שלום 2.0

To mark the 40th anniversary of the Middle East's 6-Day War of 1967, Camille Otrakji, a highly-skilled designer and "cyber-diplomat", has launched a companion to his incredible Creative Syria site, which boasts one of the most amazing collections of historic photographs one might ever see from the Middle East.

It is called the Creative Forum, designed to promote person-to-person public diplomacy (like the thing that Karen Hughes is utterly failing to do with the Islamic world, despite the help she had from her trusty deputy, Dina Mloukhia Powell). The idea is to encourage Syrians and Israelis to discuss directly the status of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized during the 6-Day War, along with the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula.

Accordingly, Otrakji proposed the following question:

"If you could write a one page letter to an Israeli citizen who does not believe his country should give back the Golan Heights to Syria, what would you tell him/her?"

He nominated myself, as well as another American very familiar with the region - Bridget Palmer, to moderate the discussion. I gladly accepted, as I have always believed that geo-political issues could be solved with more first-hand information and less propaganda.

My own experience validates that belief. I will never forget leaving London and having and one of my dear Israeli friends, who later hosted me in Tel Aviv that summer, write me that until he met me, the only image he had of Syrian people was an army propaganda video that showed 12-year-old Syrian girls sent to military camps and trained to kill snakes with their teeth. (continued...)

As for Creative Forum, the opinions expressed thus far by various Syrians have been diverse and thought-provoking, and already the site is attracting interest from Israelis curious to learn more about what it will take to make peace with their northern neighbors.

In fact, I am delighted to report that today, Haaretz, Israel's third largest newspaper, had an article about these online efforts to communicate, written by Yoav Stern. For now, it is only available in Hebrew, with the clever title "Shalom 2.0". Stern communicates to the Israeli public the essence of Creative Forum by quoting the final line from Otrakji's letter:

"'painful concessions' will be quickly forgotten the first time you have lunch in Damascus."

Of course I wrote for the site as well (my piece was also published on the Arab American Institute's commemoration of the 6 Day War), from a peace-oriented American perspective, since I am not a citizen of the Syrian Arab Republic. My essay on the Golan Heights reads as follows:

Often times, colleagues will invite me, as an American citizen of Syrian origin, to expatiate my views of the Middle East Peace Process, particularly as it pertains to land disputes between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic. Of course I reply that nothing could bring me greater pleasure than to bear witness to a resolution of that conflict on the basis of land for peace, and that I consider the role of the United States to be that of a facilitator, which steers those negotiations in good faith.

I have never felt it appropriate, however, for the United States to tell leaders of either Israel or the Syrian Arab Republic how to run their countries. That is the sort of arrogance that gives my country its unfortunate ill repute in such circles. We can guide the process and we can responsibly exert our influence to affect a positive outcome, but America cannot and should not bark orders to other sovereign nations.

Thus, the terms of the final arrangement are not for me, or even my President, to decide or mandate. Peace must evolve organically, through a comprehensive negotiation between the conflicting parties that respects each other's sovereignty, security, and – most of all – dignity.

I suppose my position appears one crafted with the meticulous care of an aspiring diplomat, bereft of passionate judgment. Nevertheless, seemingly for the pleasure of Cruel Fate, I have been blessed, or perhaps cursed, with an inextricable attachment to all matters Levantine.

Few have had the opportunity, as have I, to view the Golan Heights, captured by Israel on June 4, 1967, from both sides of the armistice line of 1974. Like a handful of adventurous visitors to the Syrian Arab Republic, I sought permission from its government to journey to the deserted Quneitra, where, like Pope John Paul II, I observed the ruins of homes, a hospital and even a church desecrated by the departing Israeli forces.

Similarly, like many a tourist to Israel, I have accompanied friends from Tel Aviv – secular liberals who care nothing for the religious overtones of that southerly seized territory – the biblical Judea and Samaria – on excursions to "the most beautiful part of the country", as they refer to the land captured from the Syrian Arab Republic by the Israeli Defense Force during the 6-day war of 40 years ago. There as well, I recall seeing demolished mosques and homes – "these places were destroyed to avoid a refugee problem," a friend glibly told me.

The wide gulf between these 2 experiences demonstrates the differing attitudes toward a quest for national normalcy. Judging by their carefree picnics, camping trips, and ski excursions to the Golan Heights, Israelis seem to have achieved it – at least until the next Katuysha rocket rains down – while their northern neighbors poetically mourn its unattainability with their every breath.

But the greater truth has been obfuscated by minutiae: national normalcy derives from regional normalcy. Until citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic have restored their collective national sense of dignity, so bound to the reintegration of the Golan Heights, they will remain restive. History has shown us that, sooner or later, like it or not, that discomfort will adversely impact their Israeli neighbors. Hence the formula: land for peace.

Perhaps it will take several more decades of mistrust, enmity, and even bloodshed on both sides for this realization to take root. Or perhaps the region will emerge from its leadership crisis with a mandate from all its people to make lasting peace. Whichever the case, this American will be the first to cheer when Syrian children wade in Lake Tiberias, and Israeli parents once again say "may they never go to the army" upon the birth of their sons.

George Ajjan is a Republican Party activist and a member of the Arab American Institute's National Policy council.

Dry run, wet music

Almost 3 years after it occurred, the so-called "dry run" for a terrorist attack, supposedly staged by the band backing Syrian singer Nour Mehanna, has been discussed in a detailed report mostly declassified by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The incident made waves when a web journalist named Annie Jacobsen shared a flight from Detroit to Los Angeles in June of 2004 with 12 musicians from Syria, and their manager, Lebanese-American Elie Harfouche, as well as several air marshals. The DHS report, which comprises information from Ms. Jacobsen as well as 5 other passengers, says:

"Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted. According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous. An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as 'unusual,' but made no further reports at the time.

During the flight, the men again acted suspiciously. Several of the men changed seats, congregated in the aisles, and arose when the fasten seat belt sign was turned on; one passenger moved quickly up the aisle toward the cockpit and, at the last moment, entered the first class lavatory. The passenger remained in the lavatory for about 20 minutes. Several of the men spent excessive time in the lavatories. Another man carried a large McDonald's restaurant bag into a lavatory and made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning to his seat."

In addition to that, there were administrative errors that compounded suspicion because the Syrian visitors appeared to have expired visas, when in fact they had visas approved through July 15 and the last of them left the US in compliance with the terms of his visa on July 14.

Those facts, and the rest of the report form which they were excerpted, led the Washington Times to title's its article on the subject "Report confirms terror dry run". In reality, the report mostly uses the incident as a case study to test intra-agency communication and preparedness to deal with future attacks of this nature. There seems to be quite a lot of finger-pointing within the government, some obviously cya in nature. For example, the Transportation Safety Administration report says:

"Federal Air Marhsals Service and FBI leadership jointly determined that the subjects could be cleared. The reported suspicious activity was determined to be unfounded, and not a terrorist threat and therefore did not merit an Homeland Security Operations Center referral."

On the other hand, a former Federal Air Marshal named Robert MacLean, fired last year for revealing cost-saving cutbacks on protection for long-distance flights, says:

"This report is evidence of Homeland Security executives attempting to downplay and cover up an unmistakable dry run that forced flight attendants to reveal the air marshals and compel the pilots to open the flight deck door."

I always found this case to be particularly interesting, because I attended a hafla at The Nile restaurant just off Route 3 at which Mehanna and his band played. In fact, it was during the summer of 2004, contemporaneous with the case in question, when my congressional campaign was in full swing. I was invited to swing by, and even passed out bi-lingual campaign literature.

