Sarah Palin reminds me Turkey’s single female prime minister Tansu Çiller. All that tough discourse and all. Çiller had her own discursive agenda-especially anti-Kurdish rant- while extra-judicial killings reached a record in her time.
Ms. Palin’s all that gun-love, anti-abortion rubbish- discourse- at least this is the image coming down here- is disgusting and I wonder what this can contribute to existing American foreign policies…
And she of course confirms a cliché. In order to move up as a female, you have to acquire ‘masculine’ traits….
Palin brings energy to ticket, but lacks foreign policy cred
A cursory search for Sarah Palin’s foreign policy credentials comes up with, well, nothing. It seems that John McCain figures he’s got that avenue covered, and has picked Palin to please the conservative base, add some youth to the ticket (she’s 44), and reach out to female voters.
Putin: U.S. started the Georgian war to help McCain
Vladimir Putin’s made it fairly clear over the last few years that he’s not all that concerned about his popularity in the West. Still, it’s strange to see the normally well-spoken prime minister descend to Ahmadinejad-level paranoid bombast:
Russian Relations Become a Hot Campaign Topic
America’s relationship with Russia has come to dominate the foreign-policy debate at the Democratic National Convention.
Obama Stresses Security Policy Differences with McCain
From the Editorial Team: In his nomination speech, the Democratic presidential candidate reiterates his commitment to direct diplomacy with Iran and his hawkish position on Pakistan. What do you make of Barack Obama’s security policy positions?
Obama and McCain as commanders-in-chief
America must be proud. One of its black sons has officially become the first black presidential candidate of a major political party.
Two reasons pushing Obama forward
The United States has been experiencing historical movements. You might also say "History is being remade in the US." As a person who has been in direct relations with this country for 50 years, I can see the deep meaning of Barack Hussain Obama being the presidential nominee in the US.
From Reaganomics to Obamanomics
Last week, making history, the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama, an African-American and the junior US senator from Illinois, as its candidate for president. His meteoric rise as a politician to become the first African-American to ever be nominated for president has already been the subject of many books and countless articles.
McCain’s gamble
John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old Alaska governor, appears to be an act of desperation. With this unexpected pick, McCain is clumsily trying to show that his presidency will not be a third term of the Bush administration. If Barack Obama’s main message is "change," now McCain can also claim he represents change.
Michelle Obama and the American dream
EDDIE J. GIRDNER
Discover more from Erkan's Field Diary
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Choosing a president in the United States is not exclusively based on foreign policy, at least here in the U.S. We have other issues here like the economy.
Maybe the rest of the world should vote for the president of the U.S., if they consider U.S. to be the leader of the word.
If not, then what difference does it make to the rest of the world, about U.S.’s foreign policy?
As for Palin, it’s about time we have a woman who looks like a woman and does not wear pant suits, or whose husband gets more attention, in the campaign.
Here in the U.S., that’s what we care about anyway.
As for anti-abortion and pro-gun, we have the Constitution which regulates the internal affairs of the U.S., not the President.
And it is the Congress who legislates, not Palin, unlike in Tansu Ciller’s case, she was more like a queen wannabe who wanted all the power.
Tansu is not half as hot as McCain, let alone Palin.
🙂
An Escalation of the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Very Bad Policy.
Conservatives and liberals can argue the merits of the surge in Iraq, or the need to deal with terrorism now rather than later. I want to focus on something else: the impact of the perspective of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. I?m not implying that it is somehow homogeneous, just relevant; more relevant than my opinion at least.
Taking the war on terror back to Afghanistan (and most likely Pakistan) is bad for a number of reasons: the perspective of the international Muslim community; the fact that a military solution has not worked thus far, so why keep kicking a dead horse (especially when it has the potential to trample you); the delicate balance of power in the immediate theatre and in the broader region; the likely negative reaction of other states; and last but not least, its potential impact on the price and availability of oil.
Pakistan?s reaction to the Bush Doctrine has been somewhat mixed. Musharraf was caught in the middle between pleasing the U.S. to ensure continued military and economic support, and the preferences of his constituents who resent the U.S. presence there. The region is already very unstable because of this tension between the US applying pressure from the outside and the internal desire of the populace to rid themselves of the unwanted American presence.
