<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, June 23, 2005

80%!
Humam Hammodi, Chairman of the constitution drafting committee told Al-Sabah that the branch teams of the committee have succeeded so far in completing 80% of the constitution's draft.Hammodi added that his colleagues at the committee branch-teams are willing to fulfill the task by the previously set deadline of August 15th 2005."The final draft will come out with an Iraqi spirit and there are actually little differences to debate" said Hammodi.As a matter of fact, I'm not the least surprised by this bit of news because I was expecting this process to move smoother than the previous chapters of the democratic change in Iraq, yet I'm a little bit amazed at the rapid progress being made despite all the current difficulties that make any progress incomprehensible for many people outside Iraq and don't blame them for thinking that way because it's unfair to expect them to believe that work can be done this fast in a country living in such rough conditions.I believe what made such a rapid progress possible is the availability of a good foundation from which a new permanent constitution can be created and here I'm talking about the TAL.I actually didn't read the whole TAL but I had the chance to read the bill of human rights and it looked quite fair to me and I have no problem with using this law as a basic structure for the permanent constitution.Everyone noticed that this law was heavily criticized by more than a one group when announced in the 1st place. However-with time-this law has succeeded in winning the trust of most of the previously skeptical groups and individual politicians.I remember that many Sunni (as well as dome She'at) politicians considered that law as an American plan to give the Kurds more rights than they deserve but lately I began to see the same people resort to the same law and use some of its clauses to defend their view points!This might sound weird but actually it's good because it shows that people who chose to join the political process are beginning to use reason instead of their emotions and worn-out conspiracy theories.So my guess is that the working members of the constitution drafting committee (I'll call CDC for short from now on) are introducing slight modifications to the TAL as a way to get the draft ready on time and to avoid wasting precious time while waiting for the additional 15 Sunni members to join the team.And when those 15 members occupy their seats in the CDC, I think logically there will be further discussions to approve or re-discuss the clauses in question.Bottom line, the people won the war when they said their word on the 30th of January and since then, many of the hesitant elements recognized the winning side and began joining it while the barking dogs will have nothing left to chew on but their bitter defeat.- posted by Omar @ 21:44

Monday, June 20, 2005

Interesting Obama.