There may not have been any terrorists on the stage that night, but for a tarab purist, the musical arrangements were downright criminal. A full drum kit? Bass guitar? إش هذه؟.

Of course, as far as Arabic music goes, I was raised listening to my grandparents' records of the old-school Arab and Arab-American performers who continued the early 20th century small-ensemble musical tradition: mutrab (singer - literally "enchanter"), oud (fretless lute), qanun (zither), kamanja (violin), and darbaka (percussion) - perhaps mijwiz (reed instrument) also.

The liner notes for a great CD, The Music of Arab Americans, point out that the slim availability of qualified musicians in the US perpetuated this small ensemble style long after it had died out in the Arab world - note the huge orchestra that used to back Um Kalthoum, complete with electric guitar and saxophone.

Muslims by the numbers

On Tuesday, May 22, Pew Research released a comprehensive survey of American Muslims, that covered cultural, social, religious, political, and other domains. I will leave the mundane out-of-context analysis to the fearmongers and apologists, but I would like to discuss some specific observations. See each quote from the survey below followed by my analysis.

"Interviews were conducted in English, Arabic, Urdu and Farsi."

This is not unimportant. I do believe, even over the phone, that conducting the discussion in one's native language, versus English, changes the dynamic and can have an effect on one's replies. It's a question of the mental state one adopts in given circumstances. I would be interested to see a re-sorted survey that took into account the language in which the survey was administered - my guess is that responses collected in Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi would indicate more tolerance of terrorism in the name of Islam as well as more negative attitudes toward the US.

"Muslim Americans hold liberal political views on questions about the size and scope of government. At the same time, however, they are socially conservative and supportive of a strong role for government in protecting morality."

This finding has somewhat disappointing implications for those of us forcefully arguing for a Republican outreach to American Muslims. The survey's finding that 70% of American Muslims favor a bigger government rebuts the conventional wisdom that the entrepreneurial nature of immigrant populations makes them a natural fit for the fiscally conservative approach that characterized the GOP (pre-W).

While the survey indicated that a position of discouraging homosexuality predominates, that was the only specific social issue explored. I find it disappointing that the survey did not seek detailed information on American Muslim disposition toward abortion, right-to-die, or stem-cell issues. So the data doesn't give Republicans of the "big-tent" persuasion much to work with. (continued...)

"23% say they converted to Islam. Nine-in-10 converts to Islam were born in the United States."

The survey further indicates that 40% of Muslim converts (or reverts, as Islam refers to them) are non-black. That means that more than 10% of Muslims in the United States are white Americans who converted. I found that very interesting.

"23% live in a household with at least one non-Muslim."

When we take African-American Muslims out of the equation, we find that 12% of Muslims in the US live with non-Muslims. Another interesting statistic that challenges conventional views about American followers of Islam.

"64% of Muslims from the Arab region say they are white, while 20% say they are some other or mixed race."

In my view, inhabitants of the Mediterranean zone and the Arabian Peninsula are members of the same race as Europeans. The anthropological record will back me up on that.

Given that "Arab" is a classification that encompasses a span of countries including Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, and others, it seems that the Arab-American Muslims interviewed in this survey from nations like Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. agree with me. The desire to push for minority non-white status is an ongoing debate in the Arab-American community.

"Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks."

God protect us from stupid conspiracy theories. It would be nice to see this broken out by country of birth - I would bet that those from Arab countries registered even lower than 40%. I regret the intellectual laziness that dominates the Arab World and boils everything down to a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If Arabs took even half the extraordinary energy they waste dreaming up imaginary plots against them and channeled that creativity into more noble pursuits, imagine the possibilities...

I also would like to know why this question was phrased as "groups of Arabs" and not "groups of Muslims".

"39% have come to the U.S. since 1990."

I must admit, I found this a bit alarming. Even adjusting for new births, this means that the population of American Muslims has increased by more than half in only 2 decades. Granted, in raw numbers it's not a big jump, considering that Pew determined the total number of Muslims in the US to be only about 1.5 million, but immigration of any kind needs to be conducted in measured and sensible ways.

Naturally, I am not of the belief that America should be open only to white Europeans, but any incoming population with customs (or in this case, religion) that differs from the majority of Americans needs to be integrated smoothly. This is not without precedent. For perspective, Arab immigration accounted for less than 1% of the flood of people who entered the US in the early 2oth century (and 90%+ at that time were Christian) and the immigration quotas instituted in 1921 and 1924 were largely aimed to curtail the massive inflow of Italians.

"The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries."

Frankly, I do not care whether American Muslims paint a prettier picture than the mess that is the Muslim Community in Europe. What is important to me is that any immigrant or any citizen of the United States rejects violent ideology of any kind - and right now we have a minority that does not feel that way. Let's face it.

Just because the United States has not experienced the riots that engulfed France, started by disenchanted Muslim inhabitants there, does not mean that everything is honky-dory. We do have a problem and it is up to the American Muslim and Arab-American community to clean its/our own house, which is not made any easier when the rhetoric of fearmongers creates a reflexively defensive posture within the community.

On the topic of Muslims in Europe however, stay tuned to what commentator Mona el-Tahawy, who opines frequently on efforts to reform Islam, has to say. She recently told me:

"I'm writing about the formation of a new Centrist political party by Naser Khader, the Syrian born member of the Danish parliament. He was also the first Muslim parliamentarian in Denmark. Muslims might be better socially integrated in the U.S. but they're doing better politically in Europe. Khader is the head of a new political party that could very form a coalition with the government should early elections be called; there are two Muslim junior ministers in the Dutch government, etc."

"Nearly half of Muslims in the U.S. say they think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than as Americans."

This may seem shocking, but 42% of American Christians identify with their religion more than the US. The trend continues amongst the very religious - 70% of devout Muslims and 60% of devout Christians identify with their faith before their nation.

The shocking part though was the desire for many, particularly those of Arab background, to have it both ways. Only 15% of Arab-American Muslims identified themselves as Americans first, but double that number volunteered the answer "both" when presented the choice. Only 7% of American Christians offered that response.

"Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances."

Another 5% said "rarely justified" plus 9% who didn't know how to answer or refused to answer. Quite disappointing to say the least that only 78% of American Muslims think that suicide bombings against civilian targets are never justified, which of course is the only acceptable and - I would argue - the only proper Islamic response.

However, I would like to know how the answers might have differed if the question specified the location of the suicide bombings: in the US, in Europe, or in Israel - not because I view any life as less valuable than any other, I most certainly do not. But I have seen all too often that people living afar from conflicts to which they have emotional attachment tend to project their own visions of glory onto those who actually suffer.

Thus, war becomes like a biblical video game. Arabs will make absurd justifications for suicide bombing - "we don't have tanks and planes, so we must strap the bombs to our bodies". umm, who is we? A friend in Syria made this argument once, defending Palestinian suicide bombers. I pointed out to him how easy it was for him to glorify the Arab cause while his son spent his days at basketball practice and C++ programming classes. The IDF doesn't come through and shut down Mezzeh when a suicide bomber strikes in the West Bank, I told him, so how convenient for him to excuse repugnant tactics.

And I would bet that the same phenomenon likely applies in this country - I would like to hear honest answers from the survey's respondents: Is suicide bombing acceptable to defend Islam at a local shopping mall in Anytown, USA, or only on buses in West Jerusalem?

