L'Affaire Petraeus: Pour La Galerie

Published by Eurasia Review 13 November 2012
By Lawrence S. Schneiderman

There is no paucity of reporting in today’s Main Stream Media on l’affaire Petraeus. The Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to having an extramarital affair with a married woman. And, one should not be surprised to learn of further revelations of transgressions on his part. However, while the avalanche of reporting on General Petraeus’ extramarital affair sells newsprint and fills the airwaves with prurient curiosity, it’s window dressing -- pour la galerie.

As America’s great General, George S. Patton, once said (it would seem appropriate to quote a General here): "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." What then is l’affaire Petraeus all about?

The extramarital affair is a red herring. Its purpose is to cover up the Obama Administration’s failures in Benghazi and its cover up of those events. Four Americans under diplomatic protection, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were murdered in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11^th, 2012, by Islamic terrorists. The date was the 11^th Anniversary of the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks upon the United States in New York City and Washington, D.C.

The Obama Administration and its accomplice the Main Stream Media, willing or duped, is using a personal extramarital affair to deflect the public from the real questions of an attack on a US Consulate in North Africa.

• Why did the Obama Administration allow its Ambassador and State Department personnel to be put in jeopardy, knowing in advance that Benghazi was an extremely dangerous environment
• Why did the US State Department, under the direction of Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, leave the consulate without adequate protection against a terrorist attack on the Anniversary of 9/11?
• Why was a US Consulate not provided security by US Marines, as is standard operating procedure”?
• Under what authority is the CIA responsible for the protection of a US Ambassador and Consulate Office?
• Who made the decision to “contract out” security of a US Consulate to private civilian contractors who may be connected or compromised by terrorist groups in a country without a legitimate central government?

Indeed, there are many questions to be answered, but none more important in my view than these:

• Why did the Obama Administration not come to the rescue of its Ambassador and diplomatic personnel when it had real time information on the attack of its Consulate, and military assets capable of neutralizing the attack less than two hours away in Sigonella, Italy?
• Who knew what and when? Mr. Obama, President of the United States; Mrs. Clinton, Secretary of State; Mr. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; Gen. M. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and Mr. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; and yet to be named White House functionaries?
• Who made the decision(s) not to send military support to Benghazi?    

In the last analysis, one would hope that the Congressional Leaders of the United States and the Main Stream Media would see the events of Benghazi as the real story that needs to be investigated, and not Gen. Petraeus’ extramarital affair. Until then, here’s what the officials and pundits wish us to think: no conspiracy; the timing of Gen. Petraeus’ resignation just a coincidence; just a sordid extramarital affair, but we need to be sure no vital intelligence was compromised; nothing to see here folks – just wag the dog! 

Benghazi: Obama’s Watergate

Published by Eurasia Review 11November 2012

If you have not been paying attention for the past two months, or if you get your news from the Main Stream Media (MSM), then you may not understand the significance of the tragedy in Benghazi (Libya) on September 11, 2012.

In my view, Benghazi is the equivalent of Watergate*, yet much worse. In Benghazi, America’s credibility in the world, and in the Middle East in particular, was irretrievably compromised. As a result, America is in far greater peril than it has ever been before.

The Wall Street Journal**, one of the few media outlets willing to report on this story, succinctly summarized the significance of Benghazi: “The episode reflects directly on his (Mr. Obama) competence and honesty as Commander in Chief.”

Why did Mr. Obama and his Administration cover up what happened at Benghazi? The short answer is – we have yet to be told. Which begs the question, why did the CIA Director, David Petraeus, resign?

Here’s the reason why:

1. CIA Director David Petraeus' affair is at least 5 yrs old. Yet, he was appointed head of the CIA last year (September 6, 2011).

   Ergo, this scandal was in the can, waiting to be opened in a crisis.

2. Bill Clinton's 11th hour push to re-elect Mr. Obama was not an altruistic act of party unity. On the contrary, as the campaign flagged, Clinton's assistance was critical. With the Clintons there is always a quid pro quo.  In this case, Petraeus and the CIA are thrown under the bus for Benghazi rather than Mrs. Clinton and the US State Department. 

   Ergo, Mrs. Clinton’s political career (US Presidential Election 2016) is alive and well.

