IMPERIAL HUBRIS AUTHOR 'ANONYMOUS' SUGGESTS BIN LADEN IS SEEN AS 'A GREAT MAN'

The author argues that the West underestimates the power that bin Laden holds over all Muslims because he is seen throughout the Muslim world as a man of true faith battling against the unbelievers who invade Muslim lands and who seek to destroy Islam. Other Muslims may not like his tactics, but in large part they agree with his arguments about American policies in the Middle East. Despite attempts by the Bush administration and others to portray al Qaeda as far outside mainstream Islam--seeking to return the world to the seventh century--Anonymous argues that bin Laden does not frame his position in opposition to western values or western customs, but rather opposes the policies that have been advocated repeatedly by the United States in the Middle East--often siding with tyrannical dictators over more popular movements, all the while claiming to support democracy in the region; looking first and foremost at the economic benefits ("cheap oil") of policy decisions rather than considering the effect that our policies will have on the people of the region; and, attempting to promote a peaceful solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict while continuing to sell armament and munitions to Israel.

It is the position of Anonymous that until we begin to take bin Laden as a serious, rational person with a deep religious belief rather than as some sort of 'madman', we will not be able to defeat the al Qaeda threat. It is also his position that we must begin to change our policies toward the Middle East and begin a legitimate dialogue about the American relationship with the region. He argues that we must find alternative energy sources, and reduce our dependence on Saudi oil (an argument much like that of Robert Baer, Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude). Finally, he proposes that we must get serious about our war against the terrorists. It is his belief that the Iraq war was nothing more than a distraction from our battle against al Qaeda, and in fact a great recruiting tool for bin Laden. Anonymous believes that we must come to the realization that war means death--essentially that we must decide 'better them than us' and get on with it. This part of his argument leaves me a bit disillusioned, but I appreciate the rest of his opinions about the future and our battle against al Qaeda.

'Anonymous' has been outed by several media outlets as CIA analyst Mike Scheurer. The CIA has recently required that Scheurer submit requests for interviews, and what he is likely to say to the interviewer, to his superiors before he can be interviewed in the future. Since this policy was enacted, Scheurer has not received permission for any interviews. One of the last interviews prior to the new policy was with The Guardian of London. You can read his interview here.

THE TERM 'AFRICAN-AMERICAN' COMES INTO DISPUTE

Many Americans whose families have come to the U.S. from Africa face a bit of a contradiction when they are told that they cannot claim the term 'African-American' to describe their heritage. Recently, Alan Keyes (Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois) said that his Democratic opponent Barack Obama could not lay claim to the descriptor despite the fact that his father immigrated to this country from Kenya and his mother was born in Kansas. Keyes suggested that Obama does not have the same heritage as Keyes and other black Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

Apparently, this type of discrimination is occurring frequently as more immigrants arrive in the U.S. from African countries. According to the NYTimes, many immigrants are choosing to call themselves 'Nigerian-Americans' or 'Ethiopian-Americans' using their country of origin rather than using the general 'African-American'.

I can certainly understand the desire of black Americans who are descended from slaves to have a label that reflects their commonality, but I hardly agree that 'African-American' should be exclusive to them. Immigrants who come to this country, like the parents of Colin Powell who came from Jamaica, should certainly feel that they too are included in the community of black Americans. Why should they have to use a different label, singling themselves out as different? Perhaps it would be more helpful if the descendants of slaves found a more descriptive label that would encompass only themselves and still remain a part of the more universal 'African-American' designation as well. Perhaps something along the lines of 'Indentured-American' or 'Freed-African-American'.

The sad thing about all of this for me is that we have to be hyphenated Americans at all. Why can't we all just be Americans? I reject the label European-American for myself, although it is often fun to discuss my Irish-English-German-Dutch ancestry, because it is immaterial to who I am as a person--today. I understand the position that descendants of slaves take; however, if someone immigrated from Nigeria to Atlanta in 1945, did they not face the same discrimination as the descendents of slaves? Certainly they did, and probably worse because they had a funny accent in addition to their black skin. Should they not have the right to call themselves 'African-Americans' because they share some of the same heritage? Any black family that was in this country prior to 1965 faced the same discrimination as the ancestors of slaves, but their family might never have been owned--or they could have been owned in Jamaica, or Nigeria, or Ethiopia, just not in the U.S.