But this trend is not unique to Arabs and Muslims. Israeli citizens, who are by-and-large required to serve in their country's army, express disdain for the hawkishness of Jewish individuals in the US and elsewhere that have never lived in Israel nor done any military service on behalf of the Jewish state, but who advocate very harsh action against Palestinians. "It's easy to talk tough when you're not the one who has to do the dirty work," I have been told by Israeli colleagues. Checkpoints, curfews, home demolitions, as well as other brute and humiliating aspects of occupation sound just dandy when someone else is going door-to-door implementing them. The view is pretty good from Alan Dershowitz's podium.

"5% of Muslim Americans express even somewhat favorable opinions of al Qaeda."

1% said "very favorable" while the other 4% said "somewhat favorable". Based upon my own observations and interactions, it seems that there exists a certain admiration for Osama bin Laden amongst some Muslims because he is perceived to have stood up for Islam against American hegemony - even if there is obvious recognition that the tactics are unacceptable.

In the age of YouTube and satellite TV, the appeal to Muslims - particularly young ones - of Bin Laden's style of speaking and presentation needs to be taken into account and understood. Technology has enabled his self-assured yet soft-spoken manner to project a much-undeserved aura of righteousness that has clearly poisoned minds, even here in the US. There needs to be a counterweight.

"Younger Muslim Americans are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than are older Muslim Americans."

The survey further reveals that 60% of American Muslims under 30 tend to think of themselves first as Muslims, not Americans - and 15% of them say that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam - only 69% say never. That is a disturbing trend that conjures up images of the disgruntled London subway bombers - middle class kids who expressed their discontentment with society in a deadly way.

These are malleable minds looking for answers and they need to be reached with a message that will steer them away from those who advocate murder or terrorizing others. The survey also notes that the American-born generation, unlike their parents who are largely sick of the integration of religion and politics in their home countries, "express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters."

Thus, the survey indicates the need for massive outreach with a positive Islamic message of devotion yet integration - through internet and satellite means, as well as face-to-face interactions in mosques.

"By nearly two-to-one (63%-32%), Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society."

Again, that mean still seem too low for comfort, but it actually matched the corresponding question of devout Christians almost exactly: 62%-29%.

"43% say that Muslim immigrants arriving in the U.S. should mostly adopt American customs and ways of life, though a significant minority (26%) thinks that new immigrants should try to remain distinct."

I was not able to find an exactly comparable question on a corresponding survey, but I would be curious to know what Latino immigrants would have to say about the assimilation process.

In conclusion, I am reminded of the remarks of Malek Akkad, the son of the late, great Mustapha Akkad, when his father was honored at the Arab American Institute's Kahlil Gibran Awards gala in 2006. The elder Akkad, killed with his daughter during a suicide bombing of a wedding in Jordan in 2005, was a noted Hollywood director and Syrian-American, who created the film "The Message" about the events of early Islam.

Malek quoted his father as saying, "I am more free to practice Islam in America than anywhere else." After reading through this informative (if imperfect) Pew survey, I would not be surprised if most American Muslims agreed.

Fare thee well, 'President of Europe'

I moved to London almost 6 years ago, in August of 2001 - a 2 year stint during which I earned my MBA at the London Business School. It was quite a tumultuous time to live outside the US for the first time in my life. Case and point: while most North Jersey natives looked across the Hudson on September 11, 2001 and saw the Twin Towers come tumbling down, I was across the Atlantic, zipping up and down the Finchley Road, as the lease of my first flat had started on that fateful day.

I recall buying a calling card at a vendor in the O2 center, which would enable me to call back to the US for 2p per minute (since £1~$1.40 at the time - now that I am an exporter I curse the day the dollar will strengthen to that level again, although it served me well at the time given London's high cost of living). I got home at about 2:30 pm (5 hours ahead of East Coast time) and decided to give my family a ring and tell them I was settled in, especially so that they might ship over some warmer clothes.

Try as I might, again and again and again, no connection. What a scam, I thought - no wonder they charge only 3 cents a minute, you can never get through! So I called my sister Valerie, who was still at Boston College at the time. Same thing, no connection. (continued...)

Annoyed, I ran into my flatmate, coincidentally another New Jersey native, Andrew Kotliar, who had a bizarre text message saying, "umm, America is under attack right now." Huh? So we headed upstairs to begin setting up the flat, but before we could do so, Liam, the porter of Grove Hall Court, told us that something was going on in New York, and knowing that we were both from the area, advised us to turn on the TV and get up to speed.

We didn't have a TV set up yet, so we went down to the London Business School and watched the whole thing unfold on CNN. It was like a movie. Although, it was then clear to me why I wasn't able to make a phone connection to either New Jersey or Boston!

Anyway, in the aftermath of that day, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair became a very close ally of President Bush - in a primetime address before a joint session of Congress just a few days afterward, which Blair attended, Bush singled him out and stated:

"America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend."

Our porter Liam mocked Blair, saying that his country's head of state was acting like Bush's lapdog and that Britain was just riding America's coattails. Now, despite my opposition to the Iraq War and his slightly more eloquent rephrasing of neoconservative delusions, there was always something about Blair that appealed to me, probably because of a shared taste in music, as explained by this article about Blair's 50th Birthday in 2003.

And yet it is one of King Crimson's songs that still weighs heavily on the prime minster. "I saw him not long ago and we spent about 20 minutes talking about the music we listened to at college," said [Blair's bandmate from ages past]. "We were talking about 21st Century Schizoid Man, which had an incredible guitar solo in the middle of it."

...it's the guitar solo in the song that is more important to Blair. It is howling, angular, eerie, and lots of other words that one wouldn't have thought applied to the prime minister.

(neocon promoter or not, you gotta love him rocking out on a Telecaster)

On Blair's international image, I am reminded of the visit of my high school friend Chris Hunter in late 2001, as we sat in Cafe Rouge on St. John's Wood High Street, and stumbled into a hilarious discussion with a rather obnoxious English young lady. She recounted for us her impressions of our countrymen from a recent trip stateside, and we got quite a laugh out of her mocking Americans for referring to Blair as the "President of Europe".

Also in late 2001, my parents came to visit London, and their visit overlapped with Blair's trip to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. I was reminded of that recently after reading a piece by Syrian analyst Sami Moubayed, who was also in London at the time:

"Assad shattered the prime minister's imagination when he said, 'We cannot accept what we see every day on our television screens, the killing of innocent civilians. There are hundreds dying every day.'

...He linked the Palestinian groups, both those residing in Syria and the occupied territories, to European resistance fighters in World War II seeking to liberate their lands from Nazi occupation. Assad argued that in Europe the great symbol of resistance had been Charles de Gaulle. 'Can anyone accuse de Gaulle of being a terrorist? No way.'

Blair came to Syria with all the arrogance that Churchill once had, yet seemed to forget that he was not Churchill and that this was not the Great Britain of 1945."

I, too, recall the newsstand headlines: "Syria Scorns Blair Appeal", and thinking oh, no, what did he say??? But my colleagues at the London Business School were intrigued, as it received front page coverage in the Financial Times. "Wow, he's really letting him have it!" said one friend. "Well, he (Assad) is quite handsome!" said another.

Actually, Blair showed character by willingly submitting himself to somewhat of an ambush in Damascus, and being cordial enough to host Assad in London for a "rematch" the following year (at which he was far more polite to his guest). I cited the confidence exemplified by Assad's approach to Blair's visit during a discussion with Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid last year in Washington about the importance of image in Syria, recalling Assad's swagger as he approached the podium preparing for the ambush.

