fearlesshistory

Kim, over at AWOP has tagged me with a Meme post; I can tell from reading hers that this is something of a ritual for bloggers, so here goes;

6 things about me:

1) I was raised in California (from 6 to 18) but am one of the rare people who think California - though pretty in places - is over-rated. I found bliss in my soul mate in the Midwest and have loved middle America ever since

2) I originally didn’t start off as a historian of the Middle East and, in fact, was trying to get my degree in Business Administration when I first went to college. I was actually offended by a History teacher who wore a black armband (to mourn the death of America) when the “Republican Revolution” swept Newt Gingrich and his pals into office in the 1990’s. I was so offended I started challenging his historical assumptions and conclusions and found I liked history far, far more than business.

3) I have been both affluent (relatively) and abjectly poor (though not technically homeless) in my youth. I have also voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent in past election year cycles. I have lived in “the city” and in “the country,”all over the U.S. and the world. I enjoy being a study in contrasts.

4) I originally wanted to learn French, but after the rude treatment I received from several French people while visiting Metz, I decided I wanted to learn German. I began learning Arabic about seven years ago; a total coincidence that 9/11 happened right before classes started.

5) I prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi.

6) I love Cincinnati-style Chili; if you don’t know what it is, you ned to visit southwest Ohio to find out. It’s a love-it or hate-it kind of thing

So, in keeping with the “Tag Rules” I am tapping the following folks for six things about you as well.

Newton’s Ocean

Politics 2000

Real Liberal Church

Kids…Me & RAW III

My Obama Inspired Blog

Tag Rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they were tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

“When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.”

~Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Brazil

Poverty is always blamed on one source by most Americans; the poor. As if being poor is like being dirty; merely bathe and the failing will slough off like mud in the bathwater. In reality, poverty is far, far more complex and has been an essential component of the human experience since the dawn of human civilization. In the book Siddhartha, by Herman Hess, the young Buddha is kept in excruciating luxury - servants who age are replaced by younger look-alikes, sick servants are not allowed near the prince, and every wish is granted to Lord Buddha. Then something extraordinary happens; during a trip outside of his controlled environment, Buddha sees a sick old man dying in the street and thus he is awakened to the frailty of humankind. In that instant, Buddha could have had two reactions; he could have been repulsed by the disgusting image and cursed the old man for beinf dirty, sick, and poor. But instead he had an opposite reaction; he sought out the source of suffering in the world and worked to end it.

The American “middle class” (and to a much, much larger degree, the upper class) are young Buddhas confronted with the ugly truth of their dream existence; poverty both bold and blatant. And the majority of the reactions have been of revusion, repugnance, and blame. And it has always been that way, to one degree or another. Much of American social repugnance for the poor grows out of English anti-poor laws, which are based on the theoretical existence of a so-called “Protestant Work Ethic.” That work ethic is an illusion, a fiction created by those who are successful to explain why they are better than those who are unfortunate, ill-educated, and poorly-treated. Let us look back a little.

Prior to the introduction of coffee, the main beverage for most Europeans was wine or beer of some kind. Drinking water was ludicrous since water-borne pathogens killed people very quickly; cholera, dysintery, and a host of other ailments awaited the drinker of water. Beer (and to a lesser segree, wine) killed harmful bacteria, thus prolonging one’s life expectancy to a whopping 36 or 40 years. The introduction of coffee, however, required the boiling of water which also killed the bacteria and unlike beer or wine,revived the person rather than make them sloppy or drunk. Unfortunately, coffee was an expensive habit to have - a single cup of coffee in the 17th century cost more than a day laborer made in a week. Thus coffee became a drink of the elite and those wishing to put on airs of eliteness (here’s where the middle class comes in).

With this magical elixir of Arab derivation and Turkish design came a change in focus for Protestant middle classers in England; the myth of the Protestant Work Ethic was born and poor houses, creditor jails, and workhouses became the warehouses of cheap labor. Children, women, and men of all ages worked in the mines, the factories, and the assembly lines of the Industrial Revolution, making a tidy profit for the middle class who increasingly were called upon to support the working class; something that had previously been the province of the elite - kings, nobles, and knights. Though the middle class put on airs of generosity and piety, many of them resented the working poor - and still do. There was, and still is, the belief that if one wishes to make their way in the world, one should pull oneself up by their own bootstraps and make it happen. This was (and is) an enormous oversimplification of the process of success and one to which middle class factory owners and mine owners clung to and passed on to their American counterparts.

In the early 19th century, a middle class merchant named Joseph Sill found making a profit in England extremely difficult and so emigrated to America. He was banking on the post War of 1812 boom in the American economy to lift him out of obscurity and to make it in the world as a merchant in his own right. But by 1819, when he arrived in Philadelphia, the boom had become a bust - the “bubble had burst” to borrow a modern anachronism - and he lost almost everything. While living in poverty, he was treated as a criminal, or worse, by the so-called charitable institutions and foundations which had sprung up during the boom times; he was called a loafer and a wastrel, even accused of being a drunkard (though he was a tea-totaler). Joseph Sill caught a lucky break when some money came to him from a long-delayed debt owed and he parlayed that small fortune into a comfortable lifestyle for he and his wife. Sill funneled his money into charitable projects and sat on the boards of several organizations, including the Sons of Saint George (a charity composed of former Englishmen) but bucked the trend of charities by insisting that poverty was not a moral failing, merely the misfortune of those caught in an unforgiving commercial economy. He was increasingly isolated from the various trusts and boards for his views yet never ceased his work.

The majority of Americans are under still under the misapprehension that being poor, especially working poor, is a failing and resent “their” taxes going to support welfare, medicaid, head start, and other social programs. Working poor are still called lazy, shiftless, leeches, and “welfare mamas” to name but a few. The handful of cases wherean individual is able to slip through the cracks of a system, or rig it to their benefit, are held up as prime examples of why the welfare system should be abolished and why it is wasteful.