Commencement Address
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

Commencement Address

Saturday, June 4, 2005 — Good morning President Taylor, Board of Trustees, faculty, parents, family, friends, the community of Galesburg, the class of 1955—which I understand was out partying last night, and yet still showed up here on time—and most of all, the Class of 2005. Congratulations on your graduation, and thank you for the honor of allowing me to be a part of it. Thank you also, Mr. President, for this honorary degree. It was only a couple of years ago that I stopped paying my student loans in law school. Had I known it was this easy, I would have ran for the United States Senate earlier.
You know, it has been about six months now since you sent me to Washington as your United States Senator. I recognize that not all of you voted for me, so for those of you muttering under your breath “I didn’t send you anywhere,” that’s ok too. Maybe we’ll hold—what do you call it—a little Pumphandle after the ceremony. Change your mind for next time.
It has been a fascinating journey thus far. Each time I walk onto the Senate floor, I’m reminded of the history, for good and for ill, that has been made there. But there have been a few surreal moments. For example, I remember the day before I was sworn in, myself and my staff, we decided to hold a press conference in our office. Now, keep in mind that I am ranked 99th in seniority. I was proud that I wasn’t ranked dead last until I found out that it’s just because Illinois is bigger than Colorado. So I’m 99th in seniority, and all the reporters are crammed into the tiny transition office that I have, which is right next to the janitor’s closet in the basement of the Dirksen Office Building. It’s my first day in the building, I have not taken a single vote, I have not introduced one bill, had not even sat down in my desk, and this very earnest reporter raises his hand and says:
“Senator Obama, what is your place in history?”
I did what you just did, which is laugh out loud. I said, place in history? I thought he was kidding! At that point, I wasn’t even sure the other Senators would save a place for me at the cool kids’ table.
But as I was thinking about the words to share with this class, about what’s next, about what’s possible, and what opportunities lay ahead, I actually think it’s not a bad question for you, the class of 2005, to ask yourselves:
“What will be your place in history?”
In other eras, across distant lands, this question could be answered with relative ease and certainty. As a servant in Rome, you knew you’d spend your life forced to build somebody else’s Empire. As a peasant in 11th Century China, you knew that no matter how hard you worked, the local warlord might come and take everything you had—and you also knew that famine might come knocking at the door. As a subject of King George, you knew that your freedom of worship and your freedom to speak and to build your own life would be ultimately limited by the throne.
And then America happened.
A place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped and remade by people who had the gall, the temerity to believe that, against all odds, they could form “a more perfect union” on this new frontier.And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of an idea, they started to come. Across oceans and the ages, they settled in Boston and Charleston, Chicago and St. Louis, Kalamazoo and Galesburg, to try and build their own American Dream. This collective dream moved forward imperfectly—it was scarred by our treatment of native peoples, betrayed by slavery, clouded by the subjugation of women, shaken by war and depression. And yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people kept dreaming, and building, and working, and marching, and petitioning their government, until they made America a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us. It’s answered by us.
Have we failed at times? Absolutely. Will you occasionally fail when you embark on your own American journey? You surely will. But the test is not perfection.The true test of the American ideal is whether we’re able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life’s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.
We have faced this choice before.
At the end of the Civil War, when farmers and their families began moving into the cities to work in the big factories that were sprouting up all across America, we had to decide: Do we do nothing and allow captains of industry and robber barons to run roughshod over the economy and workers by competing to see who can pay the lowest wages at the worst working conditions? Or do we try to make the system work by setting up basic rules for the market, instituting the first public schools, busting up monopolies, letting workers organize into unions?
We chose to act, and we rose together.
When the irrational exuberance of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with the stock market, we had to decide: do we follow the call of leaders who would do nothing, or the call of a leader who, perhaps because of his physical paralysis, refused to accept political paralysis?
We chose to act—regulating the market, putting people back to work, expanding bargaining rights to include health care and a secure retirement–and together we rose.
When World War II required the most massive homefront mobilization in history and we needed every single American to lend a hand, we had to decide: Do we listen to skeptics who told us it wasn’t possible to produce that many tanks and planes? Or, did we build Roosevelt’s Arsenal for Democracy and grow our economy even further by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own home?
Again, we chose to act, and again, we rose together.
Today, at the beginning of this young century, we have to decide again. But this time, it is your turn to choose.
Here in Galesburg, you know what this new challenge is. You’ve seen it.All of you, your first year in college saw what happened at 9/11. It’s already been noted, the degree to which your lives will be intertwined with the war on terrorism that currently is taking place. But what you’ve also seen, perhaps not as spectacularly, is the fact that when you drive by the old Maytag plant around lunchtime, no one walks out anymore. I saw it during the campaign when I met union guys who worked at the plant for 20, 30 years and now wonder what they’re gonna do at the age of 55 without a pension or health care; when I met the man who’s son needed a new liver but because he’d been laid off, didn’t know if he could afford to provide his child the care that he needed.
It’s as if someone changed the rules in the middle of the game and no one bothered to tell these folks. And, in reality, the rules have changed.It started with technology and automation that rendered entire occupations obsolete—when was the last time anybody here stood in line for the bank teller instead of going to the ATM, or talked to a switchboard operator? Then it continued when companies like Maytag were able to pick up and move their factories to some under developed country where workers were a lot cheaper than they are in the United States.
As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces—technology and globalization—have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our own lives—sending e-mails back and forth on our blackberries, surfing the Web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world—a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world’s economies. Now business not only has the ability to move jobs wherever there’s a factory, but wherever there’s an internet connection.
Countries like India and China realized this. They understand that they no longer need to be just a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale. The one resource they needed were skilled, educated workers. So they started schooling their kids earlier, longer, with a greater emphasis on math and science and technology, until their most talented students realized they don’t have to come to America to have a decent life—they can stay right where they are.
The result? China is graduating four times the number of engineers that the United States is graduating. Not only are those Maytag employees competing with Chinese and Indian and Indonesian and Mexican workers, you are too. Today, accounting firms are e-mailing your tax returns to workers in India who will figure them out and send them back to you as fast as any worker in Illinois or Indiana could.
