate can’t
be solely attributed to humans . Thirdly,
sustainable conservation through fishing and
hunting should also be discussed. Those of us
who fish and hunt desire to conserve our
surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses,
gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support
conservation efforts.
Radical environmentalism is a consequence of
big government policies. Rather than helping
the environment, government is harming the
environment with its burdensome tax code, its
restrictive policies, and its embrace of
Marxism. Instead, free-market
environmentalism is the best alternative. Why?
It suggests private property rights, free
enterprise, and limited government solutions
best preserve and help protect the
environment.
Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.
It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans
want to preserve and protect the environment.
No one truly wants to live in squalor or
breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to
destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly
desires to harm the planet.
Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as
a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are
doing it, so it must be great—right? On the
surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re
told that “going green” will absolve us for our
supposed transgressions against the
environment. Certainly Mother Earth will
forgive us for developing our beautiful planet
while creating opportunities for prosperity and
social advancement!
What could possibly be wrong with the green
lifestyle?
Green on the outside yet red on the inside,
modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life,
anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel
away the “protect the planet” façade to
discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage
Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully
summarizes the goal of today’s
environmentalist movement:
The dirty little secret of the modern
environmental movement is that it has become
a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—
from carbon taxes, to renewable energy
standards, to crushing regulations on coal
plants—would impose high costs on the people
who can least afford to pay the green tab.
Support offshore drilling or commercial
fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be
killed off ! Reject the idea of “climate change”
and its alleged anthropogenic nature?
Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested .
Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—
their company is largely responsible for
deforestation . Think the world isn’t
overpopulated? Wrong—population control is
needed to reduce poverty.
In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and
business consultant who served as a member
of the group from 1971-86— testified before the
Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked
environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in
the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace
took a sharp turn to the political left, and
began to adopt policies that I could not accept
from my scientific perspective. Climate change
was not an issue when I abandoned
Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
is more affectionately known as the
Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of
executive order signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA
was originally created to promote conservation
and protect the health of Americans. Today,
that is not the case. When it’s not instructing
employees to stop defecating in hallways,
spending millions on conferences , or tinkering
with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-
fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting,
among many things.
Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who
encouraged the creation of the EPA , notes the
department’s radical shift from its original
purpose:
Activist groups realized the agency could be
used to alter our government by coming down
heavily on all human activities regardless of
their impact on the environment. From
approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and
regulations became less about science-based
environmental protection and more about
advancing extraneous ideological agendas.
In August 2010, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other organizations
petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing
tackle and ammunition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is
supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America
Fishing and National Shooting Sports
Foundation immediately voiced concern and
pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead
tackle and ammunition. Why?
Environmentalist groups resorted to
fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A
November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for
Disease concluded that “some individuals who
eat a great deal of wild game may have lower
blood lead levels than some other individuals
who eat little or no wild game but who have
other sources of lead exposure.” Had
corresponding legislation been considered,
industries beyond hunting and fishing —namely
law enforcement, military, and target shooting
—would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
label water as a pollutant . They were
successfully defeated in January 2013 when a
case filed by the Virginia Department and
Transportation and Fairfax County sued the
EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to
regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax
County’s Accotink Creek.
What can be done to curb the tide of eco-
socialism without hurting the environment?
First and foremost, the EPA should be
abolished or at least overhauled. It has too
much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have
small business interests in mind. Secondly,
alternative views on “climate change” need to
be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm
that the “climate change” theory is largely
exaggerated and that change in climate can’t
be solely attributed to humans . Thirdly,
sustainable conservation through fishing and
hunting should also be discussed. Those of us
who fish and hunt desire to conserve our
surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses,
gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support
conservation efforts.
Radical environmentalism is a consequence of
big government policies. Rather than helping
the environment, government is harming the
environment with its burdensome tax code, its
restrictive policies, and its embrace of
Marxism. Instead, free-market
environmentalism is the best alternative. Why?
It suggests private property rights, free
enterprise, and limited government solutions
best preserve and help protect the
environment.
Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.
LIVING HISTORY AT GROUND ZERO
Suzanne Fields
New York -- New York, New York, a
wonderful town. (The Bronx is up, and the
Battery's down.)
Sometimes derided in what New Yorkers call
"flyover country," Gotham is nevertheless a
microcosm of America with its many
immigrant and ethnic cultures, the work of
immigrants who first clung together in self-
made ghettos with shops, stores and
restaurants to recall the places left behind.
When these immigrants make enough money,
they usually move out to more inclusive
neighborhoods.