In reality, the working poor are more industrious, and work morehours per week than an average middle class worker. According to the Department of Labor, a person classified as “working poor” labors for 58 hours a week compared to the average 38.2 hours a middle class family does. Also according to the Internal Revenue Service, the median income of Americansin 2007 was $40,450 a year. Working poor are classified as earning less than $21,200 a year for a 4 person family, according to Health and Human Services, and make up about 17% of all Americans. At the federally-mandated (which is not universal by any means) minimum wage, of $6.22/hour, for a 58 hour work week, a working poor person makes $360.76 a week, or $18,750 a year, $2,450 BELOW the poverty line. By comparison, the top 1% of Americans owns 33.4% of all wealth in the United States. The next 19% own 51% of the wealth.

The question then is how does one improve one’s earning potential? Many Americans respond “education” as if that were a magic bullet - in reality the cost of education, even a 2 year education, is rising at a rate of 2-3x the rate of inflation. Additionally, with a working poor person earning a mere 18,750 a year and working 58 hours a day, when can they take classes. The federal answer in 1996 was the Welfare-to-work program that allowed welfare recipients to attend a 2 year college while receiving benefits, or (in the case of a teaching degree) a 4 year college while receiving benefits. But much of that funding was undone in 2002, leading to severe cuts in education funding.

Other Americans cite starting a business as the key to success; indeed the majority of employers in the United States are small, entrepreneur ventures. But success is not guaranteed; for example 50-61% of restaurants fail within the first three years of opening, according to a study conducted by The Ohio State University; can 60% of restauranteurs be lazy, stupid, or inept? In addition, in order to qualify for a loan, the person has to prove their creditworthiness, which is no mean feat even for a middle class entrepreneur.

The poor in America are no less determined to lift themselves out of poverty than those who “make it” - for every success story, there are hundreds of failures, setbacks, and unfortunate. But how does one go about it? The first, and most important step, is to realize that the process by which a Capitalistic, American ‘free enterprise” system has been treating the problem - i.e. demonizing the poor - does NOT work; after all, if a “conservative” points to the welfare bilker as proof that they system doesn’t work, they should also point to the Bernard Madoffs of Wall Street as proof that Capitalism dosn’t work either.

QED

—————————–Sources———————

Dom Helder Camara “A Spiral of Violence “

Ohio State University “Restaurant Failure Research “

U.S. Department of Labor

Social Security Administration

Health and Human Services

Healthline’s “Health Effects of Poverty “

“Who Rules America? ” UCSC’s Sociology Departmental Study

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage Statistics by State

“21 Dumbest Moments in Business, 2008 ” Fortune Magazine

Mark Pendergrast’s Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World Perseus Publishing, 2000

Herman Hess’ Siddhartha Mass Market Paperback, 1981

I’m going to (hopefully) get everyone who reads this all fired up and mad because I’m going to make the case for the United States NOT supporting Israel. At least not in the way that it has been thus far. As always, I’ll start off with some history and work my way up to the semi-present.

Up until the mid-20th century, the majority of Jews who immigrated to The Levant (the British name for the area now called “Israel” and “The Palestinian Territories”) were considered dreamers and hippies of their day. The World Zionist Orgamization was formed in the 1890’s by Theodor Hertzl and Max Nordau with the express purpose of finding a homeland for the Jews so they would not live in diaspora. Many Jews resisted stating the very fact that they were a nation of people scattered among other nations made them “special” and gave Judaism and Jewishness a special benefaction in God’s eyes; indeed many ultra-religious Jews saw Zionism as a refutation of the will of God and advised their congregates to stay away from the Holy Land until God calls them back, not politicians.

There was, however, some traction for the idea of an “Eretz Yisrael” among Jews who wanted to recapture their heritage rather than wait for God; many of the early settlers in what would become Israel moved to Palestine (at the time, a very backwater province of the Ottoman Empire), purchased some land and invited relatives to come live in “freedom.”Most of these early Jewish “pioneers” eventually would leave for Europe and the Americas because the land was too backward. Still, the Jews who remained worked the land that once belonged to Turks and had been worked by Arab fellahiin, or peasants. This was the beginning of the problem between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, but not all Arabs felt Jews were invaders. in fact, many welcomed Jews because they brought money to a province no Arab or Turk had a lot to do with and so cut down on a lot of the social problems that were simmering there. Unfortunately, Palestinian Arabs (and Palestinian Jews, for that matter) were unhappy - they had worked the same land for literally hundreds of years as a kind of serf/share cropper and were suddenly unemployed. Many more had their own land sold out from under them by Turkish governors eager to make a quick buck (or Franc, or Pound Sterling, or Deutche Mark, etc.) and so were essentially evicted by a form of eminent domain. Since they rarely, if ever, saw the governor, they leveled their ire toward the new occupants.

Still, the “problem” of Jewish immigration into The Levant was largely an isolated problem throughout the early 20th century; until World War Two, that is. Jews fled Germany (and Europe) at a prodigious rate. Still, in the 1930’s though there was an upswing of Jewish immigration, it was not the virtual flood that would occur later. In fact, Jews felt their best chance lay in finding safe haven in the United States, or at least in the Western hemisphere. In 1939, the St. Louis ocean liner headed for the United States (and later Cuba) with over 1,000 German Jews fleeing the Nazis only to be turned away after a heated battle in the Senate during which Southern Senators threatened to withdraw their support for FDR in the 1940 election if “Jews” were allowed to land in the United States. After World War Two, the surge in immigration was so bad, so vast, and so complicated, that the British decided to ask the United Nations to allow the dissolution of their Mandate over Palestine (a Mandate was essentially a right to govern as if it were a province or tutelary regime) . Part of the reason was because Jewish settlers, many of whom had fought in the various anti-Nazi undergrounds in World War Two were staging - brace for it - terrorist attacks. Groups like the Irgun and the Stern Gang kidnapped, tortured, and killed British military officers, bombed barracks and eateries, and even blew up the King David Hotel in 1946, killing the British Administrator Sir John Shaw. The Irgun called 15 minutes before the bomb went off, completely destroying the south wing of the hotel and killing nearly 1,000 British military, civilian, and administrative personnel. At the time, Menachem Begin was the leader of the Irgun and was the individual who made the call to the hotel. He later would go on to become Prime Minister of Israel.