3. Mr. Obama, or probably someone on his behalf, tried to blackmail Petraeus and we can assume instructed him to lie under oath and take responsibility regarding the calamity in Benghazi. In return, the Obama Administration will keep quiet about his extra-marital affair. Petraeus we can again assume refused to play ball and resigned rather than lay the blame and shame on his agency (CIA).

   Ergo, his legacy and the credibility of his Agency are tarnished and compromised, but not irreparably so.

4. The unfortunate upshot for the United States: more Benghazis and more blood on the horizon.

Watergate was a break-in of a political office in a commercial building and a cover up by the Nixon Administration. Benghazi is an act of war against the United States of America, the murder of a US Ambassador on foreign soil, and a cover up by the Obama Administration. Mr. Nixon was forced to resign his Presidency. We should expect nothing less from Mr. Obama.

Author: Lawrence S. Schneiderman is an International Consultant and Dr. of Public Policy, Vanderbilt University. The views expressed are his own.

* The Watergate scandal was a political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the June 1972 break-in at in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement. The scandal eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, on August 9, 1974, the only resignation of a U.S. President. The scandal also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of 43 people, including dozens of Nixon's top administration officials (Wikipedia)

** “The Fog of Benghazi,” The Wall Street Journal, 3-4 November 2012, sec. A, p.14, cols. 1-2.

Low Hanging Fruit: The Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize* was awarded October 12, 2012, to the European Union (EU). The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the prize to the EU for keeping the peace in Europe for the past sixty years. A worthy honor or another “kick in the leg”?**

Criticizing the Nobel Committee is like shooting fish in a barrel. In other words, it’s too easy. With a few exceptions, the awards recipients are pacifists, appeasers, apologists, environmentalists, authoritarian socialists, communists, terrorists, UN Organizations and apparatchiks, and at least one liar. The Committee never fails to underwhelm with their selection. Who then is the Nobel Committee?

The Nobel Committee is a five-member committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting. The Storting is Norway’s unicameral legislature. Therefore, and make no mistake about this, the Nobel Committee represents the people of Norway and its social and political culture. That begs the question, what do we know about Norway?

Quickly to the point, contemporary Norway is a duplicitous country. As Churchill stated in a speech at St. James’s Palace on June 12, 1941 – “A vile race of quislings*** to use the new word which will carry the scorn of mankind down the centuries.”

Founded in the 11th Century by King Olaf II, Norway was a free frozen isolated nation for all of 200 years. In the 13th century, the Danes ruled Norway until the 19th century. Then the Swedes took control under a Union until 1905. Well, there you have it. Not around for the Renaissance, the Reformation, and not even the Enlightenment. Is it any wonder that they admire Lenin and Stalinist Russia, the Soviet Union, Authoritarian Socialism, and Communism?

This is Norway, where recently (August 24, 2012), Anders Breivik a Norwegian, who murdered 77 people last year, was sentenced to a mere 21 years in prison. And if you think the Norwegian penal system is no walk in the park – think again. His lawyers say, ‘Mr. Breivik will spend his confinement in a prison outside Oslo in a three-cell suite of rooms equipped with exercise equipment, a television, and a laptop, albeit one without Internet access.’ Oh my, the inhumanity! No Internet! In other words, you can without contrition gun down 77 unarmed fellow citizens and get 21 years in prison. 

Now, returning to the Committee’s 2012 selection of the EU. Thorbjorn Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, and chairman of the Committee awarding the prize, said: “The stabilizing part played by the E.U. has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace,” Sounds good, but it’s delusional.

The EU keeping the peace for sixty years is quite a feat – since the EU has only been a political entity for the last twenty years, beginning with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty on November 1, 1993. But hey, who’s counting. Mr. Obama was awarded a Nobel Prize after being in office less than two weeks when nominations came due: from January 20 to February 1, 2009; and, only eight months until the Committee’s announcement in October 2009.

Yet, the most important reason to be mystified with this award is that it was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that has kept the peace in Europe since World War II. NATO was founded on April 4, 1949, by twelve western nations, and funded essentially by American taxpayers.

So, if the Nobel Committee is awarding the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to those who have kept the peace in Europe, sans the Balkans, for the past sixty years – it should go not to the EU, but to NATO and the taxpayers of the United States of America.

