Even the NY Times can write a meaningful article once in a while…in this case, really touching.
Here’s the link: "In Army-Navy Game, Friends, Competitors and a Band of Brothers"
This Saturday, for a few hours, Navy will be our enemy. Every other day of the year, they’re our brothers in arms.
Beat Navy!!
Elad
Friday, December 5, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Mumbai Attacks Were Not Due to Traditional India-Pakistan Disputes
The deficiencies in India’s internal intelligence and police organizations are now becoming more visible to the rest of India and the world. Unfortunately, it took an incident like last week’s coordinated attacks to shine the light of day on these weaknesses. Addressing them will take time, capital, and another resource that is all-too-often rare, the willingness to put nation ahead of self-interest and political partisanship. These matters are for India to resolve, and I hope that it is up to the task.
However, in addition to the issues raised about India's intelligence capabilities, it is also time to start asking other critical questions.
Who were the attackers?
Why did they attack?
The knee-jerk reaction in India will be to blame Pakistan. I am sure that there are elements in Pakistan that were involved in the attacks, either with financing, logistics, or in other indirect ways. However, it is becoming clear that the attacks were not driven by traditional Pakistan-India disputes, such as Kashmir. Looking at this attack through a traditional lens is, in some ways, analogous to Spain blaming Basque separatists for the train bombings in Madrid in March 2004. Now, I admit that this analogy is imperfect. We know that the Basques had nothing to do with the attack in Madrid, whereas in Mumbai it seems that there is a real connection with Pakistan. Nevertheless, I draw the parallel to make one important point, that we cannot look at the attack through the traditional frame of India-Pakistan issues. The problem (and hence the way we try think of a solution) is much broader.
To assess the problem, we need to first look at the list of sites that were attacked and the nationality of the victims. If the goal was to draw attention to Kashmir or any other traditional India-Pakistan dispute, the terrorists would have targeted solely ‘Indian’ sites. It is true that at some sites, such as the hospital and train station most prominently, the nationality of their victims was mostly Indian. (Although, one would argue that even these locations would likely have a high proportion of Westerners.)
The vast majority of victims were killed in the two hotels (Taj and Oberoi) and at the Chabad Jewish Center, clearly targets that would produce the highest likelihood of killing Westerners. We know that the attackers deliberately sought out American, British and Jewish/Israeli victims. Survivors stated that the attackers asked people for their passports, and American, British and Israeli citizens were killed while others were released.
Clearly, these attacks do not follow the mold of traditional India-Pakistan confrontation. Which brings me back to the two questions above, who were the attackers and why did they attack?
We will learn answers to the first question reasonably quickly. For example, we already know that several of them may have held British passports. More information will follow.
The second question is more troubling. It may be easier (at least publicly) to say, “It is the work of Pakistan support for militants” or something similarly non-confrontational. However, this kind of response buries the truth in a sea of political correctness.
As we learn more, I suspect that we will eventually find evidence that links the Mumbai attacks to others around the world. This evidence, however, will likely be indirect, perhaps something as indirect as the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks having trained at similar camps to the perpetrators of other attacks. While we may not see the direct “Al-Qaeda” stamp on the Mumbai attacks, we will discover that these attacks are part of a much larger global campaign.
We know that attacks around the world are not centrally planned, funded and executed. Like cancer that has metastasized to different organs, regional attacks are often planned, funded and executed locally by a growing number of new groups that we had neither previously heard of nor encountered.
However, the common thread in the Mumbai and other attacks around the world is that they are inspired by a common cause, radical Islam. Radical Islam is threatened by the ideas of the modern world. Freedom of speech, Individual civil liberties, religious freedom, minority rights and many other tenets of the modern world pose a direct challenge to radical Islam and its goal of a global caliphate.
Americans, British and Jews were specifically targeted because they are perceived by radical Islam as the principle symbols of freedom and liberty. Like the United States, England, Israel and other democracies around the world, India was attacked because of its dedication to these principles we commonly hold dea
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that radical-Islam is at the core of the problem and we have to think strategically about how to deal radical-Islam in all its manifestations, whether in Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or unknown cells in the Pakistani intelligence or in any of the large number of previously unheard of groups that have metastasized around the world.
Only when we can talk about the enemy directly can we develop a approach to defeating them. Ultimately, our collective approach will include a combination of offensive and defensive components, and involve diplomatic, economic, cultural, educational, intelligence as well as military means.