Black Americans whose families were owned by white Americans deserve to remember that and to designate themselves accordingly. I am just not convinced that the designator should be 'African-American'. To me, their argument is almost like saying that immigrants from Japan cannot use the designation 'Japanese-American' unless their families were here prior to 1941 and were part of the Japanese internment camps during WW2. Personally, as a white male, I never understood the problem with the term 'black American'--in fact, I even heard the daughter of Malcolm X, Atalla Shabazz, speak once at Virginia Tech saying that she chooses to call herself black because "black is beautiful."

CIA DIRECTOR TO HAVE EXPANDED POWERS

President Bush announced yesterday that he had signed an executive order giving the Director of Central Intelligence an expanded role, at least until Congress makes a decision about creating a National Intelligence Director, and creating a National Counterterrorism Center.

The new roles for the CIA Director include expanded budget control over various intelligence functions, including defense intelligence. The move by Bush will be a blow to the SecDef, and will help to bolster the CIA's significance. Bush's decision to give the Director of Central Intelligence budgetary control--in particular, the ability to shift funds from one department to another and to stop funding for any project that he deems not in the national security interest--comes just days after Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced his plans to introduce legislation that would effectively dismantle the CIA and reform it into three separate agencies that would report to the National Intelligence Director. Bush said that this move by executive order is a temporary consolidation of the 15 intelligence-gathering agencies of the government until the Congress completes legislation creating the post of National Intelligence Director.

Sen. John Edwards, Democratic candidate for Vice-President, said in response to the Bush announcement that this just confirms that the President has not taken the appropriate and decisive action since 9/11 to fix the problems in the intelligence-gathering abilities of the U.S. He argued that this political move by the current administration does not go far enough in consolidating the power into a cabinet-equivalent position as called for by the 9/11 Commission Report.

The creation of a national counterterrorism center would bring together representatives of all agencies concerned with terrorism prevention--at home and abroad. This super-agency would serve as the information gathering and dissemination center to help coordinate and share information among all the agencies from the various departments--the State Dept, Homeland Security's Immigration and Naturalization Service and its investigative arm, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Secret Service, the FAA, the Federal Trade Commission and/or Securities and Exchange Commission (to help prevent attacks on the financial services computer systems), NORAD and relevant domestic military agencies, and defense intelligence agencies.

Additionally, Bush called for the creation of standards and methods for secure identification for federal workers and contractors. He created an oversight board within the Dept of Justice "to monitor government laws and policies for civil liberties violations."

Essentially, Bush has put into place a 'watered-down' version of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and it now seems that the administration will be willing to accept a powerful National Intelligence Director rather than just the figurehead Bush had suggested previously. Once again Bush proves himself to be just as much of a 'flip-flopper' as he accuses John Kerry of being.

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking Republican member of the Senate, spoke out yesterday about the rush to institute the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It seems to me that the Congress has not acted in any reasonable capacity as yet to move forward with some of the most essential components of the commission's plan. Most important to enact right away would be the oversight functions of a single joint committee and the institution of the National Intelligence Director. Stevens argues that the Commission failed to take into account the modifications that have been made since 9/11 by the CIA and FBI in particular. However, I think the point of the Commission's work is very precise--there must be true centralized power and monetary control in order to allow for effective communication and sharing of information between these various and vastly different agencies.

I will continue to argue that competition is not the best thing to drive successful analysis. Success comes from reasoned dialogue among peers with the same areas of expertise who must come to a consensus but are then free to present their contrary opinion to another department. Compartmentalizing does not work--the intelligence must be shared, debated, and filtered through the dialogue process. The filtering must include analysts from as many different agencies and branches of government as possible--working groups formed for particular issues, such as Iraqi intelligence leading up to the war when State Dept and Energy Dept specialists were disagreeing with Defense and CIA analysts that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. If these people had all been in one room, forced to reach a consensus, we might not be mired in a nasty military campaign that will only get uglier before it gets any better--IF it gets better at all!

SPY FOR ISRAEL WORKING AT DoD FOR WOLFOWITZ AND FEITH?

Government officials are reporting that a key member of the DoD team, some say the third most powerful member of Rumsfeld's staff, may have been giving classified documents to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC--a pro-Israel lobbying group in DC) relating to government policy on Iran. The AIPAC allegedly passed these key documents in turn to Israel. Of course, both Israel and the AIPAC deny any knowledge or involvement in spying against the U.S.