When you lose your luggage in Boston at an airport, tracking it down may involve a call to an agent in Bangalore, who will find it by making a phone call to Baltimore. Even the Associated Press has outsourced some of their jobs to writers all over the world who can send in a story at a click of a mouse.
As Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, in this new economy, “Talent is the 21st century wealth.” If you’ve got the skills, you’ve got the education, and you have the opportunity to upgrade and improve both, you’ll be able to compete and win anywhere. If not, the fall will be further and harder than it ever was before.So what do we do about this? How does America find its way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?
Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government—divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it—Social Darwinism—every man or woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford—tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job—life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child who was born into poverty—pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”
But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it’s been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It’s been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.
And so if we do nothing in the face of globalization, more people will continue to lose their health care. Fewer kids will be able to afford the diploma you’re about to receive.
More companies like United Airlines won’t be able to provide pensions for their employees. And those Maytag workers will be joined in the unemployment line by any worker whose skills can be bought and sold on the global market.
So today I’m here to tell you what most of you already know. This is not us—the option that I just mentioned. Doing nothing. It’s not how our story ends—not in this country. America is a land of big dreamers and big hopes.
It is this hope that has sustained us through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis. And it is because our dreamers dreamed that we have emerged from each challenge more united, more prosperous, and more admired than before.
So let’s dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let’s imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.
What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the new economy? If we made sure that college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and we said “Your old job is not coming back, but a new job will be there because we’re going to seriously retrain you and there’s life-long education that’s waiting for you—the sorts of opportunities that Knox has created with the Strong Futures scholarship program.
What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so you all had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business? What if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?
Right now, all across America, there are amazing discoveries being made. If we supported these discoveries on a national level, if we committed ourselves to investing in these possibilities, just imagine what it could do for a town like Galesburg. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant could re-open its doors as an Ethanol refinery that turned corn into fuel. Down the street, a biotechnology research lab could open up on the cusp of discovering a cure for cancer. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out electric cars. The new jobs created would be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education.
All of that is possible but none of it will come easy. Every one of us is going to have to work more, read more, train more, think more. We will have to slough off some bad habits—like driving gas guzzlers that weaken our economy and feed our enemies abroad. Our children will have to turn off the TV set once in a while and put away the video games and start hitting the books. We’ll have to reform institutions, like our public schools, that were designed for an earlier time. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities, even as Democrats recognize that we have to do more than just defend old programs.
It won’t be easy, but it can be done. It can be our future. We have the talent and the resources and brainpower. But now we need the political will. We need a national commitment.
And we need each of you.
Now, no one can force you to meet these challenges. If you want, it will be pretty easy for you to leave here today and not give another thought to towns like Galesburg and the challenges they face. There is no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and go chasing after the big house, and the nice suits, and all the other things that our money culture says that you should want, that you should aspire to, that you can buy.
But I hope you don’t walk away from the challenge. Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. You need to take up the challenges that we face as a nation and make them your own. Not because you have a debt to those who helped you get here, although you do have that debt. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I do think you do have that obligation. It’s primarily because you have an obligation to yourself. Because individual salvation has always depended on collective salvation. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.
And I know that all of you are wondering how you’ll do this, the challenges seem so big. They seem so difficult for one person to make a difference.
But we know it can be done. Because where you’re sitting, in this very place, in this town, it’s happened before.
Nearly two centuries ago, before civil rights, before voting rights, before Abraham Lincoln, before the Civil War, before all of that, America was stained by the sin of slavery. In the sweltering heat of southern plantations, men and women who looked like me could not escape the life of pain and servitude in which they were sold. And yet, year after year, as this moral cancer ate away at the American ideals of liberty and equality, the nation was silent.
But its people didn’t stay silent for long.
One by one, abolitionists emerged to tell their fellow Americans that this would not be our place in history—that this was not the America that had captured the imagination of the world.
This resistance that they met was fierce, and some paid with their lives. But they would not be deterred, and they soon spread out across the country to fight for their cause. One man from New York went west, all the way to the prairies of Illinois to start a colony.
And here in Galesburg, freedom found a home.
Here in Galesburg, the main depot for the Underground Railroad in Illinois, escaped slaves could roam freely on the streets and take shelter in people’s homes. And when their masters or the police would come for them, the people of this town would help them escape north, some literally carrying them in their arms to freedom.
Think about the risks that involved. If they were caught abetting a fugitive, you could’ve been jailed or lynched. It would have been simple for these townspeople to turn the other way; to go live their lives in a private peace.
And yet, they didn’t do that. Why?
Because they knew that we were all Americans; that we were all brothers and sisters; the same reason that a century later, young men and women your age would take Freedom Rides down south, to work for the Civil Rights movement. The same reason that black women would walk instead of ride a bus after a long day of doing somebody else’s laundry and cleaning somebody else’s kitchen. Because they were marching for freedom.
Today, on this day of possibility, we stand in the shadow of a lanky, raw-boned man with little formal education who once took the stage at Old Main and told the nation that if anyone did not believe the American principles of freedom and equality, that those principles were timeless and all-inclusive, they should go rip that page out of the Declaration of Independence.
My hope for all of you is that as you leave here today, you decide to keep these principles alive in your own life and in the life of this country. You will be tested. You won’t always succeed. But know that you have it within your power to try. That generations who have come before you faced these same fears and uncertainties in their own time. And that through our collective labor, and through God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that distant horizon, and a better day.
Thank you so much class of 2005, and congratulations on your graduation. Thank you.