Lastly, we historically know that the Norwegian intellectual elite whom comprises the Nobel Committee like to send a message to the least of us. But alas, a lie (that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for the last sixty years) does not change reality (that Europe is in crisis and the unelected self-serving technocratic elitist of the EU and Euro zone are the problem and not the solution).

If, Alfred Nobel, a Swede, had not thrown these frozen goobers**** the 5th portion of the Nobel Prize to administer (the other four belong to Sweden), we would never hear from them. But he did -- and so we do – and as a result, every year or so we have to put up with their insult, called the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peace!

* "Peace, They Say" by Jay Nordlinger, is an excellent history and a fair and thought provoking account of the Nobel Peace Prize and its recipients.

** In 2002 the Prize was awarded to Jimmy Carter. In his explanation for the award going to Mr. Carter, Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge stated that award “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line the current administration (George W. Bush) has taken (with Saddam Hussein). It’s a kick in the leg to all who follow the same line as the United States.” Apparently, “kick in the leg,” is the Norwegian expression for “slap in the face.”

*** Vidkun Quisling, leader of Norway in 1940, who cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis when Germany invaded Norway in 1940.

**** A person who has extremely annoying personal habits that annoy the hell out of everyone. Examples are: bad breath; chews gum extremely loud with mouth open; always wears pants that are slightly too short or sleeves slightly too small; squints a lot; has trouble controlling the volume of his or her voice; interrupts others to tell uninteresting stories; atheistic about everything; and, a heavy mouth breather.

 

The Wrong Side of Everything: US and EU Foreign Policy

Published by Eurasia Review,  October 4, 2012

The people of the Republic of Georgia went to the polls Monday (October 1, 2012), and threw out of office the incumbent party (United National Movement) that has led (or some say ruled) this small nation since the Rose Revolution of 2003. The winner is a coalition of small political groups called the Georgia Dream Party, led and founded by businessman Bidzina Ivanishvili.

What is important, and fully reported by the western media, is that the democratic election process worked. But not being reported, and equally important, in my view, is the fact that the United States of America (US) and the European Union (EU) bet on the wrong horse again.

In the past couple of years, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, Messrs. Barroso and van Rumpuy and Lady Ashton, have backed the loser in every transitional election, and supported the overthrow of every regime with ties to the west or providing a stable force in an unstable region.

Here’s the record:

·      Georgian Election – The US and EU did everything they could (billions in economic aid) to support Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s continued role as President and/or Prime Minister (the two positions are separate and the latter is appointed by Parliament). Mr. Saakashvili lost because he is an arrogant authoritarian jerk; who was suckered by Russia and led his country into war (2008 Georgian-Russian War) that it could not win, and then lied about how it happen; terrorized political opponents; and in spite of massive foreign aid and opportunity presided over a failed economy. He is not the “democratic leader” the sycophantic western media wish him to be. Being educated in the West does not ensure western principles and values. Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, was educated at a California university, and he certainly doesn’t endorse western values.

      Serbian Election - The Serbian people, on May 20, 2012, elected a new President, Tomislav Nikolic, in a "surprise victory." Surprise to whom – apparently to western journalists and tendentious pollsters. The Serbian people are telling the EU imperialist technocrats that they had enough of their malarkey. Serbs will not be serfs.

 ·   Egyptian Election - On June 17, 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi won Egypt's presidential election. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its slogan is “Islam is the solution.” The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sharia Law as the foundations of an Islamic government. There should be little dispute that Egypt is now an Islamic state. Does foreign policy Establishments of the US and EU not remember the naïve and foolish policy of the Carter Administration with the Shah and Iran, and the outcome of that decision? Surely, they must. We are living today with the horrendous consequences of that foreign policy failure, and the consequences may prove catastrophic. The US now wants to double down.

·       Iraq - The inability to fashion a sensible accord between Iraq’s three sectarian groups, resulted in the immediate and ongoing sectarian warfare. There has been no peace. The result has been diplomatic malpractice by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and their principle foreign policy chiefs, Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton. With al – Maliki and his Shi’a control of Iraq’s central government, Iran will continue to exert untoward influence. It is Iran who is attempting to steer policy in Iraq. Mr. al - Maliki is simply the puppet. Iraq is an artificial state. To believe that Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a can live peacefully together contradicts realty. Just as Bosnia became a failed state when Muslims, Serbs, and Croatians, were provided with the means to choose the conditions under which they wished to live - similarly the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a, are doing so in Iraq today.