The CIA official in question, Larry Franklin, is a "midlevel analyst who works in the policy office of the Defense Department" in what has been reported as an influential analyst position with regards to policy toward Iraq and Iran, working closely with Douglas Feith, himself the most influential Undersecretary to Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz. Apparently, the investigation by the FBI has been ongoing for more than a year!

Of course, the interesting thing to me in all of this lies in the fact that both Feith and Wolfowitz are key members of the Project for the New American Century. Neo-conservatism was founded in the 1950s with a strong pro-Israel position in mind for the U.S., and the PNAC represents the most recent continuation of that strong pro-Israel neocon position. Much of the justification for the PNAC's plan for invading Iraq centered on creating a stronger U.S. support system in the Middle East region for Israel. And now we have the suggestion that a key member of the Wolfowitz-Feith team has passed classified information to Israel. Personally, this possibility does not seem that far-fetched to me, nor does it seem far removed from the previous neo-conservative positions of supporting Israel. I am not suggesting any sort of conspiracy or any direct connection between Wolfowitz-Feith and Israel; however, I believe that it is important to understand the significant position in which the neo-conservative movement places Israel and its role in the Middle East.

I think in many ways the neocons have made the struggle in the Middle East even more apparently about religion than we tend to realize. It would not surprise me to learn that Mr. Franklin (if indeed guilty of passing classified documents to the AIPAC) is also part of the neocon mindset, or even to learn that Mr. Franklin is an evangelical Christian who places fundamental importance on American assistance to Israel as part of his faith. Does this seem cynical? I just want to make people aware of the feelings of many conservative evangelical Christians in this country who believe that if America abandons Israel, then America abandons God! I think this religious belief is the most important factor driving the neocon movement--it is essentially a Zionist-Christian position that goes back to the post-WW2 1940s. For most neocons, the theology has transformed itself into political ideology to the point that the leadership of the movement today would probably not hold strictly to the theology itself, but hold onto the ideology for foreign policy guidance in all decisions made by the government. Beyond the leadership, however, I would maintain that the fundamentalist religious interpretation of scripture plays a vital role in the force of that ideology--I know many of the everyday average Americans who strongly believe America must support Israel to maintain a national identification with God's wishes.

For more information, see various NYTimes and WashPost articles here, here, or here (Mr. Franklin served in Israel with the Air Force Reserve).

NIALL FERGUSON ON THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

Ferguson, a young British historian who teaches at Harvard and has been an apologist for the British Empire, argues in favor of a liberal American empire that would effectively create "the institutions of political, economic, and social freedom." Ferguson justifies the notion of a liberal empire by saying that there are some countries that will never reform themselves into a representative democracy, and it is the responsibility of the empire to force that reform. He cites Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (and to some extent India) as successful examples of the liberal British empire of the 19th Century.

He believes, however, that America has failed in nearly all of its efforts at empire because "they failed to establish very obvious collaborative frameworks, other than with military elites. Those frameworks that they did establish quickly morphed into dictatorships when the Americans held a traditional election and went home.... [T]he model of empire that the United States has followed has been defective." Ferguson argues that during the Cold War, the goal of American intervention became first and foremost an effort to get rid of governments that we disapproved of without much consideration of the type of government that would follow. He says that approach was evidenced in countries from Chile to Iran, and that "the cost of that approach probably outweighed the benefits...because support was given rather uncritically to some pretty lousy regimes."

He identifies a seven stage process in the typical pattern of U.S. intervention in his most recent book, Colossus: The Price of America's Empire. The seven stages are these: impressive initial military success, a flawed assessment of indigenous sentiment, a strategy of limited war and gradual escalation, domestic disillusionment in the face of protracted and nasty conflict, premature democratization, the ascendancy of domestic economic considerations, and ultimate withdrawal. (At which stage do you think we are currently operating in Iraq or in Afghanistan?)
Ferguson attempts to identify some reasons for American failures at nation-building--in his analysis, only about three U.S. interventions in American history are unqualified successes. He argues that a big reason for American failures has been the domestic-policy focus of the educated elite in this country. During the height of the British empire, the intellectual elite were largely focused outward--what overseas posting could they receive and how could they help other nations to develop a British-like political, social, and economic structure? His point is that the British had hundreds of these home-grown imperialists who could serve as administrators of the empire in foreign lands while the U.S. has very few--as he puts it, "There aren't that many Jerry Bremers.... [Y]ou need hundreds of them to make a success of something like this."