Manny, Moe & Rasfanjani
The Iranian Comedy Routine

By Michael A. Ledeen
Posted: Monday, June 20, 2005

National Review Online
Publication Date: June 20, 2005

One of the reasons I have been so concerned about Iran for such a long time is that I fear the mullahs’ cleverness, ruthlessness, and ability to mount brilliant deceptions. Moreover, while there have long been basic fault lines within the mullahcracy, I have long believed they would find ways to pull together at moments of crisis.
The electoral fiasco of June 17 has shaken both of these convictions. They couldn’t even stage a phony election without appearing inept and thuggish, which is certainly not the image they wanted to send to the world. And the spectacle of intense internal conflict among leading figures in the Islamic republic makes me wonder if the revolution is beginning to devour its own fathers and sons.
First, the numbers. The regime had made it clear that the size of the turnout would indicate its legitimacy with the public, so they had to come up with big numbers. After hours of hilarious confusion, during which the "official" numbers oscillated wildly and different vote totals were announced by the interior ministry and the Council of Guardians, the regime finally decided to claim that something like 65 percent of eligible Iranians had voted. But most clear-eyed observers with the freedom to move around the country and actually go to polling places, found very few voters. The Mujahedin Khalq, the longtime allies of Saddam Hussein who have long been a source of information on things Iranian, estimated that the real figure was about 10 percent. If you read The Scotsman, for example, you hear things like this:
...at a polling station in...an affluent suburb of northern Tehran, only 150 voters had arrived by mid-afternoon. "We have been given 1,000 ballot papers, so it seems the turn-out has been a lot lower than expected," said Mohsen Jannati, the school’s headmaster, who supervised the voting.
The lowest participation--maybe as low as 3-5 percent--was in Khuzestan Province, where there had been bombings and protests in recent weeks. But anecdotal evidence from all over the country indicated a very low turnout, as of late afternoon. Despite this, the mullahs trotted out rosy reports of big voter turnouts, and even broadcast "live" TV coverage of voters queued up, waiting patiently to make their voices heard.
The only problem was that the pictures were from past elections. One woman called up a Tehran radio station to say that she was sitting at home watching the tube, and saw herself voting. Very droll indeed.
Realizing that a major fiasco was brewing (a source inside the interior ministry informs me that just before closing time, only seven million people had voted) the regime mobilized its forces. First they announced that the closing time would be extended by several hours. Then the Revolutionary Guards and the fanatical Basijis (the religious paramilitary force) started rounding up their followers, along with governmental employees and anyone who could be blackmailed or intimidated (students were told that they could not attend university unless they voted), and dragged them to the polls. Even so, by early morning the regime--which had millions of blank ballots in reserve, in order to produce whatever outcome they desired--was staggering about, trying to decide what it should announce. Differing results came out of different buildings, and the top candidates accused one another of fraud, and worse.
The New York Times tells it nicely:
The government announced at the close of the polls that there would probably be a runoff between two of three candidates: Mr. Rafsanjani, Dr. Mostafa Moin, a reform candidate, and a former police chief, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a conservative. But by 7 a.m. the next day, a spokesman for the Guardian Council, which is not supposed to be involved in the vote count, announced that the mayor of Tehran was in first place.
Even before final results were announced Saturday night, Mr. Karroubi, the former speaker of Parliament, said in a news conference that the election had been rigged. He was joined later by Dr. Moin, the reform candidate who finished in fifth place, who charged interference by the military, though he did not say whom or what he was referring to.
The government continued Sunday to deny the accusations of election fraud. The Guardian Council announced Sunday night on state-run news broadcasts that no one had filed a formal complaint with the council and that unless one was presented by the end of the day Monday, the runoff would go ahead on Friday as planned.
Karroubi had the bad taste to point out that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former mayor of Tehran, and an infamous former chief of the Special Unit of the Revolutionary Guards (the unit in charge of terror and assassination) had been awarded about a million votes between three and four o’clock in the morning. Indeed, Mustafa Moein, the leading "reformist" in the race, was actually winning at three, but dropped out of contention within the hour, as Rafsanjani consolidated his hold on first place. If the official results stand--as they surely will, for anyone who presents a complaint will face an exceedingly unpleasant short-term future--Rafsanjani will face Ahmadinejad next Friday. For the record, let’s file away Moein’s lament. "I declare that what happened was an extra-legal move to deprive one candidate of his right and to pull up another candidate...We must take seriously the danger of fascism..."
Actually, Moein need not worry about fascism; it’s already firmly entrenched. But his description of what happened on election night is quite accurate. Rafsanjani was the heavy favorite, and he certainly had sufficient resources to buy as many ballots as he needed (the most interesting accusation, passed on to me from a government official in Tehran, is that about two million Pakistani Shiites from Quetta were provided with Iranian passports and bused into the country to vote). But, even with the anticipated fraud, second place was closely contested between Moein and Karroubi. The "victory" of Ahmadinejad was apparently not anticipated, and decidedly not approved, by the Supreme Leader and his cronies. It amounts to a political coup by the Basij and the most fanatical elements of the Revolutionary Guards. After all, Ahmadinejad’s real status lies with them; they consider it high praise that he was accused of involvement in assassinations in both Austria and Germany.
As best I can tell, the real numbers are quite different from the official ones. Roughly seven million people voted under normal circumstances, between the opening bell and the official closing time. But there were approximately 29 million ballots, a difference of 22 million. Of these, about five million were produced by the late evening roundups (bringing the total of actual voters to twelve million), and the balance--17 million--were fraudulent, mostly blank ballots filled out by the representatives of one candidate or another. This out of an eligible pool of about 51 million (remember that the voting age in Iran is 14 years).
Now what?
The "reformers" are going to back Rafsanjani, and the "hard liners" will go all out for their man Ahmadinejad. As I have said before, the presidency of the Islamic republic is a symbolic office rather than a position of real power, but the election night fiasco suggests that very powerful people are unwilling to play the old game. They could not tolerate the presence of even such dubious figures as Karroubi and Moein in a runoff, and while it is hard to imagine they have serious problems with Rafsanjani--who in his earlier term as president ordered numerous terrorist actions and supervised the vicious crackdown on rebellious students and intellectuals--who knows? Once this sort of internal fission begins, it may elude the efforts of canny politicians to contain it. Even if they are masters of deceit and manipulation. We'll know in a week. But already the Iranian people have been treated to the spectacle of a regime at once incompetent and divided. Remember that Machiavelli warned his prince that the most dangerous development for any leader is to be held in contempt by his underlings.
Meanwhile, the director of central intelligence gently reminded us--or so it appears--that we have profound problems to resolve with the mullahs. Time asked him how we were doing in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. He replied that the matter was rather more complicated than one might imagine. He was quite sure he knew where the master terrorist was located, and I think he told us that bin Laden is in Iran. Judge for yourself:
...we have some weak links...until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice. We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play...
Is he not saying that bin Laden is in a sanctuary in a sovereign state? And what state could that be? If bin Laden were in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it wouldn’t seem to be such a vexing problem as Goss suggests. But Iran, now that’s a problem. Indeed the biggest problem in the war against terrorism.
Which is why it would have been better to have moved faster to support the Iranian people against their terror masters. Can we do it now, please?