Anyway, Blair steps down on June 27, and President Bush does not seem too thrilled about it. During a Rose Garden Press Conference last week, he was pressed by a British reporter (since American reporters are all but incapable of asking tough questions) about whether he felt he was to blame for Blair's departure:

"The question is, am I to blame for his leaving? I don't know...You know, it's interesting, like trying to do a tap dance on his political grave, aren't you? I mean, this -- you don't understand how effective Blair is, I guess, because when we're in a room with world leaders and he speaks, people listen. And they -- they view his opinion as considered and his judgment as sound.

And I find it interesting the first two questions are, is this the right guy? Well, he happens to be your Prime Minister, but more importantly, he is a respected man in the international arena. People admire him. Even if they may not agree with him a hundred percent, they admire him a lot. And it's not just the American President who admires him; a lot of people admire him. And so he's effective. He's effective because he is -- his recommendations to solve problems are sound. He's also effective because he is the kind of person who follows through.

There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say. Tony Blair is somebody who actually follows through with his convictions, and therefore, is admired in the international community.

So I guess this is an appropriate question to ask -- right guy, is he still standing -- yes. This guy is a very strong, respected leader, and he's absolutely the right guy for me to be dealing with."

I guess "confusion" will be his epitaph. In any case, fare thee well, 'President of Europe'.

But one has to wonder what Bush would do if the Conservative Party, aka the Tories, in Britain (Blair is from the Labour Party, analagous to the Democrats) were not so hopelessly inept and used their linguistic elegance to pick apart the neoconservative slogans that pass for global strategy in Bush's circles.

Blair managed to steal the Tories' thunder on major issues like the Iraq War (if it was totally unconnected to America's interest, what does that say for the UK?) and Conservative MPs were obliged to play along - thus, they have no meaningful opposition positions to take.

A true conservative party in the UK has gone extinct, says British conservative writer Peter Hitchens. "Because of the cultural, educational, and moral changes they failed to resist in the 1960s and 1970s, Tories stopped passing on their values to their own children." He continues in his appraisal of new conservative leader David Cameron:

"A recent speech on foreign policy, in which he appeared to distance himself from the neoconservative stance embraced by his party some time ago, was cunningly nuanced—like much that Cameron does—to give a false impression of his true position. He knows that the neocon association is a liability. But the speech did not alter the party's ongoing support for the Iraq War or the increasingly questionable British intervention in Afghanistan...Instead it was endorsing neoconservatism and then trying to distance it from the conduct of foreign policy by George Bush and Tony Blair."

So much for Britain. Now, what about a true conservative party in the USA?

Put a Holt on that Stinz

This week marked the unveiling of Passaic County's 2 Freeholder candidates Jerry Holt and Joseph Stinziano, as well as other running mates, at a fundraiser at (where else?) the Brownstone House in Paterson. A crowd of nearly 80 turned out to cheer on the candidates and open their wallets to support the Republicans quest to get a dissenting voice on the Freeholder Board and stop the 7 Democrats from running roughshod over Passaic County taxpayers.

Wayne Attorney Mark Semeraro, a close ally of Passaic County GOP Chairman Scott Rumana, served as the M.C., and did a terrific job. He blasted the spending increases of the Freeholder Board as well as the sale of the Passaic County Golf Course, and with a polite apology for alarmism, he hinted at the possible sale of 401 Grand Street, warning that the selling off of assets is often a precursor to bankruptcy. In addition to thanking the guests for their financial contributions, Semeraro also made an appeal for the time and talents of everyone in the room, a critically important message to deliver, and much appreciated by those who shelled out $300 for a ticket. No donor likes to be viewed as a walking ATM, and Semeraro did the right thing for the Passaic County GOP by respecting the contributors.

Despite all of this good will, the Republicans will simply not raise enough money to win the countywide contests in the "air war" - our only hope is to instigate a "ground war", particularly amongst frustrated and overtaxed suburban homeowners. Our candidates are full of energy and ability - they are worthy of the task. (continued...)

First, we heard from County Surrogate candidate Jeremias Batista, an attorney admitted to the Bar in New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Batista has an impressive CV of community activism and discussed his ideas to improve the efficiency of the surrogate court.

Next came Freeholder candidate Jerry Holt, who hails from Ringwood, where he served on the council for several years, including a stint as Mayor. This guy really knows his stuff, and is going to take Pat Lepore and Terry Duffy to school over the next few months (see videos below, with apologies for poor quality).

I had the opportunity to discuss the budget with him before he spoke, and he actually pulled out of his pocket a spreadsheet printout of the past 10 fiscal years of Passaic County budgeting, broken down by department! I couldn't believe my eyes! The data rolls off Holt's tongue as he explains the Democrats' budget tricks with the confidence of a seasoned economist.

Holt was on a roll and his alter-ego, the ultra-personable Joe Stinziano, aka "Stinz" joined him at the podium, prompting Holt to joke that his running mate was going to pull him away with a hook. Stinziano then offered his remarks, which focused more on party building and community involvement. He particularly paid tribute to some of the "old timers" like former Paterson Mayor Pat Kramer and former Freeholder Dick DuHaime.

Following that came the big guns - Wayne Mayor, County Chairman, and District 40 Assembly Candidate Scott Rumana. He did not speak for long but made it a point to recognize, reinforcing some of Semeraro's earlier points, some of the key initiatives being pushed under his leadership. One key development was the formation of a Passaic County chapter of the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women, spearheaded by Wayne Councilwoman Ann Mary O'Rourke and fellow Wayne resident Susan Peracchio under the guidance of the 1st VP statewide, Clifton resident and Arab-American Republican activist extraordinaire, Sherine el-Abd. Membership has been growing and has been a catalyst for bringing together various factions of the Passaic County GOP.

Rumana and Semeraro also touched upon the creation of a countywide presidential convention later this year, which will allow County Committee members and club members to select who the County GOP will back in the presidential sweepstakes. More on that shortly, I presume.

The big bang of the night came from current District 40 Assemblyman and State Senate candidate Kevin O'Toole. He stood behind the podium for all of 90 seconds, just long enough to say:

"Three weeks from tonight, I can guarantee three things for you.

1. Mayor Scott Rumana will be elected to the Assembly;
2. Assemblyman Dave Russo will be re-elected; and
3. I will be the next State Senator from District 40.

People say, 'why are you spending so much money?' Well, yeah, we are spending a lot of money, but this race is bigger than just the 40th District. This is about a rebirth of the Republican Party in Bergen County, in Passaic County, and in Essex County."

As I said previously, I would NOT want to be Guy Talarico on June 6.

We report the taefa, you decide

Attending a fundraiser for local Republican candidates last night, I did not see Tuesday's GOP presidential primary debate live, and instead watched it online this morning. Overall, Fox News did a much better job than MSNBC in terms of the questions, although the candidates have yet to be challenged with any of my proposed questions.

I could not help but notice, however, one disturbing element to the coverage - the prominence placed upon the religious sect in the biographical data of each candidate presented on screen during their initial introductions by moderator Brit Hume. One of the greatest treasures of the political system of the United States is the focus on ideas and ideology that characterizes its selection of candidates. While it prominently manifests the Christian ethic that underlies American culture, ours is truly a secular political culture which does honor to the First Amendment.

This is particularly true for Republicans, unlike some Democrat masters of divide-and-conquer tactics in America's urban environments, which are dominated by racial and ethnic minorities. But by introducing religion so prominently, Fox News seems to be importing the one-dimensional sectarian taefi dynamics perfected by the likes of Saddam Hussein and unwittingly championed by our neoconservative think-tank heroes.