However, in addition to the issues raised about India's intelligence capabilities, it is also time to start asking other critical questions.
Who were the attackers?
Why did they attack?
The knee-jerk reaction in India will be to blame Pakistan. I am sure that there are elements in Pakistan that were involved in the attacks, either with financing, logistics, or in other indirect ways. However, it is becoming clear that the attacks were not driven by traditional Pakistan-India disputes, such as Kashmir. Looking at this attack through a traditional lens is, in some ways, analogous to Spain blaming Basque separatists for the train bombings in Madrid in March 2004. Now, I admit that this analogy is imperfect. We know that the Basques had nothing to do with the attack in Madrid, whereas in Mumbai it seems that there is a real connection with Pakistan. Nevertheless, I draw the parallel to make one important point, that we cannot look at the attack through the traditional frame of India-Pakistan issues. The problem (and hence the way we try think of a solution) is much broader.
To assess the problem, we need to first look at the list of sites that were attacked and the nationality of the victims. If the goal was to draw attention to Kashmir or any other traditional India-Pakistan dispute, the terrorists would have targeted solely ‘Indian’ sites. It is true that at some sites, such as the hospital and train station most prominently, the nationality of their victims was mostly Indian. (Although, one would argue that even these locations would likely have a high proportion of Westerners.)
The vast majority of victims were killed in the two hotels (Taj and Oberoi) and at the Chabad Jewish Center, clearly targets that would produce the highest likelihood of killing Westerners. We know that the attackers deliberately sought out American, British and Jewish/Israeli victims. Survivors stated that the attackers asked people for their passports, and American, British and Israeli citizens were killed while others were released.
Clearly, these attacks do not follow the mold of traditional India-Pakistan confrontation. Which brings me back to the two questions above, who were the attackers and why did they attack?
We will learn answers to the first question reasonably quickly. For example, we already know that several of them may have held British passports. More information will follow.
The second question is more troubling. It may be easier (at least publicly) to say, “It is the work of Pakistan support for militants” or something similarly non-confrontational. However, this kind of response buries the truth in a sea of political correctness.
As we learn more, I suspect that we will eventually find evidence that links the Mumbai attacks to others around the world. This evidence, however, will likely be indirect, perhaps something as indirect as the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks having trained at similar camps to the perpetrators of other attacks. While we may not see the direct “Al-Qaeda” stamp on the Mumbai attacks, we will discover that these attacks are part of a much larger global campaign.
We know that attacks around the world are not centrally planned, funded and executed. Like cancer that has metastasized to different organs, regional attacks are often planned, funded and executed locally by a growing number of new groups that we had neither previously heard of nor encountered.
However, the common thread in the Mumbai and other attacks around the world is that they are inspired by a common cause, radical Islam. Radical Islam is threatened by the ideas of the modern world. Freedom of speech, Individual civil liberties, religious freedom, minority rights and many other tenets of the modern world pose a direct challenge to radical Islam and its goal of a global caliphate.
Americans, British and Jews were specifically targeted because they are perceived by radical Islam as the principle symbols of freedom and liberty. Like the United States, England, Israel and other democracies around the world, India was attacked because of its dedication to these principles we commonly hold dea
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that radical-Islam is at the core of the problem and we have to think strategically about how to deal radical-Islam in all its manifestations, whether in Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or unknown cells in the Pakistani intelligence or in any of the large number of previously unheard of groups that have metastasized around the world.
Only when we can talk about the enemy directly can we develop a approach to defeating them. Ultimately, our collective approach will include a combination of offensive and defensive components, and involve diplomatic, economic, cultural, educational, intelligence as well as military means.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
United With Our Friends in India
The series of terrorist attacks in Mumbai yesterday are shocking and disturbing on many levels. Our hearts and sympathy go to the victims, their families and to the peace loving people of India.
I have had the great fortune of visiting India on several occasions over the last dozen years. To the first time visitor, India may cause sensory overload as all of our five senses are continuously stimulated by the unfamiliar. However, once one acclimates to the new stimulus, he will discover that India is a warm, inviting and magnificent place. Whether in India as a tourist, to visit friends or on business, I have developed a deep appreciation and affection for the country, its people and their culture.
Professionally, India is a rapidly emerging country with a deep well of educated, hardworking and ambitious people. Over the last dozen years, India developed into one of our most important economic partners. This trend will accelerate and continue in the future.