New York was built by legal immigrants. At
Ellis Island, where more than 12 million
immigrants made their first stop in America
between 1892 and 1954, a tour guide tells the
story -- perhaps apocryphal, but it could be
true -- about an arriving immigrant who wore
a signboard because he spoke no English,
saying he wanted to go to Houston, meaning
the street on the Lower East Side, then a
Jewish neighborhood. He was by mistake put
on a train to Houston, Texas -- where he
settled and struck oil.
These were the days and years of happier
immigration. There was no chaos on the
border, few questions about who was legal
and who was not. It was difficult for those
immigrants to get here and difficult to go back.
Everyone came to stay, climb into the melting
pot and become an American. New York is a
city in constant change, swinging between the
pride of e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one"
-- and the discomfort that accompanies
multicultural and economic differences. The
roiling debate over illegal immigration
sometimes leads us to forget that we are all
immigrants. Ronald Reagan once remarked that
America is the only country in the world
where a new citizen is as American as a
citizen descended from a forebear who arrived
two or three centuries ago.
But New York is also different from the rest of
America, with its sophisticated culture in
avant-garde art galleries, museums, expensive
couturiers, gourmet restaurants and an
abundance of upscale organic, vegan and
gluten-free markets to suit the precious and
the trendy. On the upper reaches of income,
the 1-percenters are status-conscious,
acquisitive consumers who can afford almost
any luxury the city offers.
New York is the melting pot that never quite
melts, with some of the poorest driven by
hope of "moving on up," to achieve and
become rich in the way of the millions who
did it before, and with a shrinking middle class
of young people moving away when they want
to start families because they can't afford
Manhattan rents.
What draws New Yorkers together today is the
memory of Sept. 11, 2001, and the rebuilt
ground zero. The new National September 11
Memorial Museum has opened next to the
Freedom Tower, rising from the ashes like the
mythical Phoenix, testifying to the defiance of
an obscene Islamist attempt to humble and
humiliate.
The sacred and the secular are mixed at the
museum at ground zero, documenting both
what was lost and the spirit of what survives.
The lost get personalities in portraits with
touching detail that rises above grim statistics.
Cherished artifacts, a pair of shoes, a pair of
eyeglasses, a fireman's helmet, a medal, bring
life to democracy's Valley of the Kings. Grief
remains palpable in the descent into dark
reflection, a pilgrimage warmed by hope of
never again. A dramatic abstract sculpture
created by the force of impact when one of the
airplanes crashed into the North Tower
between floors 93 and 99, agitates the
imagination with pity and fear, steel twisted in
agony and loss.
The slurry wall, 64 feet of poured concrete
that kept out the Hudson River, survives, a
monolith preserved as though an
archaeological remnant of an ancient
civilization. It's a triumph of engineering, an
emblem of the human spirit, cracked but
unbowed. A surveillance video showing the
hijackers going through airport security on the
fateful morning unsettles but demands
attention. Some critics have railed against the
use of the word "jihad" in the museum's
narrative about 9/11, but the word is both
reminder and touchstone for diligence in the
continuing pursuit of evil men who are
determined to kill us.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
warned that Islamist fighters from Europe and
the United States who went to fight in Syria
have learned new technology from bomb-
makers in Yemen, and some have been sent
home with an assignment to do harm.
The Memorial Museum reminds New Yorkers
and the rest of us to love thy neighbor, but
beware of thy enemies. Two granite basins of
rippling water fill the footprints of the
destroyed twin towers, tears of grief and
mourning -- and of renewal and the will to
fight back.
New York -- New York, New York, a
wonderful town. (The Bronx is up, and the
Battery's down.)
Sometimes derided in what New Yorkers call
"flyover country," Gotham is nevertheless a
microcosm of America with its many
immigrant and ethnic cultures, the work of
immigrants who first clung together in self-
made ghettos with shops, stores and
restaurants to recall the places left behind.
When these immigrants make enough money,
they usually move out to more inclusive
neighborhoods.
New York was built by legal immigrants. At
Ellis Island, where more than 12 million
immigrants made their first stop in America
between 1892 and 1954, a tour guide tells the
story -- perhaps apocryphal, but it could be
true -- about an arriving immigrant who wore
a signboard because he spoke no English,
saying he wanted to go to Houston, meaning
the street on the Lower East Side, then a
Jewish neighborhood. He was by mistake put
on a train to Houston, Texas -- where he
settled and struck oil.