·       Tunisia – The Tunisian Revolution, the first of the so-called “Arab Spring,” began on December 18, 2010, and led to the removal of longtime President (had ruled since 1987), Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, on January 14, 2011. Today the ruling Islamist party has been strongly criticized for failing to clamp down on Tunisia’s Muslim extremists, who have carried out numerous acts of violence since last year’s revolution. For those in the west who believe that Tunisia has established a “moderate Islamic regime” – not so fast.

 Libya – The Libyan Revolution began in February 15, 2011, and ended on October 20, 2011, with the capture and killing of Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since a bloodless military coup in 1969. The revolution would not have succeeded without the direct military involvement of the United States, England, and France. On September 11, 2012, the United States Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were murdered by ·      an Islamic mob in Benghazi. At no time did the security forces intervene to protect US personnel or property in accordance with International Law. In short, Libya is a foreign policy failure. We removed a secular dictator, who had renounced terrorism and a nuclear weapons program, to give birth to an Islamic terrorist nation.

·     Syria – The Syrian Revolution (Civil War), began on March 15, 2011, and continues to this day. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on March 27, 2011, that the U.S. would not intervene militarily in Syria as it did in Libya, and drew a distinction between Libya's Muammar Qaddafi and Syria's Bashar Assad. The latter, she explained, is seen as “a reformer.” Yet, today, she wants his head. This is not foreign policy – this is schizophrenia.

    Why are the US and EU clueless to the will of the people in each of these situations? Why do they support the losers in pivotal elections? Why do they support revolutionary forces that wish to do harm to the West? Why do they push nation states away from the West and into the arms of Mr. Putin, Iranian Ayatollahs, and Chinese Communists?

The addle US State Department and European Union elitists seem to equate rhetoric and fawning with principle. The people of other nations who have to live under failed leadership know better. The people of other nations whose views and voices are not represented in the hysterical reporting of today’s tendentious mainstream media are not being represented. And, apparently, you no longer can buy them off. They have seen what the West is selling – and won’t sell out to be a part of it.

The real story is not only the upheavals that are sweeping the world. Rather, the real story is also the failure of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and the leaders of the European Union, to understand what the hell is going on out there. Their record of failures are not individual acts of misjudgments, but repeated acts of institutional incompetence that manifest itself in indefensible ignorance.

Lawrence S. Schneiderman is an International Consultant and Dr. of Public Policy, Vanderbilt University. The views expressed are the author’s own.

Quantitative Easing: The Fleecing of America

Publisher by Eurasia Review  September 14, 2012


2008 QE1: It did not work to improve the economy, but Wall Street got richer.

2009 QE1 Extension: The same results as QE1.

2010 QE2: Again Wall Street got richer, but not Main Street or the Middle Class.

2011 "Operation Twist:" The only thing twisting was the Middle Class at the end of Mr. Bernanke's inflationary noose.*

2012 QE3.

When you do the same thing over and over again and it does not result in achieving the result you intend (at least profess to intend), then you are either insane or complicit. Moreover, after implementing the same policy four times without results, and then do the same thing again -- this is not a failure of omission, but of commission. I am told that Mr. Bernanke is not insane. Therefore, he is complicit, and should be held accountable for his deeds.

Q.E.D.

* It should be noted that the 2% inflation figure the government reports is baloney – unless of course you don’t need to buy food, gasoline, or insurance.

Intolerance: Islam in Conflict with the World

In the 21st Century, civilized people should have no tolerance for intolerance. A man's* religion -- be it tablets from a mountain; a crucifixion; a revelation in a cave; teachings attributed to an awaken wise man; finding a book from God under a stone; or even an atheistic existential being and nothingness -- is his own business. But, to think your religion is supreme over any other and those who are "nonbelievers" should be killed or enslaved, is not only foolishness, but deserves our strongest condemnation. 

Tolerance is a two-way street, whereas Islam is a one-way street. Islamic countries deny the legitimacy of any other religion. That being the case, why should non-Islamic States permit the practice of Islam, as an expression of religious freedom? How many Churches, Synagogues, or Temples have been built in any Islamic Nation in modern times?  Freedom of religion for me but not for you is not only wrong -- it is intolerable.