Strategically, it is an understatement to say that India is "the world's largest democracy." While true, India is not just another democracy. It is strategically located, sharing borders with China and Pakistan and close to many other threats including Iran and Afghanistan. Like Israel, every day India demonstrates to the world that it is possible for a democracy with progressive values, the rule of law, individual civil liberties, freedom of the press and religion to not only exist but also thrive in a part of the world where many do not feel it is possible. It is our common set of values that is the basis of the bond between our nations. Politically we will not always see eye to eye, friends sometimes disagree. However, India is among our most important strategic allies and friends in the world.
However, it is my personal bond with India that makes these attacks really hit home. When I visit Mumbai, I stay with the family of one of my closest and dearest friends, and I truly feel at home. Our families have grown close over the years and it is through this relationship that I developed a strong personal bond with India. Participating in his wedding was one of the most joyous and wonderful experiences I have known.
I have been to many of the places in Mumbai that were attacked yesterday. My friend goes to these places frequently as they are important locations for having meetings and conducting business. This morning, I received an email from him letting me know that all in his family are well. Yesterday, his parents were watching a movie at a theater near the Oberoi hotel. They spent the night at a nearby friend's place because they could not make it home.
Their experience in some ways is not too dissimilar from the experiences of New Yorkers on 9/11. The terrorists deliberately, brutally and mercilessly targeted innocent civilians and sought to murder as many people as possible. In this goal they were successful. The size and scope of the attacks required well developed detailed plans. Developing and executing these plans required patience, resources, frequent communication and practiced coordination. As on 9/11, the terrorists attacked locations that were more than just easy targets. They were important symbols of India. Attacking them was meant to send an unmistakable message that there are people who will stop at nothing to destroy our common values and way of life. We should never forget this valuable lesson.
Today, we in America are united with our friends in India. We mourn for their loss as if it were our own. But, today is also Thanksgiving. I am thankful that my friend and his family are all well. I am thankful that I live in a free society. I am thankful for all the men and women who have served and serve today in our armed forces who sacrifice so much on our behalf.
I have had the great fortune of visiting India on several occasions over the last dozen years. To the first time visitor, India may cause sensory overload as all of our five senses are continuously stimulated by the unfamiliar. However, once one acclimates to the new stimulus, he will discover that India is a warm, inviting and magnificent place. Whether in India as a tourist, to visit friends or on business, I have developed a deep appreciation and affection for the country, its people and their culture.
Professionally, India is a rapidly emerging country with a deep well of educated, hardworking and ambitious people. Over the last dozen years, India developed into one of our most important economic partners. This trend will accelerate and continue in the future.
Strategically, it is an understatement to say that India is "the world's largest democracy." While true, India is not just another democracy. It is strategically located, sharing borders with China and Pakistan and close to many other threats including Iran and Afghanistan. Like Israel, every day India demonstrates to the world that it is possible for a democracy with progressive values, the rule of law, individual civil liberties, freedom of the press and religion to not only exist but also thrive in a part of the world where many do not feel it is possible. It is our common set of values that is the basis of the bond between our nations. Politically we will not always see eye to eye, friends sometimes disagree. However, India is among our most important strategic allies and friends in the world.
However, it is my personal bond with India that makes these attacks really hit home. When I visit Mumbai, I stay with the family of one of my closest and dearest friends, and I truly feel at home. Our families have grown close over the years and it is through this relationship that I developed a strong personal bond with India. Participating in his wedding was one of the most joyous and wonderful experiences I have known.
I have been to many of the places in Mumbai that were attacked yesterday. My friend goes to these places frequently as they are important locations for having meetings and conducting business. This morning, I received an email from him letting me know that all in his family are well. Yesterday, his parents were watching a movie at a theater near the Oberoi hotel. They spent the night at a nearby friend's place because they could not make it home.
Their experience in some ways is not too dissimilar from the experiences of New Yorkers on 9/11. The terrorists deliberately, brutally and mercilessly targeted innocent civilians and sought to murder as many people as possible. In this goal they were successful. The size and scope of the attacks required well developed detailed plans. Developing and executing these plans required patience, resources, frequent communication and practiced coordination. As on 9/11, the terrorists attacked locations that were more than just easy targets. They were important symbols of India. Attacking them was meant to send an unmistakable message that there are people who will stop at nothing to destroy our common values and way of life. We should never forget this valuable lesson.