During the 1940’s, there was a flood of illegal immigration, weapons smuggling, and other criminal activities carried out by the Jews in Palestine. For instance, in January, 1948 (four months before the “state”of Israel would declare itself) 61,000 pounds of TNT was seized in a New Jersey shipping warehouse. The crates were bound for Palestine and were marked “construction equipment.”The TNT was found quite by accident when a crate toppled over ad broke open on the docks as it was being loaded. Six individuals who had raised money for the TNT by asking for “medical aid for Jews in Palestine” had diverted the funds and bought the TNT. A judge later ruled that they had no “evil intent”and that the purchase of TNT was an “impulse” rather than a criminal act in and of itself. Money, arms, and people flowed into Palestine at an alarming rate and soon, Jews were constructing “outposts” and “settlements” in Palestine, much to the dismay of the Palestinians and Arab countries. Despite the public support, money, equipment, donations, medical aid, and political clout many Jews enjoyed in Europe and America (which was based largely upon a collective guilt over the Holocaust), Jewish terrorist groups continued on a campaign of terror in the furtherance of their goals; a Jewish state.

In the 1920’s, Palestinian Arabs had rioted over illegal and legal Jewish immigration  to Palestine but were put down by the British in a bloody military campaign that killed thousands of Palestinians. In the 1940’s, however, despite the “insurgency” and terrorist activities of Jewish militants, the British were disinclined to crack down by using machine guns and armed troops on the Jewish militants - especially in light of the Holocaust. In May, 1948, the British Mandate officially ended and David Ben Gurion declared Israel a sovereign state. Then the war started; Arab countries which had been filled with Palestinian refugees were pushed by the so-called “Arab street” to destroy Israel. Palestinians who initially remained in Palestine would later call this “The Disaster.” With no army of their own, nor any organized government, the Palestinians who stayed were really not a part of the debacle, but suffered the most. Displaced Palestinians told tales of Jewish military units forcing them from their homes, burning, raping, and pillaging. Israelis claimed (and were later refuted with evidence to the contrary) that the Palestinians left of their own accord following Arab governments’ directive to “clear the way” for the armies. No such radio call was ever made by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or any other Arab nation. It would not be the first time such an excuse was used to explained displaced Palestinians leaving their homes; 1956, 1967, and 1973 all had their own versions of the mysterious “get out of the way” message, all of which were false.

Ariel Sharon, another future Prime Minister of Israel, was an officer in the Haganah - the pre-Israel state “Jewish Defense Force” that would later become the Israeli military - and saw action in 1948. He was wounded, but survived, the 1948 war and was promoted to “intelligence officer.” As a leader of Batallion 101, his command was charged with “reprisals” against Palestinians and continued to conduct covert operations against Palestinian Arabs even after a cease-fire with Arab armies was reached. In 1953, he oversaw the troops who committed the Qibya Massacre of 69 Palestinian men, women, and children (all civilians) in their West Bank homes…in the dead of night.

Shimon Perez was part of the negotiating team that conspired in 1956, along with Britain and France, to take the Suez Canal away from Egypt and effect a coup d’etat in Egypt. Britain and France were humiliated and forced to withdraw, but Israel was allowed to take months to remove itself from Egyptian territory. Perez would later become a Prime Minister of Israel as well.

The United States did not always align with Israel, and in fact, Israel was considered what we would call a “rogue state” in the early years of it’s existence. The United States maintained an arms embargo against Israel throughout the 1940’s and into the 1950’s because pre-State Israelis, such as David Ben Gurion, had been meeting with high-ranking Soviet ministers, including Vyacheslav Molotov (Stalin’s foreign minister). In 1948, Israel purchased weapons from the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia. Additionally, the Soviet Union funneled millions of dollars, military advisers, and technical help into Israel in its early years. But in the 1950’s, with the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union changed course and supported the Arab regimes against Israel. The United States was more than willing to step into that void. From 1954 to today, the United States has been an uncritical ally of Israel - at least politically, financially, and militarily - despite it’s continued belligerence against Palestinians.

In fact, there are currently nearly 250 “Settlements” and “outposts” of highly-armed Jews living in Gaza and the West Bank. From 2000 to the present, about 1062 Israelis (of that, about 123 were children) have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, rocket attacks, etc. By comparison, 4876 Palestinians (of that, 1050 were children) have been killed by Israeli forces. As a result of Israeli military and political actions, the United Nations has passed 62 resolutions condemning Israel and even went so far as to call Zionism a “racist” policy akin to Apartheid. Palestinians have not had one resolution passed against them.

In essence, the United States’ unswerving support of Israel has allowed Palestinian people to be displaced, massacred, and used as propaganda by extremist militants in addition to becoming militants themselves. U.S. backing gives Israel the confidence to continue to set up, support, and expand illegal enclaves in Palestinian territory and prevents open and fruitful negotiations with Lebanon and Syria (the only two nations left that are “at war” with Israel). The 2002 Arab Plan, proposed by Saudi Arabian crown prince Abdullah, stated that all Arab nations would cease supporting militants, would recognize Israel and its right to exist, and would begin peace treaty negotiations if Israel would promise to evacuate the settlements and abide by international law (thus allowing a Palestinian state to come into existence). With US backing, Israel rejected that plan, perhaps hoping to be able to realize Eretz Yisrael, or “Greater Israel,” that would encompass all of the disputed territories, parts of Lebanon, and a section of Syria.