In considering the British empire, many of the nation-builders were initially the leaders of the conquering army. What about U.S. military personnel? This leads to big reason number two--according to Ferguson, "In today's volunteer professional army you don't have [the needed] skills [for nation-building] at all. You have people who are tremendously good at being soldiers and Marines. But they're not really trained to do the sorts of thing[s] that you have to do once you've won a war. And they're the first to admit it. They're quite candid that...killing bad guys is what they're trained to do. The business of constructing the rule of law and a functioning market economy is about as far removed from their expertise as you could get."

Ferguson says that the fact Muslim nations dislike us should not affect the way we conduct policy or conduct empire. "Legitimacy isn't necessarily based on affection. It's based on credibility.... It's not the hatred one should worry about, it's the contempt." He points out that the legitimacy the U.S. could achieve in the world if it is successful in Iraq will overshadow the resentment. (I'm not entirely sure that I buy this part of his argument about Iraq.) In his opinion, it is the responsibility of the United States as the sole remaining superpower to use its power for good around the world by instilling successful democracies in countries that might not otherwise reform themselves. We cannot worry about whether the world's populace likes us; we must be concerned about whether we present ourselves as a legitimate power capable of achieving the goals we set in these interventions.

--NOTE: all quotations are attributed to Niall Ferguson from an interview with Frank Bures, "Our Imperial Imperative" in The Atlantic Online, May 2004 (by subscription only).

A RELUCTANCE TO ESTABLISH BLAME

Gail Russell Chaddock writes in the CSMonitor today that throughout the nation, "from schools to security," people are unwilling to place blame when events or decisions go wrong. She argues that our politicians, unlike European politicians, are unwilling to resign when bad things happen on their watch. Ms. Chaddock cites a recent education poll from Phi Delta Kappan that shows 26% of people rate all public schools nationwide with either an A or B; but, ask them about their local school and 47% give the school an A or B. She also cites a recent Cook Political Report that shows only about 50% of voters approve of the job Congress is doing, but almost no incumbents will have any problem getting reelected this year.

All of these facts just go to show, according to Ms. Chaddock, that although we are willing to talk about accountability, we are NOT willing to lay blame on individuals or groups. We want our schools to perform at a high level and to meet certain accountability standards, but we are unwilling to blame this school, this administrator, or this teacher. Why? One reason, in my opinion, might be that we are afraid to blame the school or to blame the teacher because what if somebody decided to blame ME, the parent? We want Congress to perform at a certain level and we expect them to meet certain prescribed standards that may only exist in our heads, but we do not want to lay the blame on MY Congress member because he/she has done many good things for this district. We have new business, we have new roads, or we have this new 'pork-barrel' project. Government waste only exists in everybody else's district.

Ms. Chaddock questions why national security leaders remain in their jobs even after the failure to identify the 9-11 plot, even after intelligence failures that led to the War on Iraq, and even after failures by the NSC to effectively direct the Coalition Provisional Authority and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. These leaders fall into the typical response that 'I am not to blame. Things were outside of my control." Today, we all tend to find the fault not in ourselves, but in the OTHER--in the words of "Robert Pfaltzgraff, a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, 'It comes down to a feeling that if something goes wrong, I am the victim of forces in society that operate against me, instead of the consequences of decisions I have taken for better or worse'."

"Muslim Women Break Barriers to Reach Olympics" FROM NPR'S ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

There are many obstacles for women who live in predominantly Muslim countries to overcome in order to compete in any athletic competition, let alone the Olympics. Most conservative Muslim nations refuse to allow women to attend the Olympics because of 'modesty issues' and other cultural barriers. One woman from this NPR report had to switch from her chosen sport of gymnastics to pistol shooting in order to be allowed to attend the Games. In the apartheid years in South Africa, when Black athletes were refused positions on the South African Olympic team, the International Olympic Committee banned South Africa from the Games. Many people believe that the same action should be taken against Muslim nations that refuse to permit female athletes to attend the Olympic Games, and other international competitions.

Should we allow perceived theology (that largely disguises cultural discrimination) to be a justification for keeping talented athletes out of these competitions? Obviously, we have not allowed cultural discrimination to continue in the past--what makes these incidents any different? Should discriminatory religious practices be given more weight simply because they are 'religious'? I understand that even Muslim women choose to cover themselves due to modesty restrictions in the teachings of Islam; however, shouldn't those who choose different expressions, even contrary to those restrictions, have a voice (or a place on the Olympic team)?

