Lessons of January 28th

Today is the one year anniversary of the Egyptian revolution. Yes, the protests began on January 25th. But it was on January 28th that a minority of protesters ballooned into a majority of revolutionaries. Exactly one year ago, protesters collided with security forces all across Egypt, but one clash in particular has especially engrained itself in my mind: the battle of Qasr al-Nil Bridge.

At this time last year, waves of protesters crashed and crashed again upon the seemingly immovable security forces on Qasr al-Nil. For hours, the battle lines went back and forth, but it seemed for certain that the protesters would eventually be turned back. But then the improbable happened. The protesters actually won. And those waves that once crashed ineffectively against the security forces began to flood Tahrir Square. They would not leave until Mubarak fell.

Lessons for Libya from the Iraqi Intifada

I wrote the following almost a week ago hoping to get it published. It wasn't. By now, both the argument and the historical analogy have been made in several places, including one that rejected my piece. Oh well, at least the idea was alright, even if the execution wasn't.

This past week the Libyan revolutionaries have suffered a series of serious setbacks. The “Brother Leader” Muammar Qaddafi has successfully pushed back the motley collection of defected soldiers, tribal militias, and untrained Libyan citizens that dare stand up for their freedom. Even the rebel stronghold of Benghazi is now under threat.

Increasingly desperate, Libya’s revolutionaries have called for military intervention to help remove their dictator. In return, they’ve only received humanitarian assistance and rhetoric.

Importantly, Libya would not be the first time a would-be Arab revolution nearly brought a dictator to his knees, only to flounder when the world failed to assist.

Nearly twenty years ago, Iraq’s Shia and Kurds rose up in an intifada that shook Saddam Hussein’s regime to the core. The uprisings took place in the immediate aftermath of the Persian Gulf War after the American-led coalition had decimated the Iraqi military. Disgruntled soldiers fleeing from the front unleashed a torrent of anti-regime sentiment. Saddam lost control of large swaths of Iraqi territory as the people rose up in anger over decades of war, economic stagnation, political oppression, and religious repression.

President Bush even encouraged the uprisings, suggesting Iraqis should “take matters into their own hands” and overthrow Saddam. But that rhetoric never materialized into actual support. Instead, American and coalition soldiers stood by as they watched Iraqi helicopters operate with impunity on the horizon.

Thus Saddam regained his balance, crushing the rebellion methodically and brutally. Countless thousands were killed, their aspirations for a better future dying with them. To this day, Iraqis have not forgiven the U.S. for abandoning the intifada of 1991.

There were plenty of reasons for the U.S. to not assist the rebels – the fear of Iranian influence, the fragility of the military coalition, the worry that Iraq would split along sectarian lines, the unknown of what would come after Saddam, the potential cost in American lives, among others. In fact, many today praise President Bush for showing the prudence that his son would seemingly abandon in 2003.

Yet it is exactly that prudence that cemented American military involvement in Iraq for twenty years. Failing to help when the insurgency could have succeeded, the U.S. was forced to intervene once the rebellion faltered and Saddam threatened to once again massacre his own people.

Over the following two decades, the U.S. deployed troops to the Kurdish north, established no-fly zones in the north and south, trained anti-Saddam militias, supported failed coup-attempts, and bombed Iraqi targets on several occasions. On top of all of these military actions, the U.S. enforced crippling sanctions that devastated Iraq’s society and economy.

But all of these measures came only once Saddam regained his grip on power. In fact, some of these actions, such as the sanctions, perversely strengthened Saddam’s stranglehold over the country by forcing the Iraqi people to rely on the regime for survival. As such, the U.S. counterproductively decided to oust Saddam only after his removal became increasingly unlikely. Meanwhile, international resolve to maintain pressure on Saddam predictably faded and fractured over time, especially as the humanitarian toll of sanctions became increasingly pronounced.

This untenable situation of escalating tension between the U.S. and Iraq, an ever-more obstinate Saddam, and fading international support culminated with the disastrous invasion of 2003. In fact, many of America’s greatest difficulties since the invasion of Iraq, such as widespread distrust of our intentions, the absolute collapse of key infrastructure, and the comatose economy, are all remnants of the policy decisions made since the abandonment of the 1991 intifada.