In Islam, religion and politics are synonymous. As the renowned Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis posits, “Religious truths and political power are inextricably linked: the first sanctified the second; the second confirmed and sustained the first.”  Professor Lewis further notes: 

“In the Islamic world … there is no distinction and therefore no conflict between the Pope and Emperor (Imam and Head of State). The basic Muslim creed is that God is one and Muhammad is His prophet, and no one who rejects either of these propositions can be considered a Muslim. Beyond that, loyalty to Islam is expressed, not by correct belief but by correct behavior … (including) obedience to the head of the Islamic state.”

Consequently, since Islam is infallible, an Islamic state is also infallible, and therefore requires a scapegoat. The West, the Infidels, the Outsiders, have historically served this purpose for Islamic heads of state. By deflecting the blame to the West for all that is not right the Ruler cannot be blamed. Their perfidious gambit has been a carefully crafted campaign of political doublespeak. On the one hand, in English, and behind closed doors, they lament to Western leaders how terrible this all is and that freedom of expression is as important to them as you. And on the other hand, in Arabic, Farsi, Türkçe, and Urdu, they increase their funding to the Mullahs so that they may spread their attacks against the West throughout the Muslim world, and beat the drums of hatred through their state controlled media. This is a farrago of disingenuousness.

Furthermore, this double game played by Islamists of proclaiming respect for democracy and individual rights in public and sponsoring de jure and de facto strict adherence to the Qur’an and Shari’a Law is duplicitous.  In other words, you must respect their culture and religious laws, while at the same time, an Islamist does not have to follow the laws of a country that are in conflict with his own beliefs. This is not simply hypocrisy; it is criminal and subversive.

The Pope (Benedict XVI) makes a speech in which he philosophically quotes a 14th-century Byzantine Emperor (Manuel II Palaiologos) critical of Islam. The result? Most of the Islamic world is up in arms - literally. The Middle East erupts - literally - over a cartoon. And**, on September 11, 2012, the United States Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff are murdered by an Islamic mob, while the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, is stormed and the American flag is torn down and burned, by another Islamic mob. At no time did the security forces of either country intervene to protect US personnel or property in accordance with International Law. In fact, hundreds of police stood by in Cairo, clad in riot gear, as the demonstration and destruction ensued. Because, presumably, an American citizen in California produced a film that reportedly portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a bad light? 

These events should not be minimized or ignored as a cultural misunderstanding or the machinations of an Islamic lunatic fringe. These events and others like them are being used as part of the propaganda war orchestrated by Islam's Goring’s and Goebbels. It is time to stop pretending that the West and the world of Islam, where terrorism is seen as a legitimate expression of political opposition, can peacefully coexist.

Apologists such as Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will proffer that hatred and violence is the exception. That it is our fault for not understanding Islam and ‘hurt the feelings of Muslims.’ This excuse has become more and more common as others became less and less easy to find. The ever-increasing acts of Islamic violence throughout the world categorically contradict this habitual refrain. 

An addled liberal Western mass media has betrayed Western society. It is easy to be an Apologist; it is less easy to be alert. Islamist apologists search for friendship, and possess an unwillingness to pass judgment. They have a desire to make the best of difficult situations by seeking to empathize with their adversaries, and prefer talk rather than confronting an unpleasant reality. Yet, by reading and listing to what they say, the evil aims of Islam are easily forecast. 

The Appeasers tumble over themselves in an attempt to pacify Islamists such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Taliban, at every turn, without acknowledging that pacification is not the prudent and fruitful policy objective they sought. Rather, it is a means of delusion and ultimate destruction to Western values and principles. 

The situation is intolerable.

*   The pronoun “man” is gender-neutral.
** Blog updated 9/12/2012 to include the events of 9/11/2012

Serbian President's Government Appointment: How Dare He

Serbia’s newly elected President, Tomislav Nikolic, is apparently guilty for appointing a political ally, Jorgovanka Tabakovic, to head Serbia’s Central Bank. The cack-handed powers that be in Brussels and Washington are incredulous that Serbia did not clear this appointment with them before hand, as well as changes to the country’s banking laws.