Americans are not even sure why they support Israel. Many do it for quasi-religious reasons (hoping that the “Rapture” will be helped along by the presence of Jews in Jerusalem, for example) and others because the Israelis are “not Arabs.” This article is not to say that Arab extremists are innocent of all wrongdoing, nor that Arabs should get everything they want.  But, our hypocritical dogma of “not negotiating with terrorists” and “isolating rogue regimes” is belied by our continued, unwavering, unquestioning, uncritical, blind support for Israel; Irgun and the Stern Gang certainly were terrorist in every sense of the word and Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon were both terrorist “masterminds” by our current “War on Terror” standards.  It is time for a change. It is time for the United States to admit that it was wrong and to urge Israel toward a path of peace and security; there is no weakness in making mistakes nor admitting they exist, there is only the sin of pride in not admitting that we’re human and our government (and foreign policy) is fallable.

QED

—————–Sources——————

Acheson, Dean Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (New York; W.W. Norton & Co., 1969)

Benson, Michael T. Harry S. Truman and the Foundation of Israel (Westport, CT; Praeger, 1997)

Benson, Michael T. “Harry S. Truman as the Modern Cyrus” Brigham Young University Studies 1994 34(1)

Brown, Philip M. “Malevolent Neutrality” The American Journal of International Law 30(1)

Clifford, Clark, with Richard Holbrooke Counsel to the President: A Memoir (New York; Random House, 1991)

Cohen, Michael J. “Truman and the State Department: The Palestine Trusteeship Proposal, March 1948” Jewish Social Studies 1981 43(2)

Druks, Herbert The Uncertain Friendship: The US and Israel from Roosevelt to Kennedy (Westport, Connecticut; Greenwood Press, 2001)

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1947, Volume V The Near East and Africa (Washington DC; United States Government Printing Office, 1971)

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1948, Volume V, Part 1 The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (Washington DC; United States Government Printing Office, 1975)

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1948,  Volume V, Part 2 The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (Washington DC; United States Government Printing Office, 1976)

Hamby, Alonzo “The Accidental President” The Wilson Quarterly Spring 1988 12: 64

Snetsinger, John Truman, The Jewish Vote, and the Creation of Israel (Stanford; Hoover Institute Press, 1974)

Truman, Harry S. Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, Vol. 1: Year of Decisions (Garden City NY; Doubleday, 1955)

Truman, Harry S. Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, Vol. 2: Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City NY; Doubleday, 1956)

Wilson, Evan M. “The American Interest in the Palestine Question and the Establishment of Israel” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1972 (401)

Newspapers

“$61,000 raised for Tel Aviv and Jerusalem” New York Times 2 Jan 1948

“Medical Help Drive for Palestine” 5 Jan 1948, 3

“Need to assist the DPs is cited by service head” 10 Jan 1948, 9

“US Palestine aim held economic tie” 14 Mar 1948, 16

“Palestine called good US market” 7 Apr 1948, 35

“the United Palestine Appeal requires 283,156,000 to carry on their work “ New York Times 4 Jan 1948, 3

“Asks aid for Palestine; head of Hadassah urges US, UN to provide arms” 6 Jan 1948, 6

“Jews seek defensive aid” 9 Jan 1948, 14

“Lehman asks end of arms embargo; Mrs. Roosevelt also would lift the ban on shipments to Jews in Palestine” 19 Feb 1948, 12

“6 freed by court in Palestine-TNT case; judge satisfied impulse, not a criminal motive, prompted defendants” 18 Feb 1948, 6

“Big TNT cargo for Tel Aviv is found on Freighter here; 65,000-pound shipment revealed as case of ‘machinery’ is dropped — stencil traced to warehouse in Bronx” The New York Times 4 January 1948, 1

Op-Ed The New York Times 2 Jan 1948, 7

“‘Red 5^th Column’ in Palestine” New York Times 1 Jan 1948, 1

“Foreign Report: Middle East Morass” The Economist April 1948

Microfilm, Govt. Sources

Marshall/Lovett Memorandums to President Truman, 1947-1948 [microform], 3 reels

Online sources

Harry S. Truman Presidential Museum and Library (online) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/

If Americans Knew: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

True Torah: Jews Against Zionism http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm

Voyage of the Damned http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/voyage.html

Arab Peace Initiative, 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

UN Resolution Index (resolutions # 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, and 799)  http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

The recent talks between Congress and the auto industry (manufacturers and unions) have, perhaps unsurprisingly, derailed. Many Americans argue that the “Big 3″ had their chance and that they made the mistake of creating and pushing fuel-inefficient SUVs and were woefully unprepared for the eventual rise in gasoline prices. But is the demonization of the auto manufacturers necessarily fair?

Let’s put some things straight;According to the Department of Labor, the auto industry directly employs more than 800,000 workers. Add to that the number of workers who support the auto industry through sub contracts, dealerships, mechanics and repairs, and other industries the number of Americans at work tops 2 million. While that may not seem a lot, consider this - the current unemployment is hovering around 1.5 million (for a total of about 6% unemployment) and allowing the auto industry to enter into bankruptcy (or fail utterly) would add 2 million to the unemployment rosters, more than double the unemployment rate, increase the burden on states and municipalities who are required to provide unemployment help (stipends, training, job placement, etc.) as well as contract the economy even more sharply.

While many (rightly) assert that this recession isn’t nearly as bad as the Great Depression (whose unemployment rate was between 25-30%), do we really need for things to get that bad in order to try to do something?

Sure, it may grate against many Americans’ nerves that an industry that has been “unresponsive” to consumer needs is getting bailed out, but they may want to look in the mirror at the reason for that “unresponsiveness.” The American populace has been enamored with large, big engine vehicles for quite some time now. SUVs were the most profitable vehicles made by any auto manufacturer, hands down. For proof of this, you need look no further than Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and even Porsche - all of whom debuted SUVs over the past ten years. Times were good, the land bubble was growing apace, everyone (including people who had privately-invested 401(k)s, money markets, and other investment funds) was making money off the (now) toxic loans and nobody asked any questions. Meanwhile, the flagship SUV, Hummers,  got an astounding 10 to 13 miles per gallon but were selling like hotcakes and the people who drove Priuses were treated as freaks in society. Though the industry tried to “Restore the balance” with a Hummer H3 that got up to a whole 20 MPG, the ads (which motivated a lot of people to buy the H3) touted the “American-ness” of owning such an outsized, and completely useless, “Sport Utility Vehicle.”