Condoeezza!!!!

Remarks at the American University in Cairo
Secretary Condoleezza Rice Cairo, Egypt June 20, 2005

Thank you very much, Dr. Hala Mustafa, for that really kind and warm introduction and your inspiring thoughts about democracy here in the region. I am honored to be here in the great and ancient city of Cairo.
The United States values our strategic relationship and our strengthening economic ties with Egypt. And American presidents since Ronald Reagan have benefited from the wisdom and the counsel of President Mubarak, with whom I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today.
The people of America and Egypt have always desired to visit one another and to learn from one another. And the highest ideals of our partnership are embodied right here, in the American University of Cairo. This great center of learning has endured and thrived -- from the days when our friendship was somewhat rocky, to today, when the relationship is strong. And I am very grateful and honored to address you in the halls of this great center of learning.
Throughout its history, Egypt has always led this region through its moments of greatest decision. In the early 19th century, it was the reform-minded dynasty of Muhammad Ali that distinguished Egypt from the Ottoman Empire and began to transform it into the region’s first modern nation.
In the early 20th century, it was the forward-looking Wafd Party that rose in the aftermath of the First World War and established Cairo as the liberal heart of the "Arab Awakening." And just three decades ago, it was Anwar Sadat who showed the way forward for the entire Middle East -- beginning difficult economic reforms and making peace with Israel. In these periods of historic decision, Egypt’s leadership was as visionary as it was essential for progress. And now in our own time, we are faced with equally momentous choices -- choices that will echo for generations to come.
In this time of great decision, I have come to Cairo not to talk about the past, but to look to the future -- to a future that Egyptians can lead and can define. Ladies and Gentlemen: In our world today, a growing number of men and women are securing their liberty. And as these people gain the power to choose, they are creating democratic governments in order to protect their natural rights.
We should all look to a future when every government respects the will of its citizens -- because the ideal of democracy is universal. For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address: "America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, and to make their own way."
We know these advances will not come easily, or all at once. We know that different societies will find forms of democracy that work for them. When we talk about democracy, though, we are referring to governments that protect certain basic rights for all their citizens -- among these, the right to speak freely. The right to associate. The right to worship as you wish. The freedom to educate your children -- boys and girls. And freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police.
Securing these rights is the hope of every citizen, and the duty of every government. In my own country, the progress of democracy has been long and difficult. And given our history, the United States has no cause for false pride and we have every reason for humility.
After all, America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings -- and the governments they create -- are inherently imperfect. And the United States was born half free and half slave. And it was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all of its people.
Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move America closer every day to the ideal of democracy. Here in the Middle East, that same long hopeful process of democratic change is now beginning to unfold. Millions of people are demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries.
To these courageous men and women, I say today: All free nations will stand with you as you secure the blessings of your own liberty. I have just come from Jordan, where I met with the King and Queen -- two leaders who have embraced reform for many years. And Jordan’s education reforms are an example for the entire region. That government is moving toward political reforms that will decentralize power and give Jordanians a greater stake in their future.
In Iraq, millions of citizens are refusing to surrender to terror the dream of freedom and democracy. When Baghdad was first designed, over twelve-hundred years ago, it was conceived as the "Round City" -- a city in which no citizen would be closer to the center of justice than any other. Today -- after decades of murder, and tyranny, and injustice -- the citizens of Iraq are again reaching for the ideals of the Round City.
Despite the attacks of violent and evil men, ordinary Iraqis are displaying great personal courage and remarkable resolve. And every step of the way -- from regaining their sovereignty, to holding elections, to now writing a constitution -- the people of Iraq are exceeding all expectations.
The Palestinian people have also spoken. And their freely-elected government is working to seize the best opportunity in years to fulfill their historic dream of statehood. Courageous leaders, both among the Palestinians and the Israelis, are dedicated to seeking that peace. And they are working to build a shared trust.
The Palestinian Authority will soon take control of the Gaza -- a first step toward realizing the vision of two democratic states living side by side in peace and security. As Palestinians fight terror, and as the Israelis fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to help create a viable Palestinian state, the entire world -- especially Egypt and the United States -- will offer full support.
In Lebanon, supporters of democracy are demanding independence from foreign masters. After the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, thousands of Lebanese citizens called for change. And when the murder of journalist Samir Qaseer reminded everyone of the reach and brutality of terror, the Lebanese people were still unafraid.
They mourned their fellow patriot, but they united publicly with pens and pencils held aloft. It is not only the Lebanese people who desire freedom from Syria’s police state. The Syrian people themselves share that aspiration.
One hundred and seventy-nine Syrian academics and human rights activists are calling upon their government to "let the Damascus spring flower, and let its flowers bloom." Syria’s leaders should embrace this call -- and learn to trust their people. The case of Syria is especially serious, because as its neighbors embrace democracy and political reform, Syria continues to harbor or directly support groups committed to violence -- in Lebanon, and in Israel, and Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. It is time for Syria to make a strategic choice to join the progress that is going on all around it.
In Iran, people are losing patience with an oppressive regime that denies them their liberty and their rights. The appearance of elections does not mask the organized cruelty of Iran’s theocratic state. The Iranian people, ladies and gentlemen, are capable of liberty. They desire liberty. And they deserve liberty. The time has come for the unelected few to release their grip on the aspirations of the proud people of Iran.
