There is one thing that is clear to me about what we must do to permanently end the threat posed by radical Islamic extremism: we must establish a relationship with the entire Muslim and Arab world based on genuine trust and shared interests. Our current presence in Iraq offers us an opportunity to accomplish this, but only if we are willing to face reality and treat Arabs as if they are equals to the Jews in Israel. No other American policy is more responsible for anti-Americanism in the Middle East (and in Europe, Asia and much of the rest of the world for that matter) than our ignorant and morally indefensible support of the hostile and oppressive actions of the Israeli government.
It would be correct to argue that war is not the ideal foundation for building a diplomatic and cross-cultural alliance upon, but it is precisely that which has put us in a position to rewrite our Middle East policy to better serve America’s national security interests. Heretofore, American foreign policy has marginalized Arab Muslims, more so than any other civilization on the planet, due in large part to our misguided support of Israel. Israel carries itself as if it were the 51st state of the Union, and for whatever reason US governments have reinforced American solidarity with the Jewish state despite its continues disregard for US interest and the will of the international community.
For all of the pandering heard from Democrats about the importance of listening to the international community when formulating US foreign policy or guiding the nation into a war, has anyone ever hear them apply this same logic to the issue of Israeli occupation of the Palestinians and total disregard for international law and countless UN resolutions? Of course not.
Republicans are no less hypocritical in their application of consequences for transgressions against the international community. One of the primary reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was its continuous disregard for UN resolutions demanding its disarmament, which is in my opinion a great and justified reason for imposing sanctions and using force to increase pressure on a government. However, in the case of Israel, it has acquired nuclear capability by spying on the United States, occupied its neighbors and reduced millions of people to a stateless and largely hopeless existence, all in the name of God and country. What have we done about that? Nothing. No sanctions, no force, politicians don’t even have the courage to speak out publicly against their irresponsible and harmful policies for fear that this would be politically unwise.
...More
_______________________________________________
Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze
clever shit.. no one will make people believe these videos are mostly faked
it's like believing in ET aliens
___________________________
Bush's new friends: The Sunnis
Sept. 5, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- With little progress toward national political reconciliation in Baghdad, and Congress poised to reassess the troop surge, the Bush administration is maneuvering to spin its Iraq strategy in a different direction. Essentially, the argument now goes that instead of sectarian reconciliation from the capital, all politics is local. A series of handshake truces between the U.S. military and Sunni tribes -- including some who not long ago fought as insurgents -- is at the heart of the approach to bringing greater stability to Iraq.
"At some point, there was a switch in the terms of reference for how we evaluate this surge," says Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "It was that we were going to get the politics running at the national level. Now the key is local progress. It is not national progress."
The handshake truces between U.S. commanders and former Sunni insurgent groups started in Iraq's western Anbar province in late 2005, and similar initiatives are now spreading east toward Baghdad. Former insurgents agree to halt attacks on U.S. troops and instead, with U.S. backing, fight against forces associated with al-Qaida in Iraq. In return, U.S. forces are also helping Sunnis establish their own local security forces and sign up in predominantly Sunni units of the Iraqi army and police.
This new concept, known as "bottom-up reconciliation," has increasingly crept into White House and Pentagon talking points -- reframing a plan that was originally supposed to tamp down sectarian conflict and pave the way for deal making by securing Baghdad and creating a stable national government.
But while security conditions have improved in some areas of Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, some experts say that the shift toward backing Sunni groups isn't likely to help reduce sectarian strife -- and may well be setting the stage for a greater civil war.
Improved security from the troop surge, President Bush argued early this year, would foster an environment in Baghdad where national reconciliation would blossom. Concrete steps such as assembling a more inclusive central government and equitably dividing oil revenues would begin to bridge deep sectarian rifts, progress that would be measurable with so-called benchmarks. "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks," Bush said when he announced the surge strategy in January.
But the administration has been moving away from the previous measures for progress. "The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kind of discrete benchmarks," Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, told the New York Times in July. And when President Bush visited Al Asad Air Base in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province on Monday, he emphasized "bottom-up progress," saying that it is "paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country."
Military officials in Iraq contend this is, in fact, a form of reconciliation. "We are empowering [Sunnis] and we are looking at this as an opportunity to reconcile," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman in Iraq, said of the efforts to cut deals with and prop up the Sunnis. "That is one of the things we keep talking about is this national reconciliation, in which getting the people to stop fighting -- even if it is just fighting us -- at least gets people working together," Garver told Salon.
The initiatives have had some tangible benefits for U.S. troops. Maj. Jeff Pool, a Marine public affairs officer in Anbar Province, said there had been 70 attacks on U.S. forces in Anbar the week before last -- down from 450 during a week from the same time period last year.
"Most of these guys had been shooting at us, so you are virtually certain to show a net gain whatever you do," said Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Kagan has also been a vocal supporter of the surge strategy.
But others analyzing the war worry that the United States is now training, organizing and empowering staunch foes of the Shiite-led central government. Even Lt. Col. Garver, the military spokesman, admitted that the U.S. initiative with the Sunnis has resulted in "some nervousness" among Shiite leaders in Baghdad.
"If what you are doing is strengthening these particular Sunni groups, and they are cooperating with us to get rid of al-Qaida, you give them guns and training," says Marc Lynch, a professor of political science at George Washington University. "Now they are in a better position to fight against the Shiites."
...More
_________________________