These were the days and years of happier
immigration. There was no chaos on the
border, few questions about who was legal
and who was not. It was difficult for those
immigrants to get here and difficult to go back.
Everyone came to stay, climb into the melting
pot and become an American. New York is a
city in constant change, swinging between the
pride of e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one"
-- and the discomfort that accompanies
multicultural and economic differences. The
roiling debate over illegal immigration
sometimes leads us to forget that we are all
immigrants. Ronald Reagan once remarked that
America is the only country in the world
where a new citizen is as American as a
citizen descended from a forebear who arrived
two or three centuries ago.
But New York is also different from the rest of
America, with its sophisticated culture in
avant-garde art galleries, museums, expensive
couturiers, gourmet restaurants and an
abundance of upscale organic, vegan and
gluten-free markets to suit the precious and
the trendy. On the upper reaches of income,
the 1-percenters are status-conscious,
acquisitive consumers who can afford almost
any luxury the city offers.
New York is the melting pot that never quite
melts, with some of the poorest driven by
hope of "moving on up," to achieve and
become rich in the way of the millions who
did it before, and with a shrinking middle class
of young people moving away when they want
to start families because they can't afford
Manhattan rents.
What draws New Yorkers together today is the
memory of Sept. 11, 2001, and the rebuilt
ground zero. The new National September 11
Memorial Museum has opened next to the
Freedom Tower, rising from the ashes like the
mythical Phoenix, testifying to the defiance of
an obscene Islamist attempt to humble and
humiliate.
The sacred and the secular are mixed at the
museum at ground zero, documenting both
what was lost and the spirit of what survives.
The lost get personalities in portraits with
touching detail that rises above grim statistics.
Cherished artifacts, a pair of shoes, a pair of
eyeglasses, a fireman's helmet, a medal, bring
life to democracy's Valley of the Kings. Grief
remains palpable in the descent into dark
reflection, a pilgrimage warmed by hope of
never again. A dramatic abstract sculpture
created by the force of impact when one of the
airplanes crashed into the North Tower
between floors 93 and 99, agitates the
imagination with pity and fear, steel twisted in
agony and loss.
The slurry wall, 64 feet of poured concrete
that kept out the Hudson River, survives, a
monolith preserved as though an
archaeological remnant of an ancient
civilization. It's a triumph of engineering, an
emblem of the human spirit, cracked but
unbowed. A surveillance video showing the
hijackers going through airport security on the
fateful morning unsettles but demands
attention. Some critics have railed against the
use of the word "jihad" in the museum's
narrative about 9/11, but the word is both
reminder and touchstone for diligence in the
continuing pursuit of evil men who are
determined to kill us.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
warned that Islamist fighters from Europe and
the United States who went to fight in Syria
have learned new technology from bomb-
makers in Yemen, and some have been sent
home with an assignment to do harm.
The Memorial Museum reminds New Yorkers
and the rest of us to love thy neighbor, but
beware of thy enemies. Two granite basins of
rippling water fill the footprints of the
destroyed twin towers, tears of grief and
mourning -- and of renewal and the will to
fight back.
HONOURING OUR FATHERS
Michael Reagan
Despite the media play Chicago gets, it isn't the
official "Murder Capital of the U.S.A."
That unhappy distinction - based on the
murder rate per 100,000 people, not on the
number of actual dead people on the streets -
belongs to poor, under-populated Flint, Mich.
Chicago gets the bad rap - and the attention of
the anti-gun nuts -- because it led the nation
with 415 homicides last year. That's more
murders than any other city, but not even in
the top 10 when you factor in population.
Thanks to its recent "Independence Day
Massacre," which left 18 dead and 82
wounded, Chicago's murder toll has already hit
201 for this year.
Homicides have been trending down in Mayor
Emanuel's kind of town and other major cities
for decades. Chicago had nearly 1,000 murders
a year in the early 1990s.
But most of the city's murder victims, and their
murderers, continue to be young blacks and
Latinos who either belonged to gangs or were
the victims of their drive-by violence.
The slaughter in our inner cities, while not as
bloody as it used to be, is our continuing
national tragedy.
Chicago and statistically more dangerous cities
like Detroit, New Orleans and Washington are
perpetual war zones where Americans kill
each other year round.
The only solution liberals have for ending gun
violence in the cities is to take away
everybody's guns.
But Chicago already has some of the country's
toughest gun laws. They obviously don't
bother the local drug lords.
No one ever wants to address the underlying
cause of the violence in our inner cities.
It's not the presence of guns. It's the absence
of fathers in the homes of the gang-bangers
who are using guns to shoot each other.