Americans need to admit their complicity in the industry’s failure - enough Americans bought SUVs that the industry made record profits through the 1990’s and up until this year. In fact, every indication is that the Big 3 did not need to change its sales models if the credit crunch (which is a repercussion of the mortgage meltdown) had not happened. Obliviously onward we would have sailed, defiantly thumbing our noses at $4 a gallon gasoline and never taking our SUVs off road in the Kalahari desert, or through a lava field in Hawai’i, or across a 2 foot deep stream.

Now it’s time for the hang over, my friends. There are two ways to approach this crisis and neither are going to be pretty.

First, there’s the bail out of the auto industry - though that term is not necessarily accurate because unlike direct cash infusions given to white-collar, scheme-plotting Wall Street firms, the auto industry will receive loans in exchange for selling stock to the federal government. Essentially, the industry will be nationalized. The taxpayer would foot the bill in the short term, but the auto industry would keep unemployment from reaching double digits and reduce the tax burden on municipalities and states.

Second, the auto industry can be allowed to fail. 2 million unemployed people with an average age of 55 will clog the unemployment offices, medicaid system, social security system, and job retraining programs. The costs for such services would double for the taxpayer, at least. But in addition, since cities and states are struggling in this weakened economy, they will have to turn to the Federal government for aid, which in turn will take out loans to supplement the 2 million new people out of work. In the end, the taxpayer would foot the bill, only instead of getting return on their investment in the form of stock options, interest, and a healthy auto industry, they’ll have a slew of unemployed, rapidly-aging blue collar workers to find new manufacturing jobs for.

In closing, it should be noted that the auto industry has taken CEO bonuses and excessive pay much more seriously than financial institutions have; all three CEOs promised to work for $1 this next year while restructuring is underway. While a relatively empty gesture (they have millions and can afford a short year), it is nonetheless more than AIG did when it send its executives to a $200,000 California spa retreat or a $80,000 UK fox hunting trip after receiving funds. Even the UAW, historically reticent to diminish workers’ wages, have made concessions to achieve “competitiveness” (not “parity”) with Japanese auto workers.

I think Leo Gerard put it best:

Oh, and before some people bemoan the “growing socialist state” might I point out that unemployment, medicaid, medicare and social security are socialist programs? Might I also go a step further and assert that, in the face of greatly diminished retirement and savings, if those very same people were suddenly unemployed they would have no compunction against turning to the very same reviled programs for assistance?

QED

————————Resources—————-

Automotive Industry employment statistics , Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 Employment Situation Summary , Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hummer H3 “Tofu” - Genera Motors Corporation

Hummer H3 “New Math” - General Motors Corporation

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

-John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton

“With great power comes great responsibility”

-Stan Lee, “Spiderman”

Corruption and power seem to go hand in hand and history never seems to inform the politician who sees his office as a gateway to personal financial enrichment. Most recently, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has joined the ranks of politicians who thought they would turn their office into a miniature Tammany Hall. Mr. Blagojevich, like so many other politicians from both sides of the aisle, thought himself immune to the eyes of the public and the reach of federal prosecutors. But eventually, perhaps inevitably, the press found out, a prosecutor filed charges, and some form of justice will be done (though that “justice” tends to be more lenient than the “justice” played out against the poor, brown, and/or powerless).

For instance, Richard Nixon thought his Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP) was so slick and so sly that they could never get caught breaking into the DNC headquarters and illegally wiretapping the phones…

Or, Bill Clinton thought the sale of the Lincoln Bedroom to high-rolling donors like the Clintons were welcoming “whales” in Vegas or the whole “Whitewater” affair would slip under the radar…

Or William Jefferson of  Louisiana who hid $250,000 in his freezer…

Or Ted Stevens of Alaska who thought that “gifts” instead of cash exempted him from corruption charges (again, to the tune of $250,000)…

Or Reagan’s Iran-Contra backdoor deal in which American weapons were sold to America’s enemy (Iran) in order to illegally fund guerilla fighters/drug dealers in Nicaragua (Though Reagan claimed no recollection and there was no direct evidence linking him to these activities which, if interpreted in a certain way, constituted treason)…

There’s also a host of lesser “corruptions” that politicians engage in feeling that they could never be caught; Sarah Palin and her unethical use of power, John Edwards and his illicit affair (behind the back of a cancer-stricken wife), Bill Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers,  and Paula Jones, Kentucky politician and former gubernatorial candidate Otis “Bullman” Hensley, Jr who tried to trade a hog for sex with a 13 year old and her 11 year old sister…the list goes on and down throughout time.

The Greek philosopher Plato warned in The Republic that the person who sought to lead was ill-suited to ruling justly and without corruption and that the person who should lead do not want the job. Unfortunately, politics doesn’t work that way…So here we are, mortals all, and we’re led by the most mortal of all people; politicians.

Luckily we live in a Democracy where (eventually) the truth will come to light. According to historian Robert Busby, there is very little that politicians or those in power can do that will not be discovered by the public. The beauty of Democracies, he argues, are they are transparent - a secret will eventually get out and the public will be duly outraged, causing the political balance to right itself. This, in turn, allows us (as Americans) to reaffirm our moral and ethical culture; it’s wrong to use a political office to acquire money or it’s wrong to have affairs, etc. For instance, Bush’s “fixed intelligence” on Iraq or the torture memos of Abu Ghraib solidified American will against the War in Iraq and reaffirmed the moral repugnance of torture.

Even if the much-maligned “fairness doctrine” is made into law, opposing voices (be they Republican, Democrat, Communist, or Anarchist) will eventually be heard and the truth exposed.

