Syria: The New Libya?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

syriamarching
Reports of Syrian soldiers defecting to the armed resistance to the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad indicate that Syria may be following the path of Libya.

The parallels between the two Arab nations are striking. Col. Muamar Gadhafi (aka Khadafy aka Qaddafi) ) seized control of Libya in a military coup d’etat in 1969. The next year Gen. Hafez Al-Assad overthrew President Nureddin Al-Atassi in Syria. Gadhafi intervened in nearby Chad, Assad intervened in Lebanon. Both killed their own people to keep power. At the time of the Libyan Revolution, Gadhafi was grooming his sons to succeed him as dictator. Hafez Al-Assad originally groomed his older son Basil to succeed him, but the young man was killed in an auto accident in 1998. (1) He then prepared his younger son Bashar for his job by giving him increasing responsbilities in the government. Bashar become president when Hafez died in 2000. The same year he married a British woman of Syrian birth.

Bashar Al-Assad has an unusual background for an Arab dictator. Instead of a career in the military or diplomatic service, he chose to become a doctor, graduating Damascus University Medical School in 1988. He then studied ophtalmalogy at the Westerm Eye Hospital in London. Bashar returned to Syria in 1994 and entered the military academy. With his father’s blessing, Bashar ascended the ranks quickly, and in 1998 was placed in charge of Syria’s activities in Lebanon.

As president, Bashar has made only minor reforms in his father’s policies of authoritarian rule at home and hostility toward Israel and the United States. He has maintained an alliance with Iran, and supplies arms to Hezbollah, which probably killed the Prime Minister of Lebanon in 2005. On the other hand, Bashar is strongly suspicious of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Hafez Al-Assad crushed in Syria. In 2008 he authorized indirect talks with Israel (through Turkey), which came to nothing.

Bashar’s armed forces have have killed over 3,500 people trying to stop protests against his regime, yet the demonstrations continue. The King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Turkey and the Arab League have all turned against him. (2) Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called for a “no-fly zone” over Syria. But the real threat is that his military is starting to crack. The Assad family and all important military and security officials belong to the minority Alawite sect, while most of the soldiers are Sunni Muslim. In the Middle East religious differences are crucial, so a major split in the Syrian Army (like the one in Libya) is a real possibility. If that happens, foreign help for the rebels could turn the tide against Bashar Al-Assad and his Alawite Baath regime.

But Bashar is no Muamar. Gadhafi, who was probably mentally ill, resolved to fight for power to the death, and that is what he got. But I do not believe that Bashar Al-Assad will gamble his life for his job. The fact that he chose a career in medicine and lived in England for several years tells me that this man has a far more pragmatic and cosmopolitan view of life than Gadhafi ever had. The Assads are not crazy, they are calculating. If Bashar Al-Assad ever concludes that his cause is lost, he will pack his bags and move back to London, where he could perhaps re-instate his medical license. (A possible International Criminal Court indictment for human rights violations might be an obstacle, however.)

Of course we cannot tell what kind of regime might follow the Assads, but I am willing to bet that it will be better, rather than even worse.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-

(1) Wikipedia

(2) “Syria threatened with sanctions” by Nada Bakri, NY Times, Nov. 25, 2011.

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Gingrich: The Ultimate Partisan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Newt Gingrich image
“Everybody on this stage would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama!” Newt Gingrich at Republican candidate forum, Nov. 12, 2011

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

3rd Ticket, Anyone?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

America Elect
Are you so disgusted with the Democratic and Republican parties that you long for another choice on your 2012 presidential ballot? Of course, there will be fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians, but would you like to see a centrist ticket with a real chance to win?

Good news! A new group called Americans Elect (AE) intends to select a presidential nominee by a nationwide on-line vote and put him on the ballot in all fifty states. The organization, headquartered on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, was founded by mutli-millionaire Peter Ackerman (formerly of Drexel Burnham Lambert) and has 148 employees. AE has already raised over $20 million from just 50 wealthy backers (1). Its board includes former NJ Gov. Christie Whitman and former FBI Director William Webster. NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, who says that the major party candidates are not confronting the real issues, actively supports the group.

AE is now rounding up millions of signatures on petitions to establish AE as a recognized party in all states, so that its ticket will appear on all state ballots. Over 2 million signatures are already in hand, and about a million more will be needed.