So what lessons can we learn from our experiences in Iraq to help guide us with Libya?

First, if we do decide to intervene, we must do it now. With each passing day, the revolution loses momentum and Qaddafi reasserts his power. The longer we wait to intervene, the harder it will be to remove Qaddafi. If we make the same mistake as we did in Iraq by intervening only after Qaddafi regains the initiative, we will pay the cost in blood and treasure.

Second, if we decide against intervention, we must plan for the humanitarian consequences. Like Saddam, Qaddafi won’t stop his counter-revolution when the rebels put down their arms. He will seek to squash, in his words, every “rat” and “cockroach” he can find. In Iraq, millions of refugees fled to neighboring countries, especially Iran and Turkey. As more Libyans flee to already-beleaguered Egypt and Tunisia, we will have to increase our assistance.

Third, beyond the humanitarian consequences of non-intervention, we must also prepare for dealing with an angry, resurgent Qaddafi who will not forget that President Obama demanded his resignation. The so-called reformed Qaddafi who abandoned his nuclear program and cooperated with counterterrorism efforts will be no more. In his place, we will once again deal with the rogue Qaddafi who blew up planes over Lockerbie and nightclubs in Germany, who befriended dictators like Idi Amin, and who trained ruthless militias globally.

It is that Qaddafi, whom President Reagan dubbed the “mad dog of the Middle East,” we felt to obligated to occasionally bomb and sanction. Just like Saddam, he will present a persistent threat to our interests and security. Moreover, we will risk entering an escalating cycle of tension, threats and violence that could lead to war and fracture international support – an all too familiar dynamic we must avoid.

Just as with the Iraqi intifada, there are many reasons to reject military intervention. We don’t really know who the rebels are. We don’t know what comes after Qaddafi. We don’t want to risk American lives and spend American money. We don't want a war in yet another Muslim-majority country. But the most important reason may soon be that we already missed our chance to remove Qaddafi when we could. If that is the case, then we will have to learn to live with the ramifications.

How Incursions Become Invasions

Yesterday, 11 Iranian soldiers crossed the Iraqi border and raised the Iranian flag over a disputed oil well.

The Iraqi government, after first denying the incident, promised that it will seek a diplomatic solution to the problem. The Iranians have rejected Iraq's demands for it to withdraw, denying any problem at all because the oil well "belongs to Iran." The U.S. military called the incursion a "sovereignty issue" and noted that such incidents are frequent along the Iraq-Iran border.

Well, seeing how no one else seems all that worried, I'll cautiously sound the alarm for them. This is a small, non-violent incident. But it's a small, non-violent incident that can easily become a not-so-small, violent one.

First of all, Iraq and Iran have never gotten over the Iran-Iraq War that killed over a million people in eight years of brutal fighting and civilian bombing. Admittedly, since the fall of Saddam and the empowerment of the Shia, the Iraq government has become much more friendly with Iran. However, Iraq is also experiencing a resurgence of nationalism. An Iranian incursion into their land, given all their strained history and all the other problems Iraqis currently face from external meddling, won't be received well by most Iraqis.

According to Shiite politician Ayad Jamal Aldin, "The world need [sic] to know that unless strong action is taken against Tehran, Iraq will simply become another Iranian colony which will threaten stability throughout the middle east." Clearly, Iraqis have not endured nearly 7 years of violence to give up their sovereignty to the Iranians.

Second, the Iranian regime is looking for a distraction - any distraction - from its internal upheaval. Tehran is especially nervous now that the holy months of Muharram and Safar have begun. As Mehdi Khalaji explains, the opposition will be able to use the annual religious ceremonies to protest the regime, but the government will be given the impossible dilemma of either cracking down on religious displays or allowing two months of unrestrained protest.

As such, the government is looking for any national cause that could tie to the Iranian people together - whether that be confrontation with the U.S., Israel, or Iraq is immaterial, so long as there's confrontation. Keep in mind here that Ayatollah Khomeini solidified his power during the Iran-Iraq War, using it as an excuse to imprison and assassinate thousands of his political enemies.