So what does this mean for the Obama administration? Will there be scandals? I’m of the opinion that there may very well be a scandal or two - heavens knows that there are people in the fringe who want desperately for there to be a scandal, so at least there will be controversy. But there are also leaders throughout history who have taken up the mantle of leadership and ruled wisely, particularly during times of great crisis. Leaders such as Cincinnatus, who was revered by philosophers and Founding Fathers alike because he accepted power reluctantly then immediately gave it up and returned to the farm when the crisis facing Rome was averted, are a kind of almost mythological beast in politics. But not totally; George Washington belonged to the Cincinnatus (pronounced “kin-kin-at-oos”) Society that believed in the reluctant use of power and the relinquishing of that power voluntarily; that’s why he left office after a second term even though he wasn’t obliged to. Abraham Lincoln governed with a minimum of controversy (most of which came to light well after he was dead; he suffered from genetic malady, his wife was insane, he dealt with clinical depression, etc.) and of those the most striking was the “Emancipation Proclamation” which angered pro-Union politicians greatly.

Is Obama another Cincinnatus, another Washington, another Lincoln? Only time (and history) will tell.

————-Resources————

“William Jefferson indicted on corruption charges ” Washington Post August 12, 2005

“Ted Stevens corruption case ” Newsweek October 28, 2008

“Clinton/Lincoln Bedroom Sale ” NBC News Archive (abstract) February 25, 1997

Jason Waggoner “Crime and Ambition: Richard Nixon and Watergate “ res publica 5(1) April 1994

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book 2, George Washington University “The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations “

Otis “Bullman” Hensley, Jr

Robert Busby’s “Political Scandal and Damage Limitation: A Transatlantic Perspective” in The Cultural Shuttle: The United States in/of Europe 54(1) 2004

In politics, political science, and history, there are two different ways in which one can view the world: Constructivists and Realists. Before you decide which of the two you are, let’s explore the different ways in which these philosophical attitudes have been applied throughout history.

First, there’s the “Realist” world view. Realists believe that the world is the way it is and that foreign policy should be adjusted in order to deal with that reality. In essence, the injustice, criminality, immorality, and conflicting political positions are the Immovable Object and to oppose them directly is folly and counter-productive. Perhaps the most famous realist in the 20th century was George kennan who, in his famous “Long Telegram,” posited that there was no way to deal with the Soviet Union and so the United States should engineer policies that isolate the Soviet Union from the decisions made in the world as much as possible. A mis-reading of this Realist world view led to the policy of military “containment.” In a later statement before Congress, Kennan asserted that he meant political conatinment, not the military containment that had been enacted by Truman, Eisenhower, and every President since the 1946 missive.

Constructivists are technically diametrically opposed. Constructivists see that there is evil in the world (or injustice, or violation of human rights, or whatever) and work to correct it. Sounds good, right? Maybe. Jimmy Carter, in his push for Human Rights while in office, was a classic Constructivist; human rights, the abolition of assassination, forging the Camp David peace accords, etc. were seen as making the world more “just.” However, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are also constructivists, and here’s how: regime change removes the “injustice” of a tyrant ruling over 20% of the world’s oil reserves, indefinite detention of terror suspect removes the “evil” they would do in the world, spreading “democracy” via military conquest, etc.

Every President and every Congress (with the exception of isolated abstentions and lone independents of all parties) since World War Two has been Constructivist in their worldview.

Truman instituted the military containment of the USSR via the formation of NATO;

Eisenhower oversaw his so-called Eisenhower Doctrine of military containment (though he would later regret that action and warn against the Military-Industrial complex’s influence in American politics);

Kennedy and missiles in Turkey (which sparked the Cuban missile crisis), Bay of Pigs invasion;

Lyndon B. Johnson and the expansion of American military commitment in Vietnam;

Nixon and “operation linebacker” and his trip to China (who, by the way, was considered a “rogue state” and a “supporter of terrorism” by ever administration since Truman’s, yet Nixon visited with no preconditions);

Ford’s handling of the first oil embargo crisis, Carter (as mentioned above);

Reagan and his “Mr. Gorbechev” speech, “Star Wars,” and the expansion of the military;

George H. W. Bush and the first Gulf War;

Bill Clinton and Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans;

George W. Bush and the War on Terror, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, GITMO, and Abu Ghraib.

Obama looks to be even more of a Constructivist, much in the mold of FDR or John Maynard Keynes with a healthy dose of Carter’s amitiousness toward foreign policy.

But there is a certain argument to be made for Realist politics (or as they are sometimes called “Realpolitik”): Realpolitik tempers Constructivist optimism and ambition, much as Ronald Reagan’s ambition to defeat the Evil Empire was tempered with the realization that such a defeat might require the elimination of nuclear arsenals. He realized that mutually-assured destruction had ossified the relationship between the United States and the Soveit Union and the only way to break away from such a stalemate was to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Similarly, Carter realized that thought he Camp David Accords has secured peace between Israel and Egypt (much to both’s economic and political benefit) that continued development of “enclaves” and “settlements” in Gaza and the West Bank would only further exacerbate the situation that Israel finds itself in in the late 1970’s; terrorism on the rise and continued bloodshed and mayhem on both sides. Though he tried to negotiate with Menachem Begin about those settlements, and received a “verbal promise” that they would stop, he (unfortunatley) did not get it in writing and settlements continued apace (or sped up in some years).

It is my hope that Obama will similarly temper his idealism with the reality of the world’s politics. His career thus far shows his capacity to take into account other people’s viewpoints and negotiate a settlement where both parties will be equally happy (or unhappy, depending upon your point of view); Harvard Law Review, Chicago politics, Illinois and Federal politics, his own Cabinet choices…all these point to a shrewd “Realpolitik” politician. Though some neoconservatives may paint him as a wishy-washy Liberal with rainbows and unicorns in his head, just ask Alice Palmer how “bare knuckled” Obama can be if you’re an intractable opponent; almost makes you feel sorry for Ahmedinijad, Kim Jung Il, and al Qaeda.

I hope he will do well, not just because I voted for him, but because untempered Constructivism got George W. Bush and company into trouble internationally (and the United States with them). In fact, I believe we should all hope he does well.