Anyone can register as a “delegate” to the AE “virtual convention” in June of next year on the AE website below. In the first round of voting, you can nominate and vote for any legally qualified American to be President of the United States. (2) The top six candidates in this round will be asked to choose a nominee for Vice President, who must not be a member of the same political party, to assure a “bi-partisan ticket.” Then delegates will vote among the six tickets; if any one ticket obtains a majority, it will be certified as that of the AE Party for state ballots. (Otherwise, there will be run-off among the top three, and if necessary another run-off between the top two, tickets to secure a majority.)

Although most democracies in the world have more than two parties with real clout, the history of third party presidential campaigns in the US is not encouraging. Since the Civil War, every president has been either a Democrat or a Republican, and only once did any other party even finish second. (3) The last third-party candidate to receive any electoral votes was Alabama Gov. George Wallace (American Independent), who garnered 46 of them in 1968. Ross Perot, who spent about $63 million of his own money in 1992, took 19% of the popular vote nationwide, but no electoral votes. Our “winner takes all” method of awarding electoral votes is especially disadvantageous to new parties.

Given the long odds against victory, I doubt that any prominent people will participate in the AE Final Six run-off. The requirement that the candidates for president and vice-president be from different parties will effectively prevent AE from endorsing one of the major party tickets. (4) Some AE supporters are touting NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an independent presidential candidate, but he has said he is not interested, and I believe him. A more likely nominee would Texas Rep. Ron Paul (whose supporters have the tech savvy to game the AE nominating process), but accepting the AE nomination would put his son Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) in an impossible dilemma, so I doubt that even he would accept.

Somebody is going to win the AE nomination, but he probably will not be a strong candidate, and there is no reason to believe that he will be a centrist. The AE nominee will not win, but just might siphon off enough votes from a major-party ticket to swing some close states the other way as Ralph Nader did in 2000. He just might be back!

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————————-

(1) Third Wheel in the New Republic, Nov. 17, 2011, page 8.

(2) www.AmericansElect.org.

(3) In 1912 Former President Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party (“Bullmoose”) ticket and finished between NJ Gov. Woodrow Wilson and then President William Howard Taft.

(4) Having a vice president from another party was tried in 1796 and 1864, and turned out badly both times.

——————————————————————————-

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Targeting Terrorists

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Anwar Al-Awlaki image
“How can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?” Jonah Goldberg (1)

The assassination of Al Qaida propagandist Anwar Al-Awlaki on September 30 by a drone missile in Yemen has spurred this anguished question.

Nearly twenty years after the US tried to kill Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 which included the rule that “No person employed by…the United States Government shall engage in …..assassination.” (Wikipedia)

But in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress passed a law that stated that the President “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against …persons he determines ….committed…the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011…..” This law, which is tantamount to a declaration of war on Al Qaida, overrode President Reagan’s order, and so authorized the murder of Osama bin Laden in May of this year.

But bin Laden was not an American, and Al-Awlaki was. Does that matter? I contend that in war everyone in the enemy camp is an enemy, and thus a target, regardless of birth and citizenship. Had Al-Awlaki been located in the United States, the proper procedure would have been to arrest and try him for treason. Had he been located in a friendly and stable country such as Germany, France or Britain, the US should have requested the authorities in that country to arrest and extradite him.

The relevant fact was that Al-Awlaki was in Yemen, a failed state, literally in the camp of Al Qaida, so extradition was not possible. Although the Government of Yemen is nominally allied with the United States, it does not actually control all of its territory and a revolution is going on there. By defecting to al Qaida and joining its camp, this man had effectively renounced the rights he would have held as an American citizen.

Is there then any effective limit on the power of the President of the United States to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, by merely asserting that the victim was an enemy combatant or traitor? Roman emperors could kill anybody with impunity. Stalin could kill Trotsky, even in Mexico. Do we want our presidents to have this power?

The only effective restraint on the President is the power of impeachment by Congress, something the Caesars and Soviet dictators did not have to worry about. Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) thinks that Obama deserves impeachment for killing Al-Awlaki, but I say that most Americans believe that he did the right thing. If a future president kills an innocent person, he will be held accountable by the people, represented in Congress. President Nixon was forced to resign for less, and President Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) for much less.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————-

(1) “The president’s terrorist dilemma” in the Milwaukee Journal Perspectives, October 5, 2011, page 15A.

____________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)