Third and most importantly, it only takes one itchy trigger-finger, one accidental misfire, one irresponsible private, to transform an "incursion" into an "invasion." Remember that the American Revolution did not begin with a decision to go to war, but by an unknown militiaman who fired the "shot heard 'round the world" in the impromptu Battles of Lexington and Concord.

So while this small incident will likely blow over, I'll be crossing my fingers until it does.

Insurgent Hackers - UPDATED

So insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can hack into our drone video feeds...not because they're all that technologically savvy, but because they can buy a program off the Internet for the bargain price of $29.95.

Which brings up the question, if insurgents can do that, what the hell can the North Koreans, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese do with their computer hackers? Do we even know what they're doing now? And can we even stop them if we do?

For all our superiority on the physical battlefield, I fear we're losing battles we don't even know we're having on the digital battlefield.

UPDATE: Speak of the devil. Pro-regime Iranians hacked Twitter and opposition websites.

Who Throws a Shoe, Honestly?

Well, apparently a lot of people throw shoes in the Middle East.

Our dear friend Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who garnered footwear fame by hurling his shoe at President Bush, was himself forced to dodge a hurtling shoe at a news conference.

The assailant shouted "here's another shoe for you" before mounting his attack. Not quite as catchy as al-Zaidi's "it is the farewell kiss, you dog," but at least he won't get any jail time.

*Still really busy at work. Will hopefully be able to have better posts soon.

Jolie Adopts Syrian Orphan

Angelina Jolie has reportedly filed papers to adopt a child from Syria. As part of her job as a UN Goodwill Ambassador, she recently journeyed to Syria with Brad Pitt to visit the large Iraqi refugee community there. During her trip, she remarked "it is clear that the Syrian people, no matter the challenges or difficulties they may face, have always shown generous hospitality to people in need."

It is also clear that Jolie has always shown her generous hospitality as well. She has already adopted children from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam, as well as having three biological children. Now, having fallen in love with the Syrian people, she has apparently decided to take in a fourth adopted child.

While it isn't clear whether the child is Muslim or Christian (Syria is 10% Christian), I'll take this as an opportunity to mention Islam pays special attention to the plight of orphans. There are countless references in the Qur'an to the necessity of caring for orphans.

For example, Surah 2:215: "Whatever of your wealth you spend shall [first] be for your parents, and for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer; and whatever good you do, verily, God has full knowledge thereof."

And 93:9: "Therefore, the orphan shalt thou never wrong."

Of course, such emphasis on treating orphans well makes sense given the Prophet Mohammed was an orphan himself. Mohammed's father died when he was a baby and his mother died a few years later. As such, the Prophet first lived with a Bedouin family in the desert, then with his grandfather. Upon his grandfather's death, he moved in with his uncle, who introduced him to the world of caravan trading.

Interestingly, while Islam promotes the welfare of orphans, it also prohibits adoptions in the Western sense. When a family takes an orphan into their household, the orphan traditionally keeps the name of the biological father. This has two implications. One, orphans are entitled to any inheritance that remains from their biological family, but do not receive anything from their adopted family unless otherwise specified in a will. Two, orphans can marry the biological children of their adopted family, because they are technically not family.

In the modern era, practical considerations have allowed some flexibility with these rules. For example, American Muslims might give change the name of their adopted child for tax exemption reasons.

The Second Shoe Intifada

One more day in Middle Eastern politics, one more shoe throwing incident. According to Tehran Bureau, a pro-Ahmadinejad politician, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, incurred the shoe-hurling wrath of a Tehran University audience after claiming 10 Basiji militia died during the post-election demonstrations. The former minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance was forced to make a quick exit as the crowd shouted pro-opposition chants.

Somehow I doubt President Bush and Saffar-Harandi will be exchanging shoe-dodging tips anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the original shoe thrower, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, has made it into the news once more. After spending nine months in jail, al-Zeidi was released from Iraqi prison for good behavior in September. In an op-ed that week, he explained that he threw his shoe at the "criminal" President Bush "out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation." He also claimed he was tortured in prison by Iraqi officials, saying he was beaten with cables and whips.