If Iraqis do not have a political system mature enough to withstand a non-sectarian debate that is not framed in terms of Shiite and Sunni, Americans most certainly do. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jew, Muslim - in the United States, only the candidate's ideas should matter. Last night's debate intros, however, seemed reminiscent of politics in the Republic of Lebanon, whose constitution actually mandates the apportionment of Parliament and the presidency by religious sect and whose ballots actually organize candidates by those sects. Thank you Fox News - I suppose my pachyderm madrasa comparison was more accurate than I anticipated. (continued...)

As for our talibs, well, they appeared content to reiterate their remarks on Islam from the first debate. Fair enough, it does take a while to memorize those talking points provided by those "conservative" think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute or the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Too bad though, I was hoping that the candidates were going to explain to me the difference between Salafi and Sufi...

Mitt Romney once again showed he is a Karaoke superstar, doing his latest rendition Richard Perle's Greatest Hits:

"It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us.

And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. We have to recognize that what we're doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what's going to happen in this global struggle, and that's why it's important for us to understand that if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort, we could have the Iranians take over the Shi'a south, and perhaps most frightening, you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis and then have a setting where you'd have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands."

Again, I'd like to ask Romney what defines a "moderate" state. What about one in which membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is punishable by death - would that qualify as "moderate"? Here are my previous remarks on Romney's position:

"I'd like to hear Romney's view on the fact that democratic elections in the Middle East in the past few years have quite legally, and under US-sanctioned balloting, increased the political clout of Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine), and the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt).

As far as caliphates go, I think the use of this term is rather melodramatic on Romney's part - the average Republican voter is already convinced that "Islamofascists" want to take over the world and thus no display no emotional resistance to that concept. Putting his message in the historical context of the caliphs will therefore add little value to its appeal with the target audience, other than to obscure the impact with alien vocabulary."

Tom "take out their holy sites" Tancredo, the madrasa's star pupil in the first marking period with his explication of the 12th imam, rebuked Ron Paul (more on this in a bit) saying that:

"...whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves."

It's difficult to render an analysis of Tancredo's statement without details on exactly he means by "they" and "us". He is smart enough to know that no authentic Islamic texts mention the United States of America, because they predate the founding of this country by well over a millennium.

Now, as for the infamous Rudy Giuliani/Ron Paul exchange, here is exactly what was said:

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention (note: I think he meant "intervention") was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Subsequent to the debate, Giuliani further explained to Sean Hannity that Paul's remarks reminded him of Saudi Arabian Prince Walid bin Talal's statements that prompted the Mayor to reject a $10 million charitable contribution. The Saudi Prince said:

"The United States must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack [and] should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause.

While the U.N. passed clear resolutions numbered 242 and 338 calling for the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip decades ago, our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."

Now, I do agree with Paul about non-intervention, and that "power projecting" (as Chuck Hagel calls it) leads to resentment of the United States. Judging by the applause that followed Paul's statement, some of the audience also agreed with him. But it is incorrect of Giuliani to equate Paul with bin Talal - the latter is saying, "the US should be as entangled with the Palestinians as it is with the Israelis," while the former is saying, "the US should not be entangled in the Middle East, period." The trouble is that Paul did not communicate this point well at all, and Giuliani very successfully took advantage of that, judging by the applause that followed his statement.

First of all, Paul was unwise to mention, as his primary example, the sanctions and intermittent bombing of Iraq during the 1990s as a contributor to the "chickens coming home to roost" on September 11, 2001. All this does is further confuse people by conflating the Iraq War with a fight against terrorism globally, a position antithetical to Paul's view. True - the two are almost mutually exclusive (with allowance for recognition of the presence of al-Qaeda related elements in Iraq), and part of the reason we are so bogged down in Iraq is that little differentiation was made between the need to protect America by disrupting terrorist networks and the insanity of "bringing democracy to Iraq," which President Bush still describes as the "central front in the War on Terror".

What Paul should have said was:

"A long-term policy of intervention in the affairs of other nations, particularly in regions like the Middle East where land has sacred overtones, has tarnished our image and caused a great deal of resentment of America where there should be none. Our excessive involvement has weakened the United States. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and therefore we should intervene as little as possible and have strong diplomatic and trade relations with all nations of the region."

Since we are on the topic of Osama bin Laden and Iraq: also interesting in the context of Paul's remarks, and Romney's earlier assertion, was the groundbreaking moment in this chain of events when Saudi Arabia's King Fahd snubbed then-hero Osama bin Laden's offer to bring his anti-Soviet mujihadeen from Afghanistan to the Arabian Peninsula to protect his home country against a possible attack from that land-hungry secularist to the north. I suppose it is entirely lost on Romney that the likes of bin Laden probably wanted to replace even Saddam Hussein with a "caliphate". Perhaps that makes him too a "moderate" in Romney's book. Anyway, Fahd invited George H.W. Bush to station American forces to Mohammed's homeland, and the rest is history.

While formulation of sound policy does require us to recognize these historical dynamics, I do agree with Giuliani and Tancredo's point - that appeasement does not work. Only a fool would expect that a mea culpa on some elements of our policy here or there would alleviate the resentment that has been building up for decades throughout the Islamic World. Ron Paul, however, is not advocating appeasement on particular issues in the here-and-now. He is talking about a wide-ranging long-term commitment to a non-interventionist foreign policy that frees America from "entangling alliances". Had such a policy been enacted and followed for these past decades, argues Paul, we would not find ourselves the object of such vitriol. He is absolutely right on that point. Therefore, it is entirely unfair to categorize him alongside the leftists because of one debate answer.

Questions 67 & 68

Following up on the pachyderm madrasa report card from 2 weeks ago, here are some questions that I'd love to hear Brit Hume, the moderator of tonight's Republican debate on Fox News, ask the 10 prospective GOP presidential nominees:

1. Do you have any American Muslims working on your campaign?
2. Every year of his presidency, President Bush has invited American Muslim leaders to the White House for an iftar, a dinner marking the end of the fasting period of Ramadan. If elected, do you intend to honor this precedent, which would mean that Islamic prayers would be recited in the White House?
3. Will your administration continue to promote democracy in the Middle East, even if it means that extremists hostile to the United States could be legitimately elected, as we have seen in Palestine and Lebanon?
4. Two-part question: a) What percentage of the violence in Iraq is due to foreign fighters? and b) How many soldiers would it take to seal Iraq's borders? (extra credit for a good talib who computes answer b as a percentage and compares it with answer a.)
5. Follow-up to question 4: how many soliders would it take to seal the US-Mexico border? Is this more or less than the number of troops in Iraq?

Of course, I will present the 2nd marking period madrasa report card after the debate.

note - Ron Paul has an advantage on this quiz, since he is probably the only one of the 10 candidates who reads Chronicles (my article in the June issue, which arrived today, answered questions 4 & 5).

Reasoning with democracy obstruction

Libertarian journal Reason has published my letter to the editor in its May issue, concerning the syriapol project I created to encourage democracy in Syria. Note that while the self-serving think tank heroes and delusional neoconservative pundits feign concern for democracy in the Middle East, some of us are actually taking action to make it a reality:

After the Damascus Spring

Guy Taylor did a great job writing about Syrian bloggers and Internet freedom in "After the Damascus Spring" (February). If you're looking for a delicious irony, consider my story: I created a political website for Syrians inside Syria. It was blocked and nobody in the country could view it.

Why? Not because of Assad or some other Syrian control freak—because of godaddy.com, from which I bought the domain name. Because of U.S. sanctions, no one inside Syria (or any other sanctioned nation) is able to view any site that GoDaddy registers or hosts. Is that insane or what?