—————————Resources————————

George Kennan’s “Long Telegram “

Brookings Institute’s estimate of Iraq’s oil reserves

Library of Economics and Liberty’s analysis of Keynesian Economics

Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech

Tammerlin Drummond’s “Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review’s first Black president ” Los Angeles Times March 19, 1990 (reprint, 2008)

I always enjoy talking about history and working history into American political discussions on a semi-daily basis. But sometimes, I worry about Americans - well, at least some of them. Recently, this worry has been rekindled in a lawsuit that is being brought before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. At issue is the assertion that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and thus not eligible for the office of the President of the United States.

Let me put this as delicately as possible. The people who brought this lawsuit are full-blown, pot-banging morons. Here’s why:

They assert that Barack Obama’s father, as a citizen of Kenya, was technically a British subject. That British citizenship was then passed down to Barack Obama upon birth, granting him dual citizenship. That dual citizenship, they argue, disqualifies him as a “natural born citizen of the United States of America” as required in the Constitution. The fact that he was born in Hawai’i (a state of the Union) is irrelevant, the argument goes.

Here’s the problem with that line of argument: It ignores the precedent set down by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,  James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson (at least).

George Washington was not only born to one British parent, but two! And he fought in the British army as an officer!

Thomas Jefferson was also born of two British parents and he was the acknowledged author of the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams was born a British citizen as was his son, John Quincy Adams.

James Madison was also a British citizen and greatly influenced the Bill of Rights (you know, all those anti-American ideas of freedom of the press, speech, religion, the right to bear arms, the right to protection from self-incrimination, the right to a jury of your peers…sound familiar?).

James Monroe, who set forth the boldest American foreign policy initiative of the 19th century, the Monroe Doctrine, was born of a British mommy and daddy as well.

Andrew Jackson; hero of the Battle of New Orleans, good old “old Hickory” was born just prior to the Revolutionary War to whom? Yes, you guessed it - BRITISH PARENTS.

William Henry Harrison was born to British subjects as well despite his generalship in the War of 1812.

Nine examples of American Presidents - founding fathers and War heroes alike - were technically British subjects when they were born. Add to that the fact that the British monarchy did not recognize America nor American citizenship (the motivation behind the War of 1812), then you need to include:

Martin Van Buren; a President born of (technically) British subjects of Dutch descent (obviously having triple citizenship).

John Tyler; Harrison’s vice president and President after Harrison died in office

James Knox Polk; who instigated the Mexican-American war that resulted in the acquisition of Texas

Zachary Taylor; Old “Rough and Ready” a hero of the Mexican-American war

Millard Filmore; who was Taylor’s VP and acted as President when Taylor died of heatstroke

Franklin Pierce; (who didn’t do a heck of a lot and earned the nickname “doughface”)

James Buchanan; Ranked as one of the worst US Presidents in history, but still a President.

Abraham Lincoln; An obscure President, evidently, who being born in 1809 made him a British citizen by British Royal decree. He is most famous for fighting some relatively minor skirmishes between some states, doing something nice for a large majority of the population, and being the figurehead of an increasingly-irrelevant political party (if this suit is any indication).

Andrew Johnson; Lincolns successor who oversaw the Reconstruction of the South.

That makes nine more who were “technically” not “natural born citizens of the United States.” The ranks of the Presidency are thinning considerably with about 1/3 of them eliminated by the wrong-headed, a-historical thinking of a band of loonies.

It must therefore be concluded that the intent of the Constitution was that only those persons born on the native soil of the United States could qualify for the PResidency. This was to preclude the possibility of a foreign-born potentate ruling over the newly-created republic; The Founding Fathers should know since King George III was actually German and spoke very little English. The idea, of course, was that only a person born in America could understand America and thus rule justly. King George III, being German, just didn’t “get it” concerning the uppity British subjects in the Americas and so was ill-suited to rule them justly. Hence, the Revolutionary War.

So who is it who is filing this suit? Is it a band of conservative “Republicans” who can not stand the idea of a Democrat as President? Well, seeing as there was no attempt to void the election of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that argument must be rejected.

Maybe it’s a vigorous defense of the integrity of the electoral system; like in 2000 when a few thousand mis-cast votes which chose “Pat Buchanan” instead of “Al Gore” were allowed to stand, thus allowing George W. Bush to becoem President…only Obama won by millions of votes, not thousands or even hundreds of thousands as Bush did in 2004. Even the alleged misdeeds of ACORN employees (assuming, of course, that the electoral authorities in each state actually missed the highlighted names and failed to investigate people who claimed to be fictitous characters) could only count for a few thousand - okay, lets say 100 - no, 500- thousand “Mickey Mouses” were allowed to vote unimpeded - Obama won by several million votes. That can’t be it…

So, it’s not that he’s a Democrat. Nor that he’s a Liberal. Nor that there was a tight electoral race.  There was no widespread fraud committed, or at least not to the degree necessary for such a huge victory margin. The only factor left is that he’s Black (or “secret Muslim” or “Marxist” or “Hitler”). Before you groan, my dear, dear neoconservative friends, what other logical factor in Obama’s election is left?Please post your theories and/or speculation in the comments section, below - I look forward to seeing your ideas.

“But surely,” some would argue, “they must have some solid legal grounds for appearing before the Supreme Court of the United States with their hair-brained lawsuit.” Well, there’s every indication that the SCotUS will reject the petition. Petitions are just requests for your case to be heard; if you have a beef witht he Federal government, or even a private individual, you can petition the SCotUS for redress - if you have enough money, that it. On top of that, the fact that a case is heard before the SCotUS does not mean that it is of earth-shaking, life-altering, society-changing importance. For example, how has Anna Nicole Smith ’s case affected your life in any meaningful way? Unless, of course, you’re a drug-addicted ex-stripper who married a 90 year old billionaire for his…umm…”endowment” shall we say. Has the FCC v Fox, Inc. over the use of the “F-word ” altered the English language, American society, or your day-to-day life?