Peter Steno, a spokesman for European Union Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele, vented:

“We are concerned about the content of the new amendments to the law on the Central Bank … (the European Union) was not consulted on appropriate levels, including not being consulted with the European Commission.”

For those of you fortunate enough not to speak European Union, here is what he said. Who are the Serbs to think they can make their own laws for their country? We, the European Union, will decide what is best for the people of Serbia. We will tell you what you can and cannot do.

Do you honestly believe that Ben Bernanke (US Federal Reserve Bank) is an “apolitical technocrat,” and not an Obama operative? Or for that matter, that Mario Draghi (European Central Bank) and Christine Lagarde (International Monetary Fund) are not fully certified apparatchiks in the cabal called the Euro zone and European Union. Jorgovanka Tabakovic’s appointment as head of Serbia's central bank is at worse no different.

I’ll say it again; Serbs will not be serfs. Southern Europe will soon understand and imitate what is playing out in Serbia. It may be old-fashioned, but it’s as rudimentary as the air we breathe – its called freedom. It’s called national sovereignty.

In the end, you have to ask yourself this question. Do you really want to be a member of an organization that has Messrs van Rompuy, Juncker, Barroso, and Lady Ashton, as leaders?  Well, do you?

London 2012 Olympics: ‘Curiouser And Curiouser!’ – OpEd

By: Lawrence S. Schneiderman

Eurasia Review

July 29, 2012

'Curiouser and curiouser!’ Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).

- Lewis Carroll, Alice In Wonderland

This phrase is often used to express bewilderment, especially when experiencing something that does not make sense. It’s also an apt description of yesterday evening’s Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Summer Olympics.

In sum, the production was sophomoric socialistic artistic drivel, masquerading as an intentional gambit of Islamic propaganda.

The artistic value speaks for itself. That is, there was very little. This politically correct production at no time, or precious little, imparts any understanding of the greatness of the British Isles and Britain’s English speaking people. Instead, we are taken on a nightmarish journey: from feudal serfdom; to the darkest Dickensian horrors of the Industrial Revolution; followed by a surrealistic portrayal of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS); before arriving at the real interest of the evening’s “entertainment,” which is the transformation of English society into an Islamic nation.

Mecca (left) and London 2012 (right) 

It wasn’t Romeo and Juliet dancing the night away out there on stage last night, rather it was Ishmael and A’ishah, two young kids from the Levant. And, if you haven’t gotten it by now, it was not a “house” on stage, but the Ka’ba, Islam’s most sacred site, taking center stage – Mecca in London. The transformation is complete, the Islamization of England has been achieved, and all it took was the Opening Ceremony of the London Olympic Games to do it. And, in the end, the kids sing and dance, into the “house.” Translation: all come to Islam.

One wonders who gave the keys to the castle to Danny Boyle, and what did they expect to get? Mr. Boyle, best known for his cinematic work, not for theatrical productions, was a curious choice. His best-known work is for the films Slumdog Millionaire, a story of an Indian slum orphan, and Trainspotting, a story about heroin junkies on the dole.

Mr. Boyle wanted to send the world a message. And that is, the British Isles are no longer Anglo-Saxon. No longer the stuff of Queen Boudicca, King Arthur, Chaucer, Henry VIII, Shakespeare, Nelson, Wellington, Shelley, Wordsworth, Byron, Keats, Queen Victoria, Dickens, Gilbert and Sullivan, Kipling, Churchill, Thatcher, and Elizabeth II. Instead of these realities, we were subjected to a bizarre existential, if not delusional, production.

For Islam, the Ka’ba (Cube) of Mecca is the House of God. For Mr. Boyle, the “House” at center stage is also the Ka’ba. This is Mr. Boyle’s revelation and destination. Without our consent, we were forced to make the pilgrimage of the faithful.

Indeed, Western Civilization is in distress. When people of responsibility allow the subversive and destructive elements in society to speak to us in a legitimate forum such as the world’s Olympic Games,  we are in serious peril.

Lawrence S. Schneiderman is an International Consultant and Dr. of Public Policy, Vanderbilt University. The views expressed are the author’s own. 