George Ajjan - Clifton, NJ

This dovetails with the remarks in my article that appeared this week on antiwar.com, discussing Liz Cheney's impact on American policy toward Syria, particularly in relation to the Syrian opposition:

"I too have significant qualms with the Syrian government and am 100% in support of political competition; thus, I concur with your desire to empower the Syrian opposition. There are some outstanding individuals within that movement who have voiced appealing criticism of the regime. Undoubtedly, your personal endorsement will lend them loads of credibility.

Just one piece of advice: when your opposition "allies" set up their websites, advise them not to use GoDaddy.com as a registrar, because that company's compliance with the very same US sanctions against Syria that you vigorously endorse prohibits anyone inside Syria from accessing any site that they host or register. Therefore, webpages designed to encourage the Syrian people to demand more democracy from their government will be invisible because of the sanctions that punish Syria for its lack of democracy. I'm not sure what geniuses in the State Department dreamed up that brilliant scenario. Perhaps the hiring practices of the Bush Administration are not as meritocratic as I thought…"

Since Lebanese journalist Michael Young, who is quoted by Liz Cheney in her writing and who describes American policy toward Lebanon as a "remarkable success", touts himself as a libertarian and is also an editor at Reason, perhaps he can explain this to Liz and the Bush Administration.

Doherty's declaratory duty

Earlier this week, I expressed my support for Anne Estabrook, should she launch her campaign for US Senate in 2012, thereby spending the next 5 years in a statewide party building effort. Fat chance.

As I mentioned at that time, however, the 2008 race to oust Frank Lautenberg would be better suited to a previously-elected Republican incumbent, and the name that has sprung forth is Assemblyman Michael Doherty, a noted conservative leader from Warren County.

PoliticsNJ reported today that Doherty's campaign has attracted 2 big names to lead his exploratory committee - Congressman Scott Garrett and State Senate Minority Leader Leonard Lance, a nice balance of the various dispositions of Garden State Republicans. Doherty's wisdom in attracting these two individuals, each of which holds considerable clout with segments of the GOP base, indicates to me a refreshing display of keen political instincts.

But for me, the most promising aspect of Doherty's fledgling candidacy was revealed by his remarks on the Iraq War (that pesky little issue for which his potential opponent, Ms. Estabrook, had "no comment"). PoliticsNJ summarized an interview with Doherty by saying:

"The West Point grad wants more people to listen to his foreign policy message: that the Iraq War was a mistake - though he said he does not support a timetable for withdrawal - and that he would never commit US Forces to fight abroad without a formal declaration of war."

Doherty himself was directly quoted in the article on this point:

"If we cannot get a declaration of war, I will not support putting troops into combat ever. That is my message that I'm going to run on."

What an absolute delight to read! (continued...)Doherty's position puts him in good company with those Republican members of the House and Senate who have resisted the perpetual bellicosity of the think-tank heroes in Washington and reverted to fulfilling their constitutional duties, outlined rather bluntly in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

"Congress shall have the power ... to declare war..."

Among those who have championed the view expressed by Doherty are Presidential candidate Ron Paul, plus his House colleagues Congressmen Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, as well as Senator Chuck Hagel (like Doherty - Paul, Jones, Gilchrest and Hagel are all veterans), not to mention giants of the conservative movement like Pat Buchanan.

In the first Republican Presidential Debate, Ron Paul tackled this issue directly:

"I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy...

I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, 'Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.'"

Chuck Hagel, who will be a direct colleague of Doherty's if victorious, has been one of the leading proponents of a war declaration:

"Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate the minds. Returning to the Constitution’s text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves.

The American people should demand that the President request a Declaration of War and the Congress formally declare war, if and when the President believes that committing American troops is in the vital national security interests of this country. This would make the President and Congress, together, accountable for their actions—just as the Founders of our country intended."

Jimmy Duncan, who also had the courage and foresight to have voted against the Iraq War from the start, wrote in the March 2007 issue of Chronicles:

"Every year since we voted to go to war in 2002, I have said in speeches on the House floor that there is nothing conservative about the war in Iraq and that it goes against every traditional conservative position...

Eighty percent of House Republicans voted against the bombings in the former Yugoslavia under President Clinton. I am convinced that at least the same percentage would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by a Democratic president. I remember as a teenager reading a pamphlet from the Republican National Committee saying that Democrats start wars and Republicans end them. Perpetual war for perpetual peace is not a traditional Republican or traditional conservative position."

Walter Jones, for his part, voted for the Iraq War in 2002, but has learned from his mistake and has put forth a resolution that would require the President to earn new approval from Congress before taking any military action against Iran:

"Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran...No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."

Wayne Gilchrest, who along with Jones, voted to override the President's recent veto, says:

"We [in Congress] hold the purse, so for anybody to suggest that we don't have a constitutional right to influence the executive branch is absurd—really absurd. We've been on the sidelines for four years just watching this policy unfold. It is our right and responsibility to have an impact on this policy. Respect for other members of the government doesn't seem to be apparent to the president."

Pat Buchanan has himself spoken out about this issue countless times:

"Few today trust 'intelligence reports,' War Party propagandists or the word of exiles anxious to have us fight their wars. Congress should thus hold hearings on how close Tehran is to a nuclear weapon and whether this represents an intolerable threat, justifying a preventive war that would mean a Middle East cataclysm and a worldwide depression. Then it should vote to declare war, or to deny Bush the power to go to war.

The 'Bush Doctrine' notwithstanding, if Congress has not put the 'military option on the table,' neither George Bush nor John McCain can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not?"

So Doherty is in good company if he follows the lead of these independent-minded patriots. He should not be shy to challenge Republicans about their ongoing support for unnecessary wars overseas that weaken the United States. New Jersey residents are sick and tired of reading about carnage in the paper everyday, and they will support a statesman who thinks for himself and offers thoughtful solutions based not only upon his personal military experience, but upon his commitment to uphold the Constitution of the United States, America's own national interests, and the security of its own borders.

An open letter to Liz Cheney

Last month, Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney (the Executive Branch's go-to girl for Arab foreign agents with axes to grind) had an oped published in the in the aftermath of Nancy Pelosi's highly controversial visit to Syria. It was so full of desperate neoconservative delusions that I decided to respond with an "open letter", which antiwar.com published today.

By the way, antiwar.com is not a leftist website, it is a libertarian non-interventionist website that started out of opposition to Bill Clinton's ridiculous wars in the Balkans during the 1990s, believing that unnecessary wars overseas weaken the United States, a position with which I agree.
---------------
Dear Liz: Here's Some Truth for You
by George Ajjan

Dear Liz,

I read with interest your recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post, which told us "The Truth About Syria." It's always a treat when Bush Administration officials have the opportunity to reveal the objectives of their foreign policy in the mainstream press for all concerned Americans to see.

First of all, my congratulations to you for holding the post of "principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs." As a registered Republican who voted not once, but twice for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, I am naturally inquisitive to learn how they have translated the mandate given them by myself and millions of other American voters into a hiring strategy to recruit individuals with proven foreign policy expertise and diplomatic acumen to fill strategic roles in the State Department.

Under your leadership, Liz, I am sure there is hope that leaders of nations like Syria might follow our example and run their country as a meritocracy, instead of practicing chronic nepotism and offering key government positions to relatives, leading to a climate of mistrust and micromanagement. Take for example Maher Assad, a commander of the Syrian Republican Guard, the most strategic division of the Syrian Army. Is he really qualified to hold that post? Would he be in that position if not for his last name?