IN LATEST ACLU SECRECY LEGAL BATTLE, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBMITS TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF LAWYERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO SEE

The ACLU has filed at least two suits against the government related to secrecy issues--particularly relating to the USA Patriot Act's wider latitude for the FBI in 'terrorism investigations.' In this latest incident, the government submitted documents to the court but refused to allow the plaintiff attorneys to view the material. Typically, 'secret evidence' is rarely used in civil cases, but even in those rare cases, these types of documents may be reviewed by the plaintiffs provided that it is "not divulged to the public."

In one incident, the Justice Dept submitted classified documents with some seemingly innocuous passages redacted on the grounds of 'national security.' The judge in the case disallowed these redactions and released the entirety of the documents to the ACLU. They have posted the comparison of the released documents with the ones the government submitted on their website.

The WashPost article quotes an ACLU attorney with respect to the government's attempt to hide some of these passages, which included a quotation from a 1972 Supreme Court decision, and a description of the types of business engaged in by one of the co-plaintiffs with the ACLU. The passages seem to have no connection to 'national security' to any imaginable degree.

"It's so innocuous," [ACLU attorney Ann] Beeson said. "It's hard to imagine how they would think this would be a threat to national security to divulge this kind of information."
[...]
"It casts suspicion on the whole system," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "When the administration says national security is at stake, you really have to wonder if it is or isn't."

Mr. Aftergood makes a point that I have continued to argue since the secret energy meetings that Mr. Cheney conducted with leaders of the oil and energy production industries came to public scrutiny. I think this administration likes to use the top secret label to protect themselves from scrutiny, not just to protect national security interests. Here is some interesting information about the use of secrecy classification by the Bush administration during the last fiscal year, from the article--

In fiscal 2003, federal agencies decided to classify documents more than 14 million times, a 25 percent increase from the year before, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, which keeps track of classification decisions. At the same time, the total number of pages declassified by the government dropped to its lowest level in at least 10 years, according to the office.

Finally, you have to wonder what it says about this administration when members of the President's own party are willing to investigate the too frequent use of secret classifications. The 9-11 Commission Report showed exactly how effective open government can be, and argued that this administration attempts to conduct government behind closed doors at nearly all times--well, so long as it is convenient for them politically!

In its final report released last month, the Sept. 11 commission sharply criticized the government for classifying too much information. It said the 2001 attacks might have been postponed if the government had publicized the August 2001 arrest of an alleged al Qaeda conspirator. A House subcommittee headed by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) has scheduled for Tuesday a hearing on overclassification titled, "Too Many Secrets."

NEW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DENIES 'GLOBAL WARMING'

Recent research studies that have considered satellite and weather balloon temperature data indicate that there is no significant threat of 'global warming' as has been promoted for the last twenty years. Much of the earlier evidence for global warming was based on surface temperature data collected by the UN, but the evaluation of the newer satellite data (collected since 1979) does not confirm the previous conclusions about how temperatures are affecting weather patterns. See an op-ed piece on the Cato Institute's website--here.

'TAKE BACK OUR FAITH'

For those of us who believe the Religious Right is WRONG, there can be no greater effort than the one to return the Christian faith to a balanced position in American politics. When we are asked to assign our free thought to someone who purports to speak the religious truth on our behalf, we are asked to forsake all the ideals that should be the most important to us as spiritual beings. If you believe that 'God is not a Republican...or a Democrat,' and you want to reclaim the right of religious action for all Americans and not just those who live on the right of the political spectrum, please visit this site where you can sign a petition from Sojourners magazine.

From the site:

Sign our petition and send a message to America that God is not a Republican, or a Democrat and that the Religious Right does not speak for you. Remind America that Jesus taught us to be peacemakers, advocates for the poor, and defenders of justice.
With your help, Sojourners will place this petition in The New York Times. After signing the petition, you will have an opportunity to give a gift to help communicate this important message.

The gift mentioned here is purely voluntary and will not affect your signature on the petition. Please sign it if you feel strongly that Religious Right leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do NOT speak for you.

NEW DATA SHOW CHARTER SCHOOLS NOT PERFORMING WELL COMPARED TO REGULAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The NYTimes reports on a new study released by the Dept of Education detailing comparisons in test results for public charter schools and regular public schools. It seems the charter schools are not keeping up with the regular public schools, showing significant weaknesses in mathematics at the elementary level. Many charter schools are located in poorer urban locations, but even when taking economic, racial, and social considerations into account, the charter schools do not perform up to the level of regular public schools who teach similar populations.