Diplomatic Malpractice: Sectarian Violence In Iraq – OpEd

By: Lawrence S. Schneiderman
July 25, 2012

Eurasia Review

Baghdad, at one time, was the most beautiful city in the world. That was 762 AD. Located where the Garden of Eden is believed to have been. However today, Baghdad and much of Iraq is in tumult.

According to “statista,” as of June 16, 2012, there have been 1,879 civilian deaths in Iraq this year resulting from sectarian violence. On July 23^rd alone, 111 people were killed and nearly 200 wounded. Attacks during the month of June have killed at least 237 people, with many more wounded. Right about now someone is thinking – yes, yes, we know Iraq is a violent place, but what’s your point.

The point is it did not have to be.

Nothing comes more instinctively to the region than sectarian violence. The difference would seem to be less of kind, since most warring parties are Arabic except for the case of the Kurds, than political and religious (Shi’a v. Sunni). This is comparable to the former Yugoslavia where Serbs, Croats, and Muslim Slavs, all southern Slavs, were segregated by religious identity, and fought to determine what each believed to be their birthright.

One of the great failing of the Bush Administration, and specifically its National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is that they did not recognize this division. And, therefore, did not have an intelligent plan of what to do in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed. In fact, Ms. Rice’s preferred option for Iraq was “to have Iraqis kill one another for a while before they get the point.” The violence we are seeing today, in my view, is a direct result of that failure.

The inability to fashion a sensible accord between Iraq’s three sectarian groups, resulted in the immediate and ongoing warfare. There was no intelligent design, there was no historical perspective, and there was no applied dynamics. Therefore, there has been no peace. Again, it did not have to be this way, but both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and their principle foreign policy chiefs, Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton, simple did not understand the complexities and nuances of the region’s history.

The best strategy for Iraq would have been to partition the country into three parts: the Kurds (Mosul); Sunni (Baghdad); and Shi’a (Basra). Here’s why.

There is no compelling historic justification for modern day Iraq. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference and subsequent San Remo Conference in April 1920 laid the groundwork for an Iraqi nation. But before 1919 modern day Iraq did not exist. There was no Iraqi nationalism and no Iraqi identity. There was what the British called “Mesopotamia” - referring to the Ottoman Empire’s provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. It was not until 1922, that the League of Nations conferred statehood on Iraq, that it became a Nation and legal entity. A decade later, Iraq joined the League of Nations.

The demise of Iraq will cause consternation to some. The whole Middle East has skin in the game, none more so than Turkey and Iran. In the case of Turkey, they have had every opportunity for partnership and constructive intervention in the region and have never failed to miss an opportunity. No matter what they wish to think - Kurds are not Turks and Mosul does not belong to Turkey. A Nation of Kurdistan will not be the death of Turkey. It will be however, a stable force in an unstable region. Turkey should have figured it out by now, that an accommodation to the Kurds would work toward balancing and even mitigating Iran’s position in Iraq, especially under Nouri al – Maliki, the Shi’a Prime Minister.

With al – Maliki and his Shi’a control of Iraq’s central government, Iran will continue to exert untoward influence. Reducing Shi’a dominance to southern Iraq will correspondingly reduce Iran’s influence in the region. It is Iran who is attempting to steer policy in Iraq. Mr. al - Maliki is simply the puppet.

A stable “Mesopotamia” is important to Middle East stability; particularly with the growing probability Syria could collapse, leaving no effective central government, much like Lebanon. It is not too difficult to predict that Iran stands poised to fill the resulting power vacuum in Syria through their surrogate Hezbollah. The new road to perdition will run from Tehran, through Basra, Damascus, ending in Beirut. The partition of Iraq would at least provide two buffer zones against this menacing tide.

Hence, the partition of Iraq is not only a pragmatic solution to help end the violence in Iraq, it is a historical imperative and strategic initiative.

In sum, Iraq is an artificial state. To believe that Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a can live peacefully together contradicts realty. Just as Bosnia became a failed state when Muslims, Serbs, and Croatians, were provided with the means to choose the conditions under which they wished to live - similarly the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a, are doing so in Iraq today.

A solution to Iraqi violence is to construct a new compact. That new compact will be the partition of Iraq into three distinct states.

Lawrence S. Schneiderman is an International Consultant and Dr. of Public Policy, Vanderbilt University. The views expressed are the author’s own.