Now Liz, a lot of people criticized your op-ed and defended the recent visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Mostly, they sounded quite amateurish. I'm sure you're tired of hearing unsophisticated arguments like "The Republican Congressman met with Assad too!" or "The Iraq Study Group said to engage Syria!" So I'm not going to waste your time and repeat such simplistic comments. Instead, I'd rather reflect on your advice, starting with the comprehensive list of actions you suggest should be taken against Syria, or How to try to beat Syria into submission, but fail miserably, in 7 easy steps. (continued...)

One of these is for the US to "implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition." I could insert a standard libertarian argument here to explain why the unilateral sanctions proposed by the Syria Accountability Act don't work, but I won't waste your time.

Instead, I'd rather focus on one of the specific sanctions on the "menu" that Congress offered the president – "Restriction on travel of Syrian diplomats to within a 25-mile radius of their posting in the United States." Now, Liz, certainly someone with the extensive diplomatic experience required to be named "principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs" recognizes the collateral damage that would be caused by such a spiteful action. Can you imagine the harm done to US objectives if other nations decide to flex their muscles and reciprocate this restriction? Do we really want to provide the likes of Hugo Chávez justification to stifle covert espionage operations based out of our embassies abroad? Is scoring a vindictive and merely symbolic victory for the "Lebanese democrats" that you laud in your op-ed really that central to American interests?

The other problem with restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats, like Ambassador to the US Imad Moustapha, is that it would create a PR embarrassment that would further undermine America's image. Have you seen Moustapha's personal blog? I suggest you take a look – you might be surprised at the lack of much content that is even remotely political, let alone anti-American. You will find however, art and literary critiques, a diary of his trips around the United States to speak to student groups and cultural organizations, plus lots of photos of his wife Rafif and their baby girl Sidra.

Now, Liz, you may not like Moustapha (I observe him to be a highly cultured fellow, despite the fact that he's a self professed "left leaning liberal" and I'm a conservative), but he's no dummy. He probably created the blog as a preemptive defense against your proposed travel sanction, casting him as a likable human being, and not a Ba'athist monster who eats the raw hearts of "Lebanese democrats" for breakfast. Too bad he has such rotten bosses. Perhaps one day, he'll have a "Road to Amman" experience that will inspire him to change his evil ways and embrace "democracy." Then I'm sure you and he can become great friends.

By the way, Liz, I too have significant qualms with the Syrian government and am 100% in support of political competition; thus, I concur with your desire to empower the Syrian opposition. There are some outstanding individuals within that movement who have voiced appealing criticism of the regime. Undoubtedly, your personal endorsement will lend them loads of credibility. Just one piece of advice: when your opposition "allies" set up their websites, advise them not to use GoDaddy.com as a registrar, because that company's compliance with the very same US sanctions against Syria that you vigorously endorse prohibits anyone inside Syria from accessing any site that they host or register. Therefore, webpages designed to encourage the Syrian people to demand more democracy from their government will be invisible because of the sanctions that punish Syria for its lack of democracy. I'm not sure what geniuses in the State Department dreamed up that brilliant scenario. Perhaps the hiring practices of the Bush Administration are not as meritocratic as I thought…

But getting back to your article, I also found your mention of the American Revolution quite bizarre in the context of Lebanese political assassinations.

"Imagine if, in 1776, James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson had been struck down by assassins. Could America have been born without them?"

Now, Liz, all of us at times have evoked the legacy of America's founding spirit in our political discourse. I know I have. But normally, such rhetorical comparisons are best reserved for light-hearted analogy, not for grave situations like the one currently facing Lebanon. I only regret that you did not enlighten us as to which of the slain "Lebanese democrats" corresponded to America's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th presidents? Who represents Rafik Hariri, a subject of a nation in which citizenship is only offered to adherents of one religion; or George Hawi, a decades-long communist leader? I'm sure your original draft mentioned those facts, but those pesky editors at the Washington Post must have edited them out.

It is also a shame that you did not continue this curious analogy and bring more personalities into the mix, such as Michel Aoun, so adored by American "conservatives" like Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, and Chuck Schumer – all Board Advisors for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies – that he was a invited to Washington in 2003 to deliver a lecture to that organization, which ended with the words:

"I am personally convinced that the return of free democracy to Lebanon is also the return of the true image of the United Sates of America. This will pay genuine homage to the memory of the fallen Americans who gave their lives for the defense of freedom and democracy in Lebanon. They came to Lebanon for peace and real peace must be achieved."

Sadly, Aoun's tenure as the neoconservatives' "Maronite of the Month" has since expired, and now he is aligned with Hezbollah in a political opposition to the "Lebanese democrats" hailed in your article. I suppose that makes him Benedict Arnold in your 1776 analogy. Then there's Samir Geagea. I'm not sure which American revolutionary he would correspond to, but it would probably be someone from the colony of Georgia.

Furthermore, Liz, I question in general the historical validity of this analogy. In 1776, the United States of America, which had existed as a possession of a European power, asserted its independence and was born. Lebanon also did that, but it was not in 2005, it was in 1943, when Lebanon declared itself a Republic independent from France, for whom it was an intra-war mandate. Thus, to a true Lebanese patriot, your analogy would be exclusionary, revisionist, and downright insulting. What about the many "Lebanese democrats" who gave their lives not only in Lebanon's struggle for national independence over 60 years ago, but in its vicious 15 year civil war?

Nevertheless, I'm sure you have been bombarded with emails from certain Lebanese individuals showering you with praise for making this comparison. To me, flattering such a historically misinformed view that disregards their own nation's history indicates a self-hating tendency on the part of these individuals. I suppose some of them feel such enmity toward Syria that it overrides even their own Lebanese national pride. Ironically, they are hurting Lebanon, as their efforts to lobby members of Congress (who may lack the in-depth understanding of the Middle East required to be principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs) to adopt their views have caused confusion on Capitol Hill and may delay the passage of legislation granting much-needed aid to Lebanon.

These factors are symptomatic of an identity crisis that the Lebanese people have yet to solve in aggregate. Until they do, I wonder how it serves American interests to take sides in a nation so deeply and internally conflicted. I know that you and others in the Bush Administration consider Lebanon as a regional example of a "remarkable success" (which is how Lebanese journalist Michael Young, whom your op-ed quoted, describes our policy – despite the fact that America backed the 2006 bombing of civilian targets in his country) but given these challenges, it is folly to make this tiny country of approximately 10,451.999 square kilometers the centerpiece of our regional policy and tout it as the major lever of success. Lebanon has great potential and many strong points, but in terms of regional political trends it will always be a peculiarity due to the confessional nature of its political constitution and a perpetual national identity crisis.

How, Liz, do you presume that the United States can solve the problems of a country in which the scion of the nation's most prominent political dynasty cannot even find two accompanying security personnel he can trust? No wonder when you quoted your friend from the Lebanese parliament mourning Pierre Gemayel's death, you did so anonymously. Maybe the United States should send a detail of US Marines to protect Pierre's cousin, 25-year-old "Sheikh Nadim."

I suspect, Liz, that this letter may confuse you, because it concerns US policy in the Middle East and is written by a person of Semitic extraction (and by Semitic, I mean Semitic), but only promotes the interests of one nation: the United States of America. That is the only nation in which I hold citizenship and the only nation to which I pledge allegiance. Can the gadflies who flatter your approach to the Middle East say the same? You know the type – sycophants like Farid Ghadry, head of the Reform Party of Leba…I mean, Syria, who at one point simultaneously claimed citizenship in 4 different countries (that we know of). Oh, come now, Liz. Surely the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs possesses the finely honed instincts to determine that there is nothing whatsoever Syrian about "Frank" Ghadry.