Today, we in America are united with our friends in India. We mourn for their loss as if it were our own. But, today is also Thanksgiving. I am thankful that my friend and his family are all well. I am thankful that I live in a free society. I am thankful for all the men and women who have served and serve today in our armed forces who sacrifice so much on our behalf.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thanksgiving is the Greatest Day of the Year!
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday of all. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Thanksgiving brings families together
2. Thanksgiving brings friends together
3. Thanksgiving has real meaning
4. Thanksgiving is a national holiday for all Americans of all faiths or of no faith
5. Thanksgiving is historic
6. Thanksgiving is still not commercial
7. Watching football games on TV
8. Our tradition of a 'semi-touch' football game in the town park
9. An extra-long weekend
10. Thanksgiving meal may just be my favorite of the year...I can't wait!
Please let me wish a happy Thanksgiving to all of you and your families.
-Elad
1. Thanksgiving brings families together
2. Thanksgiving brings friends together
3. Thanksgiving has real meaning
4. Thanksgiving is a national holiday for all Americans of all faiths or of no faith
5. Thanksgiving is historic
6. Thanksgiving is still not commercial
7. Watching football games on TV
8. Our tradition of a 'semi-touch' football game in the town park
9. An extra-long weekend
10. Thanksgiving meal may just be my favorite of the year...I can't wait!
Please let me wish a happy Thanksgiving to all of you and your families.
-Elad
Obama's Appointment Decisions are Cause for Cautious Optimism
Thus far, President-elect Obama has demonstrated good judgment by bringing onto his team a group of experienced and well-respected leaders to head executive branch departments and serve in other advisory capacities. He is to be commended for several of his selections, including most of all, for asking Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense for at least the first year of the new administration.
The continued service of Secretary Gates is important for national security as well as political considerations.
From the national security perspective, Secretary Gates has demonstrated an able hand to lead the Department of Defense while we are fighting in two theaters of operation. Following the turbulent Rumsfeld years, under Gates' stewardship, General Petreaus was able to successfully implement the surge strategy which reduced violence in Iraq and established the environment through which long-term victory may yet emerge. As the situation in Iraq eases, we are shifting resources to Afghanistan, and hopefully we will see improvement there as well. Changing leadership in this critical juncture in the war effort may risk our recent advancements. This risk is further magnified as the economy overshadows the war effort as the issue most attracting our attention.
Politically, the Gates decision demonstrates that President-elect Obama may govern 'from the center' as we desperately need him to do. It is a significant olive branch to the Republican Party, and while the leftist side of the Democratic Party may not approve, let us hope that it is indicative of more to come.
Obama's selections of Gates, Clinton and Geithner have drawn analogies to Lincoln's appointments of his rivals, including Seward, Chase and Bates, to critical cabinet positions. Some, and it goes without-saying, the mainstream media, have extended the analogy and bestowed upon Obama the reverence due our greatest President of all, Abraham Lincoln.
This Lincoln-like adoration is not yet due. It has to be earned. If Obama delivers on the lofty expectations that many have of him, then we should praise him and his achievements. However, let us wait before we do so. We should judge his actions and their results, not a dream. Comparing Obama to Lincoln, when he has yet to be inaugurated, is insulting to our collective intelligence and is more befitting behavior of members of a cult.
The continued service of Secretary Gates is important for national security as well as political considerations.
From the national security perspective, Secretary Gates has demonstrated an able hand to lead the Department of Defense while we are fighting in two theaters of operation. Following the turbulent Rumsfeld years, under Gates' stewardship, General Petreaus was able to successfully implement the surge strategy which reduced violence in Iraq and established the environment through which long-term victory may yet emerge. As the situation in Iraq eases, we are shifting resources to Afghanistan, and hopefully we will see improvement there as well. Changing leadership in this critical juncture in the war effort may risk our recent advancements. This risk is further magnified as the economy overshadows the war effort as the issue most attracting our attention.
Politically, the Gates decision demonstrates that President-elect Obama may govern 'from the center' as we desperately need him to do. It is a significant olive branch to the Republican Party, and while the leftist side of the Democratic Party may not approve, let us hope that it is indicative of more to come.