The numbers are depressing and well known.
Nearly 2 in 3 black children grow up in homes
without a father present. One in three Latino
kids do.
We can thank the liberals and their 1960s
welfare programs for many of these broken
families.
It was their "War on Poverty" that gave
unmarried mothers financial independence,
made fathers superfluous and undermined the
formation of two-parent families.
Fathers were let off the hook for their baby
making and disappeared from family life.
Mothers and grandmothers raised the children.
And when the fatherless boys grew up they did
what children born into broken families often
do. They went out and found their own
substitute families on the streets. We call them
gangs.
And then as gang members they use guns to
defend their street families from those who try
to do them harm the same way we'd defend
our family members.
The murderous violence in our cities is never
going to end until someone stands up and
wakes up America with a "Put the father back
in the family" speech.
Bill Cosby tried it - and caught hell. Others
have caught hell for talking about the
importance to children and society of intact
families.
It's time for someone politically and culturally
important - like the president - to make a big,
brave speech and remind everyone in the
country that families need fathers, and vice
versa.
The "fatherless family" problem goes beyond
the inner cities and it transcends race and
ethnicity.
We have a nation today where 20 to 30 million
children go to bed each night without a father
in the home.
We have a pop culture that constantly
disrespects and mocks fathers.
Try to find a popular TV show - or a Disney
movie - where the father is not laughed at or
depicted as a bumbling fool. It's not easy.
Dishonoring our fathers and denying their
importance to strong families has to end. If we
want America to survive, we need to put
fathers back in the home where they belong.
Despite the media play Chicago gets, it isn't the
official "Murder Capital of the U.S.A."
That unhappy distinction - based on the
murder rate per 100,000 people, not on the
number of actual dead people on the streets -
belongs to poor, under-populated Flint, Mich.
Chicago gets the bad rap - and the attention of
the anti-gun nuts -- because it led the nation
with 415 homicides last year. That's more
murders than any other city, but not even in
the top 10 when you factor in population.
Thanks to its recent "Independence Day
Massacre," which left 18 dead and 82
wounded, Chicago's murder toll has already hit
201 for this year.
Homicides have been trending down in Mayor
Emanuel's kind of town and other major cities
for decades. Chicago had nearly 1,000 murders
a year in the early 1990s.
But most of the city's murder victims, and their
murderers, continue to be young blacks and
Latinos who either belonged to gangs or were
the victims of their drive-by violence.
The slaughter in our inner cities, while not as
bloody as it used to be, is our continuing
national tragedy.
Chicago and statistically more dangerous cities
like Detroit, New Orleans and Washington are
perpetual war zones where Americans kill
each other year round.
The only solution liberals have for ending gun
violence in the cities is to take away
everybody's guns.
But Chicago already has some of the country's
toughest gun laws. They obviously don't
bother the local drug lords.
No one ever wants to address the underlying
cause of the violence in our inner cities.
It's not the presence of guns. It's the absence
of fathers in the homes of the gang-bangers
who are using guns to shoot each other.
The numbers are depressing and well known.
Nearly 2 in 3 black children grow up in homes
without a father present. One in three Latino
kids do.
We can thank the liberals and their 1960s
welfare programs for many of these broken
families.
It was their "War on Poverty" that gave
unmarried mothers financial independence,
made fathers superfluous and undermined the
formation of two-parent families.
Fathers were let off the hook for their baby
making and disappeared from family life.
Mothers and grandmothers raised the children.
And when the fatherless boys grew up they did
what children born into broken families often
do. They went out and found their own
substitute families on the streets. We call them
gangs.
And then as gang members they use guns to
defend their street families from those who try
to do them harm the same way we'd defend
our family members.
The murderous violence in our cities is never
going to end until someone stands up and
wakes up America with a "Put the father back
in the family" speech.
Bill Cosby tried it - and caught hell. Others
have caught hell for talking about the
importance to children and society of intact
families.
It's time for someone politically and culturally
important - like the president - to make a big,
brave speech and remind everyone in the
country that families need fathers, and vice
versa.
The "fatherless family" problem goes beyond
the inner cities and it transcends race and
ethnicity.
We have a nation today where 20 to 30 million
children go to bed each night without a father
in the home.
We have a pop culture that constantly
disrespects and mocks fathers.
Try to find a popular TV show - or a Disney
movie - where the father is not laughed at or
depicted as a bumbling fool. It's not easy.
Dishonoring our fathers and denying their
importance to strong families has to end. If we
want America to survive, we need to put
fathers back in the home where they belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)