In Saudi Arabia, brave citizens are demanding accountable government. And some good first steps toward openness have been taken with recent municipal elections. Yet many people pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights. Three individuals in particular are currently imprisoned for peacefully petitioning their government. That should not be a crime in any country.
Now, here in Cairo, President Mubarak’s decision to amend the country’s constitution and hold multiparty elections is encouraging. President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change. Now, the Egyptian Government must put its faith in its own people. We are all concerned for the future of Egypt’s reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy -- men and women -- are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees -- and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.
The Egyptian Government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people -- and to the entire world -- by giving its citizens the freedom to choose. Egypt’s elections, including the Parliamentary elections, must meet objective standards that define every free election.
Opposition groups must be free to assemble, and to participate, and to speak to the media. Voting should occur without violence or intimidation. And international election monitors and observers must have unrestricted access to do their jobs.
Those who would participate in elections, both supporters and opponents of the government, also have responsibilities. They must accept the rule of law, they must reject violence, they must respect the standards of free elections, and they must peacefully accept the results.
Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy. There are those who say that democracy is being imposed. In fact, the opposite is true: Democracy is never imposed. It is tyranny that must be imposed.
People choose democracy freely. And successful reform is always homegrown. Just look around the world today. For the first time in history, more people are citizens of democracies than of any other form of government. This is the result of choice, not of coercion.
There are those who say that democracy leads to chaos, or conflict, or terror. In fact, the opposite is true: Freedom and democracy are the only ideas powerful enough to overcome hatred, and division, and violence. For people of diverse races and religions, the inclusive nature of democracy can lift the fear of difference that some believe is a license to kill. But people of goodwill must choose to embrace the challenge of listening, and debating, and cooperating with one another.
For neighboring countries with turbulent histories, democracy can help to build trust and settle old disputes with dignity. But leaders of vision and character must commit themselves to the difficult work that nurtures the hope of peace. And for all citizens with grievances, democracy can be a path to lasting justice. But the democratic system cannot function if certain groups have one foot in the realm of politics and one foot in the camp of terror.
There are those who say that democracy destroys social institution and erodes moral standards. In fact, the opposite is true: The success of democracy depends on public character and private virtue. For democracy to thrive, free citizens must work every day to strengthen their families, to care for their neighbors, and to support their communities.
There are those who say that long-term economic and social progress can be achieved without free minds and free markets. In fact, human potential and creativity are only fully released when governments trust their people’s decisions and invest in their people’s future. And the key investment is in those people's education. Because education -- for men and for women -- transforms their dreams into reality and enables them to overcome poverty.
There are those who say that democracy is for men alone. In fact, the opposite is true: Half a democracy is not a democracy. As one Muslim woman leader has said, "Society is like a bird. It has two wings. And a bird cannot fly if one wing is broken." Across the Middle East, women are inspiring us all.
In Kuwait, women protested to win their right to vote, carrying signs that declared: "Women are Kuwaitis, too." Last month, Kuwait’s legislature voiced its agreement. In Saudi Arabia, the promise of dignity is awakening in some young women. During the recent municipal elections, I saw the image of a father who went to vote with his daughter.
Rather than cast his vote himself, he gave the ballot to his daughter, and she placed it in the ballot box. This small act of hope reveals one man’s dream for his daughter. And he is not alone.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Across the Middle East today, millions of citizens are voicing their aspirations for liberty and for democracy. These men and women are expanding boundaries in ways many thought impossible just one year ago.
They are demonstrating that all great moral achievements begin with individuals who do not accept that the reality of today must also be the reality of tomorrow.
There was a time, not long ago, after all, when liberty was threatened by slavery.
The moral worth of my ancestors, it was thought, should be valued by the demand of the market, not by the dignity of their souls. This practice was sustained through violence. But the crime of human slavery could not withstand the power of human liberty. What seemed impossible in one century became inevitable in the next.
There was a time, even more recently, when liberty was threatened by colonialism. It was believed that certain peoples required foreign masters to rule their lands and run their lives. Like slavery, this ideology of injustice was enforced through oppression.
But when brave people demanded their rights, the truth that freedom is the destiny of every nation rang true throughout the world. What seemed impossible in one decade became inevitable in the next.
Today, liberty is threatened by undemocratic governments. Some believe this is a permanent fact of history. But there are others who know better. These impatient patriots can be found in Baghdad and Beirut, in Riyadh and in Ramallah, in Amman and in Tehran and right here in Cairo.
Together, they are defining a new standard of justice for our time -- a standard that is clear, and powerful, and inspiring: Liberty is the universal longing of every soul, and democracy is the ideal path for every nation.
The day is coming when the promise of a fully free and democratic world, once thought impossible, will also seem inevitable. The people of Egypt should be at the forefront of this great journey, just as you have led this region through the great journeys of the past.
A hopeful future is within the reach of every Egyptian citizen -- and every man and woman in the Middle East. The choice is yours to make. But you are not alone. All free nations are your allies. So together, let us choose liberty and democracy -- for our nations, for our children, and for our shared future.
Thank you.
2005/T10-11