Obama's selections of Gates, Clinton and Geithner have drawn analogies to Lincoln's appointments of his rivals, including Seward, Chase and Bates, to critical cabinet positions. Some, and it goes without-saying, the mainstream media, have extended the analogy and bestowed upon Obama the reverence due our greatest President of all, Abraham Lincoln.
This Lincoln-like adoration is not yet due. It has to be earned. If Obama delivers on the lofty expectations that many have of him, then we should praise him and his achievements. However, let us wait before we do so. We should judge his actions and their results, not a dream. Comparing Obama to Lincoln, when he has yet to be inaugurated, is insulting to our collective intelligence and is more befitting behavior of members of a cult.
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Post-Mortem for the Republican Party
I am not a card-carrying member of either party. I am a true independent. That said, I believe the Republican Party blew it. In 2002, the Republicans had so much momentum that they were swept into office overwhelmingly. It seemed that they had been given a mandate to govern that would last a generation. The Democrats were toast.
Then, the Republicans got to governing and they forgot many of the principles that they were supposed to advocate:
1. Reduce the size of government - instead they expanded it dramatically (Department of Homeland Security)
2. Reduce entitlements - instead they expanded old ones and created entire new ones. (Prescription drugs)
3. Run government more efficiently - instead they created layers of added bureaucracy. (no child left behind)
4. Run government more competently - instead they brought cronies with no legitimate credentials and experience into positions of importance (can you say Attorney General Gonzalez? FEMA director Michael Brown?)
5. Keep government off the backs of ordinary people - instead they drove government intervention deeper into our daily lives (can you say Terry Schaivo, Gay Marriage, Abortion)
6. Reduce the deficits - instead they spent like drunken sailors and created the largest deficits on record.
7. Run the government more ethically - instead we got scandals like Tom Delay
It is not that I am a Democrat; I am not. But, I cannot blame people for feeling betrayed and let down with the Republicans.
About the only thing that the Republicans remained true to their word was being strong on national security. And, on national security, the war was longer and more difficult (as all wars are) than Americans were led to believe it would be. It took a few extra years, and for the President to fire Rumsfeld and bring in Petreaus to finally get things right. So, while the war certainly did not help, I do not believe it hurt the Republicans in the end.
It really came down to the perception that the Republicans got drunk with power and used it selfishly, rather than in the interest of the country.
It is a testament to John McCain, the man, that the election was as close as it was. I believe that it could have been even closer, possibly resulting in a McCain victory had John McCain, the candidate, run a half-way effective campaign.
So, the Republican party is at a crossroads. It needs to figure out what it stands for and whom shall it include under its tent.
On the other hand, the Democrats now have unchecked control of both houses of Congress and the White House...they may get drunk on power the same way the Republicans just did.
Then, the Republicans got to governing and they forgot many of the principles that they were supposed to advocate:
1. Reduce the size of government - instead they expanded it dramatically (Department of Homeland Security)
2. Reduce entitlements - instead they expanded old ones and created entire new ones. (Prescription drugs)
3. Run government more efficiently - instead they created layers of added bureaucracy. (no child left behind)
4. Run government more competently - instead they brought cronies with no legitimate credentials and experience into positions of importance (can you say Attorney General Gonzalez? FEMA director Michael Brown?)
5. Keep government off the backs of ordinary people - instead they drove government intervention deeper into our daily lives (can you say Terry Schaivo, Gay Marriage, Abortion)
6. Reduce the deficits - instead they spent like drunken sailors and created the largest deficits on record.
7. Run the government more ethically - instead we got scandals like Tom Delay
It is not that I am a Democrat; I am not. But, I cannot blame people for feeling betrayed and let down with the Republicans.
About the only thing that the Republicans remained true to their word was being strong on national security. And, on national security, the war was longer and more difficult (as all wars are) than Americans were led to believe it would be. It took a few extra years, and for the President to fire Rumsfeld and bring in Petreaus to finally get things right. So, while the war certainly did not help, I do not believe it hurt the Republicans in the end.
It really came down to the perception that the Republicans got drunk with power and used it selfishly, rather than in the interest of the country.
It is a testament to John McCain, the man, that the election was as close as it was. I believe that it could have been even closer, possibly resulting in a McCain victory had John McCain, the candidate, run a half-way effective campaign.
So, the Republican party is at a crossroads. It needs to figure out what it stands for and whom shall it include under its tent.