In summation, before delving deep into conspiracy theories - do your homework

QED

“man has mounted science and is now run away with (it). I firmly believe that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Some day science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race shall commit suicide by blowing up the world.” - Henry Adams, observing the battle between the Merrimack and the Monitor

As if the world wasn’t scary enough, a recent report released by a U.S. Government committee headed by former Senator Bob Graham said that within 5 years a terrorist organization - most likely al Qaeda - will use a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world, most likely in the United States. Though the chances of it being a biological weapon are far greater, there is still the possibility of a nuclear attack as well. This apocalyptic message is the direct result of America taking its eye off the ball, so to speak. In the aftermath of September 11th, the world largely united behind the United States as it entered into the failed state of Afghanistan where al Qaeda was hiding. Sensing momentum, however, the bush administration - assisted in no small part by the unprecedented power wielded by Dick Cheney - beat the war drum again, this time settling on Iraq. We all now know the reasons were paper-thin and poorly-disguised, so more need not be mentioned here about that.

The invasion - no matter what you believed then or believe now - was a critical error on the part of the United States and here’s why:

First, even if a state develops nuclear weapons, it is in its own interest to not use them. Using the nuclear device would bring world condemnation and swift, unbelievable retaliation upon the offending country. Some people argue that Iran (for example) is headed by a nihilistic maniac with delusions of grandeur; well, Ahmedinijad is a rhetorical powder keg, true, but he does not lead Iran - the Ayatollahs do. That secret cabal of clerics who determine who will be appointed judges, presidents, parliamentarians, and police officers. No matter how loudly they rattle their sabers, Iran has no interest in engaging the very superior Israeli military, let alone angering the rest of the world by detonating a nuclear device. Some may argue that Iran will give the weapon to a terrorist organization like al Qaeda but they are sorely mistaken; al Qaeda believes in a strict Sunni interpretationof Islam and Iran’s leadership believes in a strict Shi’a interpretation of Islam. They are as likely to support - or even talk together - as Rush Limbaugh will propose marriage to Al Franken (and this is not understatement, the rift between Sunni and Shi’a goes back over a thousand years and is fraught with atrocities committed by one upon the other - and Muslims never forget). But, some may argue, Iran may give the weapon to Hezbullah or Hamas in order to strike at Israel. The problem here is both of those organizations have territorial claims adjacent to (and sometimes within) Israel; using the device is like burning down your house in a divorce. On top of that, if the device is even thought to be used, Israeli Mossad will hunt down and kill everyone involved (and probably their families too) and evidence would quickly be uncovered that Iran let the weapon fall into the wrong hands, which is worse than detonating it themselves. If you doubt what I say, just look at North Korea; a “rogue” dictatorship with a clearly insane leader - Kim Jung Il also wields far, far more power that Ahmedinijad, by the way - who actually has at least two nuclear devices and what do they use them for? They agreed to international monitoring of their nuclear facilities in exchange for food and fuel oil. Iran is financially in the same straights as international sanctions stifle its economic expansion and it has to import fuel refined from the very oil it is selling! By and large, states act rationally - except in the case of failed states where there is no government to speak of, but even then, there is a certain logic to their actions; Somali pirates act because of almost two decades of civil war which has crippled the “interim” governments of the country. Afghanistan’s Taliban imposed a death sentence for drug smuggling because of international pressure. Even in Iraq, a semi-autonomous Kurdistan and its 100,000-man strong militia have put the kibosh on PKK raids into Turkey because peace is better for governments than war.

Second, terrorist organizations are rarely the international, globe-trotting types with al Qaeda being the only exception to that rule; The ichwat al muslimin or Muslim Brotherhood comes somewhat close, but by and large, they have sworn off violence int heir home territory of Egypt. Hamas has designs on a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, Hezbullah wants a Shi’a controlled government in Lebanon, the PLO is no longer a terrorist organization, and other groups (even the group responsible for the attacks in Mumbai) tend to be very territorial and have aims that are, at most, within a specific region. That leaves al Qaeda to develop weapons of mass destruction, distribute them, and make good on their promise to “destroy” the West. The United States had a good advantage over every other imperial power that had attempted to subdue Afghanistan (including the Mongols, the Persians, Russians, British, and Soviet Union) and that was international support. Additionally, the United States had helped build most of the cave complexes used by the Mujehedin in the 1980’s and taken over as the disparate groups merged into al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s financial structure is such that it is not the billions of dollars that Osama bin Laden has that powers it, but the individual contributions of millions of Muslims and non-Muslims make to charities that are really fronts for the organization. If the United States had focused the 10 billion dollars a month on tracking down the finances of al Qaeda, this report would not have been so bleak. First of all, the United States’ spending on tracking down al Qaeda’s money had already borne fruit in 2003 (pre-Iraq invasion) and a rift was opening between Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri; a family that is in financial turmoil tends to bicker a lot, especilly if “mom” and “dad” differ on where to get the money. The American invasion of Iraq allowed al Qaeda a golden opportunity to spread its franchise into a country it had absolutely no presence in prior to 2003. Additionally, Arab and non-Arab outrage at American atrocities (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.) pumped huge amounts of money into the organization’s coffers either directly or indirectly. This has given al Qaeda the wherewithal to move from Afghanistan into Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal regions, pay off the squabbling petty chiefs there and establish safe, stable training camps. Both Barack Obama and John McCain acknowledged that Pakistan would be the next front, an assertion backed by today’s report.

In short, the War on Terror has been derailed by the War in Iraq. Until the United States can cut its obligations and costs in Iraq, less and less money will be available to hunt down and dismantle the organization that will come to these shores again and will loose destruction the likes of which Henry Adams never dreamed of.

————————-Sources——————–

Fawaz Gerges The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global Cambridge University Press, 2005

- Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy Harcourt Press, 2006

Graham Allison Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe New York Times Books, 2004

Mahmood Mamdani Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War, and the Roots of Terror Doubleday Books, 2004

Richard A. Clark Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror Free Press, 2004

Boaz Ganor The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers Transaction Press, 2005

Reza Aslan No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam Random House 2005

Michael Hinckley “What if? An Analysis of the War on Terror” presented at the University of California, Santa Barbara research seminar The War in Iraq and the War on Terror 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/terror.report/index.html