Israel's Biggest Threat

Whenever Benjamin Netanyahu opens his mouth, the world comes a little closer to nuclear war, beginning with the forces or Israel against Iran, followed without much doubt by the U.S., the players in the Middle East, possibly Russia and even China -- who knows? A global conflict could occur because of the threats of one confused and dangerous egomaniac whose Israeli political counterparts are mostly opposed to a strike against Iran; these are not just the American Jews, I mean Israelis.
And who are they?

A piece in Reuters today by Matt Spetalnick and Allyn Fisher-Ilan quoted the single most important supporter of Netanyahu’s bellicose rhetoric, Ehud Barack saying the following:

"Despite the differences and importance of maintaining Israel's independence of action, we must remember the importance of partnership with the United States and try as much as possible not to hurt that," a statement from his office said. Do I hear an adult voice in the room? Perhaps this attack of reason upon Mr. Barack is a clear indication of the Israeli political climate.

Additionally, Bradley Burston’s piece in the Israeli Haaretz today makes it clearer:

“If immediate red lines are in order, Benjamin Netanyahu would be well advised to set them for himself, and the malice and abuse and disrespect he has heaped on the president. If deadlines are in order, he might consider his upcoming U.S. visit - and the White House rejection of a meeting with Obama - as an opportune moment to shut down entirely the verbal centrifuges he has set spinning in attacks on the president, the secretary of state, and other administration officials.”

Netanyahu should stay out of American politics. Of course he wants Romney to win the election because Romney would blindly follow him into war with Iran. I wonder – has anyone considered what might happen the day after an attack on Iran by Israel even with U.S. backing?

Haven’t we been in enough wars, incursions, police actions without having thought of the way to extricate ourselves?

The answer is Afghanistan.

The Sad Tale of Greg Mortenson

I read Nick Kristoff's column in The New York Times last night via Twitter and agree with a lot of what he said in defense of Mr. Mortenson.  I feel sorry for him and loathe what he is accused of doing at the same time.  I don't agree, however,  that he should be given the benefit of the doubt or that we should "reserve judgment" as does Mr. Kristoff.  When people take on the responsibility and the privilege of managing huge sums of money for the benefit of a world-wide charity, then they need to be prepared to account for and answer to the public whose money it is they is spending.


I first read about Mortenson's good works in a book called, "Half the Sky," written  by Kristoff and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn and was duly impressed. I think I am as disappointed with these accusations as everyone else who was aware of the schools being built in behalf of Afghan and Pakistani girls, whose education has,  for centuries, been left to happenstance, serendipity or the kindness of strangers.  Nevertheless, his book, "Three cups of Tea," Mr. Mortenson's memoir, is being scrutinized for factual errors, hyping and just plain ol' lying.  We must give him the credit that he deserves, certainly, but at the same time, we must demand the answers that will either absolve or condemn him.  Let us hope for the former.

Was Michael Steele Right?

I have been a devotee of Barack Obama and no great fan of the current Republican Party; however, I'm thinking Michael Steele hit it head on when he claimed Afghanistan is now Obama's war, certainly because of the recent escalation of troops and ill-advised policies.

And Steele is not the only one; to wit, Mathew Hoh, a marine combat veteran and foreign affairs expert who resigned on principle last year because of the administration's Afghanistan policies. Take heed, President Obama. Rethink you war policies as well as your campaign rhetoric.

Afghanistan - Why are we There?

As I understand it, the strategy for what is known as AF-PAK is to keep Al Qaeda out, strengthen and support a corrupt government, teach the police and military to read and keep the Taliban under control.

In order to do that we are pumping an approximate 10 billion dollars a year into an annual economy that does not amount to much more than that, directing it mainly to the military, with much of it landing in the hands of the war lords and government officials who continue to legitimize corruption. What will happen to the Afghanistan government if we continue to do this year after year? With its newly acquired power and literacy, the military could very well take over and we may be looking at a military coup down the road. And if Al Qaeda is sponsoring terrorism all over Asia, Somalia and the rest of the world anyway, why do we continue to support Afghanistan to keep them out. It's the same flawed philosophy that took us to Vietnam in the sixties; ie, "the domino theory" which was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of course, we don't want another attack on our homeland. But we are subjecting our citizenry to a far more dangerous situation than terrorism by spending billions of dollars to support foreign countries that should be doing it themselves, when we should be establishing WPA type projects and encouraging the private sector to hire. Private businesses have no confidence in the administration because of the current state of the economy, and the economy is currently in this state because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When we first invaded the country in 2001, we were fighting a war -- counter terrorism. Now, we are not (exactly) fighting a war, we are trying to build a country that has never existed before. I say build, not re-build because Afghanistan has never had a centralized government and is generally made up of fiercely traditional tribes ruled or not ruled by Taliban. Why do we think that we can change what the Russians, the British and Alexander the Great could not? On top of that, our military is in greater danger because they are doing this with one hand tied behind their backs. If we continue along this course, we may well end up in that metaphoric mess known as a "quagmire." Or are we there already?

Change indeed!