On the other hand, the Democrats now have unchecked control of both houses of Congress and the White House...they may get drunk on power the same way the Republicans just did.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Warm Wishes for Our New President
E Pluribus Unum. This nation just experienced a wondrous event, the rise to the highest seat of government of a man that to most of us was an unknown figure only recently. The characteristics that make Barack Obama unique among the men who have been our Presidents are well known. It is not an exaggeration to say that what transpired in America in the last election in all likelihood could not happen anywhere else. And, while Barack Obama may turn out to be a great President, it is true that our great nation will never cease to amaze us. We are truly a light unto the world, a shining city on the hill.
And, we are optimistic. We have no choice but to be optimistic, as it is in our DNA. Barack Obama is our President now and we will support him, regardless of whether we voted for him or not. The country needs to be united as we face many challenges.
We know that as President, Obama will have a lot of unrestrained forces, Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, pulling him to the ideological far left.
It will take a strong man to stay in the middle. If he does, he can achieve great things, and will go down in history.
If he does not, he will be tossed out the way the Republicans were tossed out when they tried to take the country too far to the right.
Let us hope he rises to the task ahead.
May God Bless America.
And, we are optimistic. We have no choice but to be optimistic, as it is in our DNA. Barack Obama is our President now and we will support him, regardless of whether we voted for him or not. The country needs to be united as we face many challenges.
We know that as President, Obama will have a lot of unrestrained forces, Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, pulling him to the ideological far left.
It will take a strong man to stay in the middle. If he does, he can achieve great things, and will go down in history.
If he does not, he will be tossed out the way the Republicans were tossed out when they tried to take the country too far to the right.
Let us hope he rises to the task ahead.
May God Bless America.
Friday, September 19, 2008
United on Iran?
To the leaders of the following organizations:
The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now,
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
United Jewish Communities,
UJA-Federation of New York,
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York,
I am writing to express my sincere displeasure at your short-sighted decision to withdraw your invitation to Gov Palin to speak at the rally protesting Ahmadinejad in New York.
Regardless of whether one supports one political party or the other, it is vital for the security of both the United States and Israel that we are united in facing the threat to our national security that Iran poses.
Gov Palin is the vice-presidential nominee for one of the two dominant political parties in the US, and therefore a 50-50 probability exists that she will be the next American Vice President. Her presentation would have sent a strong signal to Iran, and it is important to have her speak. Additionally, it would also be appropriate for candidates from the Democratic Party to speak as well. We should encourage all the candidates and other leaders to do everything possible on Iran. On this issue, we cannot be divided.
However, your decision to withdraw your invitation to Palin speaks volumes. The answer that the decision was made to ‘depoliticize’ the event is no more than a convenient, shallow and misguided excuse. Rather than depoliticizing the event, you in fact introduced and magnified its political significance.
These are dark days when we allow partisan politics to supersede unity in facing the largest security threat to the peace and stability of the free world.
Ahmadinejad can only be laughing aloud as he witnesses our self-destructive behavior while Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons.
I would urge you to reconsider and, if not, urge Americans of all political affiliations to withdraw their financial support for your organizations until such time that you are replaced with truly non-politically partisan leaders.
Elad Yoran
New York, NY
The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now,
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
United Jewish Communities,
UJA-Federation of New York,
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York,
I am writing to express my sincere displeasure at your short-sighted decision to withdraw your invitation to Gov Palin to speak at the rally protesting Ahmadinejad in New York.
Regardless of whether one supports one political party or the other, it is vital for the security of both the United States and Israel that we are united in facing the threat to our national security that Iran poses.
Gov Palin is the vice-presidential nominee for one of the two dominant political parties in the US, and therefore a 50-50 probability exists that she will be the next American Vice President. Her presentation would have sent a strong signal to Iran, and it is important to have her speak. Additionally, it would also be appropriate for candidates from the Democratic Party to speak as well. We should encourage all the candidates and other leaders to do everything possible on Iran. On this issue, we cannot be divided.
However, your decision to withdraw your invitation to Palin speaks volumes. The answer that the decision was made to ‘depoliticize’ the event is no more than a convenient, shallow and misguided excuse. Rather than depoliticizing the event, you in fact introduced and magnified its political significance.
These are dark days when we allow partisan politics to supersede unity in facing the largest security threat to the peace and stability of the free world.
Ahmadinejad can only be laughing aloud as he witnesses our self-destructive behavior while Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons.