Does it occur to you that this ilk have pleaded their case before respected members of Congress of Lebanese descent, such as Republicans Darrell Issa and Ray LaHood, but have been rebuffed? Foreign agents know they will get nowhere with honorable individuals who have sworn an oath to the American people and will be voted out of office if they betray that oath. Furthermore, these federal legislators have a de facto constituency beyond their districts, consisting of Arab-Americans nationwide who look to Issa, LaHood, as well as John E. Sununu, Charles Boustany and Nick Rahall to represent the interests of the Arab-American community on Capitol Hill. Those interests do include pressuring the Syrian government to change its behavior, but not in the reckless, spiteful way that your op-ed advocates. Thus, they have shown your cronies the doors to their offices.

You, on the other hand, have no such constituency. Your constituency consists of one very well placed person. Thus, these foreign agents, who care nothing for America and are only interested in grinding their own axes, view you as the cheapest date in Washington. They are your "allies." And by "allies," I mean the people who throw flowers upon you today but will stab you in the back as soon as you are no longer useful to their shortsighted, vengeance-driven worldview.

Thus, your proposals basically sound like a bad remix of an even worse one-hit wonder from the early eighties. Remember, Liz: politics in Lebanon are a lot like that country's infamous "Dog River" – the scum rises to the top. You may wish to take a swim there, but don't drag the rest of America with you.

Sincerely,
George Ajjan

George Ajjan is a Republican activist whose blog contains his published writings, as well as up-to-date contributions related to his active career in politics, global affairs, and international business.

O --- This article first appeared on antiwar.com on May 10, 2007.

Estabrooking with tradition

PoliticsNJ has been reporting that Mrs. Anne Evans Estabrook, a wealthy businesswoman from Summit, has taken the initial steps to explore a candidacy for the United States Senate.

I would like to tell Mrs. Estabrook: running a statewide race is not easy and takes a great deal of planning, but if you begin immediately you have my full support as you seek the Republican nomination for the US Senate - in 2012.

If you think you can mount a successful statewide campaign in 2008, however, then all I can say is that I hope you own some stock in Jamestown Associates, because absent a Rudy Giuliani landslide (you're welcome to stake your political career on that if you wish...), a previously unknown political quantity like yourself is simply not going to mount a successful statewide campaign in 20 months - I don't care how many of your millions Larry Weitzner tells you he can waste.

You need to do things differently and break with the traditional approach of multi-millionaire GOP candidates that has failed in recent years. Here's what I would advise you to do beginning immediately to run an effective, dynamic, and compelling statewide candidacy that will result in your being sworn in as a Republican US Senator in January of 2013: (continued...)

1. Thank Weitzner for his service and tell him you'll give him a call in 2011 when you're ready to start thinking about TV - because you the only way you're going to win is to build up an unstoppable grassroots game, and Jamestown Associates is not the right match for such a task. Also tell Weitzner that, at that time, you'll be shopping for the best-price media buys around the country, and that if the best he can do is the "Subpoena Salsa", he shouldn't bother.
   
2. On that note, scout out the College Republican class of 2007 and hire a ball of energy who will work full-time on building you a statewide grassroots organization. You can pay this person peanuts to be your point of contact with Republican leaders at the municipal level, who will coordinate your appearances at Republican clubs in all 21 counties starting immediately. You will stump for Republican candidates as a surrogate speaker year in and year out until you seem like a fixture at Republican events.

   You need to know off the top of your head the Freeholder candidates in each county, and you need to walk door-to-door with them. Ditto for Republican municipal candidates in key towns/districts that could swing either way. Start this summer by getting personally involved with campaigns in Assembly districts 1, 2, 12, and 38. Activists need to know you and believe in their hearts that you have labored for the Republican Party if they are going to be compelled to work for you when you finally do announce your candidacy. And for heaven's sake, do NOT write any more checks to Democrat candidates like Bob Menendez!

3. Immediately purchase subscriptions to Human Events, The American Conservative, Chronicles, and National Review. Read each issue in detail and quote from them regularly, so that you don't have another "D'Oh!" moment when a journalist asks you about touchy and crucial subjects like Iraq. ("no comment"...Anne, are you serious?)
   
4. Create a Political Action Committee devoted to rebuilding the Republican Party in the urban areas of New Jersey, with a special focus on recruiting Latino candidates. Doug Forrester attempted this approach with his PAC called "Liberty and Prosperity for All", but he didn't have enough time to develop the concept or make its impact felt. You need to spend the next 4 years changing the playing field, because currently, 30% of the residents of New Jersey live in areas where the Republican Party is essentially non-existent.

   People often think they can win a statewide race like Jon Corzine did - by buying the party infrastructure. Sounds great, but the difference is that the Democrats actually had an infrastructure to buy! We, sadly, do not. So you need to autonomously sponsor the rebuilding of the Republican Party in New Jersey's cities and make the GOP viable in Latino neighborhoods. It will be hard work and it will be expensive, and if you start yesterday, we might have a machine up-and-running in 5 years.

5. Call each and every GOP County Chair with an invitation for a get-to-know lunch. It's not good when the likes of Morris County Chairman John Sette say that they don't even know who you are, and Larry Weitzner is returning phone calls on your behalf. You need the buy-in of these key power brokers into your 5-year plan as well as their blessing to structure your campaign around a county-by-county party building effort led by your PAC. The County Chairs need to respect your grasp of strategy and fear your political prowess, even if they don't agree with you or like your profile. They need to consider you as a serious candidate on a mission to WIN, not just a cash machine that they can use and abuse until you lose.
   
6. Create a website and a blog that basically takes on the responsibility that the newspapers have largely shirked - informing the public about how NJ government at the State and County levels is robbing them blind. A bit like my blog, statewide, with less sarcasm, and a big budget that will allow you to blast emails to tens of thousands of registered voters, plus direct mail to drive web traffic amongst 4/4 general election Republican and Undeclared voters under the age of 40 to start, expanding upwards.
   
   You could do this in a non-partisan manner designed to get your name and essentially a sound Republican platform in front of the eyes of any citizen who cares to discover. If your message is concise and well-packaged and locally customized, people will spread the word. You need to be at the crest of the technology wave as far as political activism goes - that will be the edge that pushes you over the top in 2012. Campaigns are different today than they were 5 years ago (the impact of blogs as one example, YouTube as another - just ask Tom Kean, Jr. about that) and they will be different in 5 years when you will be ready to run.
   
   On the back of this, become a regularly published editorial writer in all of NJ's dailies, and have your CR staffer send letters to the editor to every weekly local paper in the state ad nauseum. When you are ready to launch your candidacy, lots and lots of people will know you and trust you.
   
7. Make sure everybody sees you as extremely smart, professional, technocratic, and well-informed, but at the same time always be a regular gal. You are running in New Jersey, the home state of Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Sinatra. March in all the ethnic parades. Eat at little Mexican joints in Passaic and know exactly which booth on each boardwalk down the shore makes the best funnel cakes, for example. Memorize the starting lineups for every regional professional sports team.

All of this represents a TON of work, but if you want to be admitted to the world's most exclusive club, this is the price, Anne. You are a successful businesswoman, so you know that there's no free lunch. Don't let Larry Weitzner convince you otherwise.

As far as 2008 goes, yes, there is the possibility that Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination and his coattails in New Jersey will overcome Frank Lautenberg, but those odds are better suited to previously elected and respected Republicans like Bill Baroni, Joe Pennacchio, or Michael Doherty. Given the short time frame, however, I think the pre-existing name recognition of former Yankees/Mets pitcher Al Leiter makes him a very intriguing candidate for statewide office in 2008.