While he asserts he is no hero and was just acting out of love of country, that didn't stop reporters in Geneva from giving him a hero's welcome during a press conference on Monday. Al-Zeidi has claimed repeatedly the U.S. is responsible for 1 million Iraqi deaths. But his numbers, like his throwing aim, are considerably off. According to Iraq Body Count, there have been approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians deaths in violent incidents since the beginning of the war in 2003.


While in Lebanon, I spotted this backpack for sale depicting a "heroic" al-Zeidi throwing his shoe at a cowering President Bush. I ended up spending my money on earrings for my sister instead.

The Meaning of Music

In America, we don't read too deeply into our music. If it's catchy, it's good enough. Just look at the lyrics to the summer hit "I Gotta Feeling" (I happen to like this song) by Black Eyed Peas:

Fill up my cup. Mazel Tov!
Look at her dancing. Just take it off.
Let's paint the town. We'll shut it down.
Let's burn the roof. Then we'll do it again.

But in the kaleidoscopic political/cultural/religious/ethnic landscape of the Middle East, everything has a deeper meaning. Here are three music videos from across the region that convey a message that trascends their notes and lyrics.

Tehran Bureau highlights an Iranian rapper named Hich Kas (translation: "Nobody"). His first music video "Bunch of Soldiers" encourages unison in the face of oppression. Interestingly, it was made in 2008 before this summer's tumultuous events.




The LA Times blog Babylon and Beyond features a Kurdish singer from Iraq named Dashni Murad. Like many female singers in the Middle East, she's caught between trying to emulate the style of Western music while maintaining a connection with her traditional culture. Not surprisingly, she has simultaneously accumulated a fair amount of ogling fans and vehement, conservative detractors.




Third but not least, I've added a video by the Israeli group Flashblack. During my trip to Israel, I visited an educational kibbutz called Eshbal that takes in some of the country's most troubled kids and gives them a sense of direction and hope. Most amazingly, Esbhal was founded by a group of young Israelis, fresh out of their military service, who had the "chutzpah" to make a difference. In this case, a group of their students have formed a rap group to express themselves in a positive way. Here is a video of one of their performances.



I'm not saying there isn't meaningful music in the West. There is. But given the number of conflicts, divisions, inequalities and tensions that exist in the Middle East, it only makes sense that musicians reflect these issues in their music. Moreover, even the most trivial song in the Middle East can carry serious cultural, religious and even political implications, salient to anyone who cares to listen.

Puppet Dictators for Sale

Despite the weak economy, apparently people have enough money to buy an "Arab puppet dictator kit" for sale on Ebay (h/t Arabist). The kit includes "tools" that will help, among other things, to "give green light to any US agency for regional hegemony," steal natural resources, crush the people's "aspiration for true freedom" with "absolute brutality," and "respond very well to CNN and other tools of imperial propaganda." All for a current bid of $20.50!

Putting President Obama's Nobel prize aside, clearly the United States faces anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Some of the problem stems from image issues. You and I know the United States isn't out to crush freedom, but unfortunately that's not so obvious to many Arabs and Muslims who often have access to either incomplete, biased and even invented information.

But perceptions are only half the problem. While many Arabs were delighted by Obama's election (it's no coincidence the Ebay site features a picture of President Bush wielding a scimitar laughing), they are also quick to point out that they are waiting for tangible action. Sadly, we don't exactly have the best record when it comes to supporting dictators in the Middle East. Take, for instance, our plot to overthrow a democratically elected leader to install the Shah of Iran.

We must find a way to convince the Arab and Muslim world that - fifty years after that mistake - we're no longer in the nefarious business of CIA coups. Words won't suffice. So what actions can we take? We can begin by consistently supporting democratic reform and human rights rhetorically, diplomatically, technically and financially.

Should democracy be our only concern in the region? No. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting extremism and securing our energy supply all require the cooperation of the region's autocratic leaders for the short-term. But for the long-term, only a democratic Middle East will lead to stability and prosperity. And only a stable, prosperous Middle East can keep America secure.