I would urge you to reconsider and, if not, urge Americans of all political affiliations to withdraw their financial support for your organizations until such time that you are replaced with truly non-politically partisan leaders.
Elad Yoran
New York, NY
Friday, January 4, 2008
China, Oil and Islamic Radicalism
Gordon Chang's piece in the Wall Street Journal on January 3rd is to be commended. Though its last sentence is perhaps its most important, "Now, the challenge for the U. S. is to recognize that Chinese attitudes have turned a corner, and to craft new policies in response." While this sentence is simple and true on the surface, it also may imply other things. And, if interpreted the wrong way, it may lead to a direct danger to the US.
The general theme that China is becoming more assertive globally is not controversial. According to Chang, China is certainly heading and will continue to trend in that direction.
Throughout history, many military confrontations stemmed from economic, diplomatic and or political issues. Why did Japan attack a number of targets in south east asia? because they needed access to oil and metal. Being economically dependent did not square with Japan's political sense of self, and explicit denial of economic resources led to their military confrontation. It was not the only reason, but the proximate one. The question one has to ask is, "Is a resurgent and more confrontational China merely the 'Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere' in a different guise?" If history does not repeat itself, it sure does rhyme - is this an echo of the 1930s Japan?
However, whether China's assertiveness ever translates into military aggression or continues to manifest itself through direct competition with the US in matters economic, diplomatic, and political is an entirely different matter, at least under current circumstances.
Peaceful economic/diplomatic/political competition is not something that we can stop. Nor is it something of which we should be fearful. We will need to respond to it in kind and raise the bar for them as well. To the extent that we can build bridges to China so that things evolve into "co-opetition" rather than zero-sum competition the better.
And, we should always hold our values sacrosanct and not compromise them. Advocating political, religious, economic freedoms, as well as individual civil liberties and freedom of the press should be a bedrock foundation of our policies.
All that said, China is a long-term threat. Despite their despicable lack of any of the values described above, it, in my opinion, is not a direct threat to us today. Nor, is it likely to be so in the next 20 years. The most direct threat from China over the next two decades is likely to be competition for increasingly scarce (and expensive) resources. At the top of that list is oil. I'll come back to this point later.
However, Islamic radicalism is a clear and present danger. The threat is unrelenting and genocidal. It threatens our very survival and our way of life. Therefore, the right question regarding China should be, "Can we 'craft new policies' without taking our eye off the ball of Islamic radicalism?"
The threat posed by Islamic radicalism is multi-dimensional. If we are talking about nation-states, then Iran and elements within Pakistan are at the top of the threat list followed closely by Syria and even "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Radical Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Hamas, and other similar organizations pose grave transnational threats. The situation in Iraq, while improving, is still tenuous and far from its desired end state. And these are just the most obvious dangers. The Islamic world is vast and spans dozens of countries globally and Islamic radicals populate virtually every country around the world. While some of these threats may be bogeymen acting on behalf of masters a world away, it clear that the threat is complex.
The present threat requires a multi-dimensional approach that includes political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and, of course where needed, military components. It requires us to recruit and lead other nations in a concerted and consistent decades-long effort. It will require the attention and resources of this great land supported by the attention and resources of our friends.
One other thing is clear; the approach we take will lead to difficult choices and discomforting partnerships. Where and how will we decide it is sufficiently valuable to apply the age old cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to exploit fissures and drive toward a greater goal. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, among others do not want a resurgent and nuclear armed Iran. Is their fear of Iran sufficient to force them to make compromises that they otherwise would not make? Can we in turn marshal their fear to help achieve the greater goal?
As we navigate these shifting sands, we need to make certain that we do not build a structure that will collapse when the wind changes direction and the sand shifts the other way. As with China above, in all our initiatives, we must not lose touch with our American values that are the bedrock foundation of our policies.
A winning strategy also demands that we quit using useless and misleading language like, "We are in a war on terror." We are at war with Islamic, expansionist, jihadist fundamentalism. If we cannot name our enemy we are not going to prevail.
Our unwavering focus must be on this current threat. Therefore, unless the threat environment changes, any "new policies" regarding China should be carefully crafted with two things in mind. First, take a long-term incremental view, as China poses a minimal present danger and we do not want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, it must not divert any resources or attention awayfrom the real present danger of radical Islam.