In Response to a QuestionBy Grim

Reader Chris poses a good question below, and offers an answer to it.
I believe the original question here was weather the the situation in Iraq was improving or worsening. As a Naval Intelligence Officer I see the raw numbers everyday. These numbers are presented in many ways, total number of incidents (per day/week/year), number of VBIED attacks (suicide or not), number of IED attacks, numerical insurgent strength, number of weapons caches discovered daily, estimated insurgent immigration and many more. You can do a lot with numbers, but no matter how you cut it, ALL of these number have steadly increased for the last two years right up to this week. And the insurgents technological capabilitys continue to improve with more and more sophisticated IEDs, VBIEDs and roadside bombs that can defeat our electronic contermeasures. So, from my point of view the situation has been steadily worsening for two years.What Chris is pointing to here is the problem of escalation. There are two questions raised by it that need to be answered:
1) To what degree is the existence of escalation telling as to the success or failure of the mission in Iraq?
2) Including that variable in its appropriate place, how can we judge whether we are winning or losing?
The data cited (numbers of attacks, etc.) is important, in that it gives us a sense of enemy capability. It does appear that, in certain ways, enemy capability to cause mayhem is improving.
This is, however, normal in any sort of warfare, insurgency or otherwise. It is to be expected that enemies will become more deadly as time passes. This is so much a baseline feature of warfighting that Carl von Clausewitz, perhaps the greatest military scientist of them all, stated that escalation was one of the two universal features of war.
This is not an essay on Clausewitz (though I have written such a piece in the past, for the interested). For our purposes, it is enough to say that time permits the enemy to develop specialized techniques for fighting your particular kind of training; and that, as the enemy loses more men and material, he becomes more committed to winning rather than wasting what he has lost. Also, as you and he become more committed to winning, the stakes rise such that committing more, or even all, becomes a rational proposition. At the start, a battle may be something you can win or lose at little cost; but if you fight it long enough, it becomes a battle you must win in order to remain in the war. The battle becomes a decisive one.
As a result, the enemy tends to commit even more of what he has left to victory. It is almost always the case, in any conflict, that destructiveness tends to increase with time.
It is a mistake, however, to read from that the lesson that the trend will continue forever. Eventually escalation will have tapped all reasonably available resources on one side, and at that point, that side will begin to collapse. Escalation, in other words, is a natural feature of warfare: but, although it continues until it breaks, it does eventually break.
The United States has not chosen to continue with escalation. Our own resources are vaster by far than those available to our enemy, but we have chosen to manage the conflict rather than undergo the social stresses necessary for serious escalation. The enemy, however, continues to escalate its attacks against us. There is every reason to believe they will continue to do so until they have tapped out their resources, and begin to fall apart.
That is the answer to question one: it is only to be expected that escalation will occur. It should be expected to continue to occur until we win. The fact that escalation exists does not prove anything about the success or failure of the mission in Iraq; for that, we must look elsewhere.
Which brings us to question two: where shall we look?
In spite of their continued escalation, the rate of coalition casualties is not increasing, but has rather peaked and dropped. The insurgent capabilities are now more frequently brought to bear against softer targets: Iraqi government structures, and civilians. The danger represented by this will be discussed in a moment, but for now, it should be noticed that the escalation by the enemy has not recently increased our losses. They are becoming more dangerous, but our fighters are relatively safer in the period since Jan. 30, than in the six months previous to that. This article, pointing to the same increases in capability that Chris cites, notes the increased focus of enemy attacks on civilian rather than US military targets: "'Terrorists always look for the weakest point,' said Dick Bridges, spokesman for the Pentagon's IED task force. 'We are no longer the weakest point.'"
The attacks against civilians increase the number of casualties, but their primary motivation is to destabilize Iraqi society, and particularly the civil structure that is still forming in Iraq. The aim of the terrorists is no longer first and foremost to kill Marines and soldiers, but now to disrupt Iraqi society in order to fracture it so badly that it cannot be held together. If they can cause the society to splinter into chaos, they will have won.