Ultimately, our greatest weapon against both radical Islam and the emerging threat from China is to end our dependency on oil. Oil dependency is our Achilles' heel. Ending it will, in a single shot, solve several of the gravest threats we face. And, it will make the global warming crowd happy. As we immerse ourselves in the 2008 campaign, look for new alliances to emerge.
(Thanks to Mary Ann Davidson for her help with this piece!)
The general theme that China is becoming more assertive globally is not controversial. According to Chang, China is certainly heading and will continue to trend in that direction.
Throughout history, many military confrontations stemmed from economic, diplomatic and or political issues. Why did Japan attack a number of targets in south east asia? because they needed access to oil and metal. Being economically dependent did not square with Japan's political sense of self, and explicit denial of economic resources led to their military confrontation. It was not the only reason, but the proximate one. The question one has to ask is, "Is a resurgent and more confrontational China merely the 'Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere' in a different guise?" If history does not repeat itself, it sure does rhyme - is this an echo of the 1930s Japan?
However, whether China's assertiveness ever translates into military aggression or continues to manifest itself through direct competition with the US in matters economic, diplomatic, and political is an entirely different matter, at least under current circumstances.
Peaceful economic/diplomatic/political competition is not something that we can stop. Nor is it something of which we should be fearful. We will need to respond to it in kind and raise the bar for them as well. To the extent that we can build bridges to China so that things evolve into "co-opetition" rather than zero-sum competition the better.
And, we should always hold our values sacrosanct and not compromise them. Advocating political, religious, economic freedoms, as well as individual civil liberties and freedom of the press should be a bedrock foundation of our policies.
All that said, China is a long-term threat. Despite their despicable lack of any of the values described above, it, in my opinion, is not a direct threat to us today. Nor, is it likely to be so in the next 20 years. The most direct threat from China over the next two decades is likely to be competition for increasingly scarce (and expensive) resources. At the top of that list is oil. I'll come back to this point later.
However, Islamic radicalism is a clear and present danger. The threat is unrelenting and genocidal. It threatens our very survival and our way of life. Therefore, the right question regarding China should be, "Can we 'craft new policies' without taking our eye off the ball of Islamic radicalism?"
The threat posed by Islamic radicalism is multi-dimensional. If we are talking about nation-states, then Iran and elements within Pakistan are at the top of the threat list followed closely by Syria and even "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Radical Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Hamas, and other similar organizations pose grave transnational threats. The situation in Iraq, while improving, is still tenuous and far from its desired end state. And these are just the most obvious dangers. The Islamic world is vast and spans dozens of countries globally and Islamic radicals populate virtually every country around the world. While some of these threats may be bogeymen acting on behalf of masters a world away, it clear that the threat is complex.
The present threat requires a multi-dimensional approach that includes political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and, of course where needed, military components. It requires us to recruit and lead other nations in a concerted and consistent decades-long effort. It will require the attention and resources of this great land supported by the attention and resources of our friends.
One other thing is clear; the approach we take will lead to difficult choices and discomforting partnerships. Where and how will we decide it is sufficiently valuable to apply the age old cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to exploit fissures and drive toward a greater goal. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, among others do not want a resurgent and nuclear armed Iran. Is their fear of Iran sufficient to force them to make compromises that they otherwise would not make? Can we in turn marshal their fear to help achieve the greater goal?
As we navigate these shifting sands, we need to make certain that we do not build a structure that will collapse when the wind changes direction and the sand shifts the other way. As with China above, in all our initiatives, we must not lose touch with our American values that are the bedrock foundation of our policies.
A winning strategy also demands that we quit using useless and misleading language like, "We are in a war on terror." We are at war with Islamic, expansionist, jihadist fundamentalism. If we cannot name our enemy we are not going to prevail.
Our unwavering focus must be on this current threat. Therefore, unless the threat environment changes, any "new policies" regarding China should be carefully crafted with two things in mind. First, take a long-term incremental view, as China poses a minimal present danger and we do not want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, it must not divert any resources or attention awayfrom the real present danger of radical Islam.
Ultimately, our greatest weapon against both radical Islam and the emerging threat from China is to end our dependency on oil. Oil dependency is our Achilles' heel. Ending it will, in a single shot, solve several of the gravest threats we face. And, it will make the global warming crowd happy. As we immerse ourselves in the 2008 campaign, look for new alliances to emerge.
(Thanks to Mary Ann Davidson for her help with this piece!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