This points to an insight arrived at some years ago by military scientists, which is that warfare is entering a new phase -- what is called "Fourth Generation" warfare. For those of you who wish to do so, you can read this excellent primer on generational warfare theory from 1989, in the Marine Corps Gazette. For those who are comfortable with the topic, we'll proceed.
Each generational change has been marked by greater dispersion on the battlefield. The fourth generation battlefield is likely to include the whole of the enemy's society.... [F]ourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear.To a very great degree that is what is happening not just in Iraq, but in the global war on terror. The entire society is the battlefield -- we are fighting in a battlespace that includes the whole of the Iraqi society. The enemy is engaging us there. On a macro scale, we are fighting in a battlespace that includes all of Muslim society, which we are trying to transform. Our enemy is engaging us there. There are promising signs throughout that society that freedom and democracy may be taking root. It is still in its birth pains, but there has been sign of success from Lebanon, from Malaysia, from Afghanistan, and yes -- from Iraq.
We are not fighting in a battlespace that includes our own society. The enemy has failed to engage us there effectively, since 9/11. The political sniping between Blue and Red, left and right, is not warfare. It is politics; and I think it is no nastier now than it was in the 1990s. As far as the GWOT goes, then, here is the important fact: we are fighting it entirely in the enemy's society. Our own society is not changed by the war; if anything, society is reverting to pre-9/11 mores. In the global war, then, I think we are winning -- and winning big.
Because we are fighting in the enemy's society, there are two possible outcomes: we lose the battle for that society, in which case we must try again at some other opportunity; or he loses, in which case he is destroyed. If we were fighting in our own society, the choices would be reversed. The campaign in Iraq must be seen as a battle in this wider war, and one that we have to fight and win for this reason: it keeps us fighting on the enemy's ground. The war can only be won when it is won at the level of a whole society. That means that, if we are to win, we must fight it in his society.
To return to Iraq proper, are we winning or losing there? Here again, it would be helpful to return to the piece I wrote on Clausewitz; "find" on "Culminating Point of Victory". It seems clear to me that the enemy's attacks on Iraq's civil society are more likely to turn Iraqi society against them than against us; that the "culminating point of victory" is one that our side could reach, but that is not available to them.
However, as noted above, there is an alternative position for the enemy: they can destroy society entirely, expecting to thrive in the chaos of civil war. I think that this is their only hope of victory; indeed, I do not see any other way in which they could achieve any kind of victory. The best that they can hope for is to destroy Iraq, because it is already too late to win Iraq.
This is an important point. Iraqi nationalism is a driving motivation, both for Iraqis in the insurgency and those opposed to it. The insurgents must fight in a society that opposes tearing apart Iraq, yet tearing apart Iraq must be their goal. This will undercut support for them, even as the bombings of Iraqi civilians does.
Meanwhile, among Sunnis, there is also the fact that chaos can be the only achievable goal of the insurgents. A divided Iraq in which the Sunni Triangle falls into ungovernable chaos could serve as a home and recruiting ground for the enemy. But they cannot govern it. Should they attempt to do so, as in Fallujah and elsewhere, the fact of trying to hold territory makes them vulnerable to American force. It cannot be done successfully. Not only must they reduce the Triangle to chaos, then, but they must maintain it.
Ordinary people do not like chaos. An insurgency that can offer nothing else will not win against any alternative -- even a nation dominated by the hated Shi'ites, even an outright American occupation.
This is the answer to the second question. We are winning, because on these terms, we cannot lose. The battlespace is Iraqi society, and Iraqi society cannot be won by what our enemy can offer. We win faster if we can make our alternative better, and we win faster if we can prove the enemy's inability to hold and govern territory -- the necessary condition for any sort of stability, without the hope of which the people of the Triangle will not support them.
The only remaining question is this: are we willing, as a society, to pay the price necessary to bring the victory about?
My argument is that we should. Iraqi society touches at all points on Arab and Muslim society; by fighting there, we are creating changes from Lebanon to Malaysia. The losses we suffer, though we grieve for them, are losses in a cause that is winning a tremendous victory.
Indeed, it is a victory so large -- across so many fronts, in so many places -- that it is too big to be seen by many.
That represents the sole serious challenge to success in Iraq. If we can avoid despair, and explain the reasons for confident hope, we shall prevail. In doing so, we shall bring freedom to many who have never known it, not only in Iraq but across the breast of the world.
De Oppresso Liber.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/images/blogiran2.jpg