We can say the exact same thing about Afghanistan, Karzai is in a very similar position as Musharraf was. In 2006, Karzai had to start rearming the warlords to maintain order. Similarly, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan – a loose group of Waziristani chieftains, closely associated with the Taliban, who now serve as the de facto security force in charge of North and South Waziristan.
If Senator Obama becomes president, and refocuses the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the best we can hope for is another five to six years of what we?ve seen in Iraq. But this best-case scenario is very unlikely.
In addition to a multiple-front war, we would be dealing, not with a fallen state as with Iraq, but with two established states. This could possibly work in our favor as long as they continue to remain on our side. But as already mentioned, the tension is high, and there is a very delicate balance keeping Karzai in power. What if Karzai falls to a coup or assassination? And now with Musharraf stepping down, what happens if Musharraf?s successor plays to the popular demands of the people? We could find ourselves fighting the armies of the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, in addition to insurgent forces there. If we consider the history of this region, we realize that this is not as far-fetched as it might sound on the face of it.
As we all know, the Taliban was comprised of Sunni Islamists and Pashtun nationalists (mostly from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan). The Taliban initially enjoyed support from the U.S., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates in the early 1980s to fight the Soviets. By 1996, the Taliban had gained control of most of Afghanistan, but its relationship with the U.S. and most of the rest of the world became strained. Most of the international community supported the Taliban?s rival, the Afghan Northern Alliance.
Still, even after the U.S. began to distance itself from the Taliban in late 1997, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates continued to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even after 9/11 when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates officially stopped recognizing the Taliban, Pakistan continued to support it. The Taliban in turn, had tremendous influence in Pakistani politics, especially among lobby groups- as it virtually controlled areas such as the Pashtun Belt (Southeast Afghanistan, and Northwest Pakistan) and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Going back to the perception of the international Muslim community ? When the U.S. demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, it initially offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan to be tried by an international tribunal operating according to Sharia law. But Pakistan was urged by the U.S. to refuse. Again, prior to the beginning of U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden according to Islamic law, but the U.S. refused. After the U.S. began air strikes, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral state to be tried under Islamic law, but the U.S. again refused. This is important because in the eyes of the greater international community, the war in Afghanistan was justified (at least initially). But in the eyes of the international Muslim community, especially given the Taliban?s offer to turn over Bin Laden, it was an unnecessary war. This, combined with the preemptive war in Iraq, has led many Muslims to equate the war on terror with a war on Islam. Senator Obama?s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will only serve to reinforce that impression.
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic political party in Pakistan, won elections in two out of four provinces in 2003, and became the third largest political party in the Pakistani parliament ? with substantial support from urban areas (not just border regions). This speaks to the tremendous influence Islamic groups enjoy in Pakistan.
This strong influence is fueled by the fact that the Pashtun tribal group is over 40 million strong. The Taliban continues to receive many of its members from this group today. In fact, the Pakistani army suffered humiliating defeat at the hand of these so-called ?insurgents.? Finally, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Many saw the Pakistani government?s acknowledgment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as not only a military necessity, but also a political one as well ? a concession in response to the growing internal pressure on the Musharraf administration from the people of Pakistan who resent the U.S. presence and involvement in the region.
Just consider the many, many public protests against the Pakistani government?s compliance with the United States. For instance, on January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda?s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the U.S., attacked a madrasah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced the U.S. military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted ?Death to America!? Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam. On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, without ever offering their condolences to the families of the slaughtered children.
Last year troubles escalated surrounding the Pakistani government?s siege of the Red Mosque where more than 100 people were killed. Even before Musharraf?s soldiers took the Lal Masjid the retaliations began. Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center.
There are countless more examples; too many to mention in detail. Likewise in Afghanistan; April 30, 2007 for example, when hundreds of Afghans protested US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. Why can?t the powers that be recognize that we?ve been in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, and in Iraq for over five; a military approach is not working. If we must focus the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, let?s focus on winning the hearts and minds of the beautiful people of these countries, rather than filling their hearts with bitterness and hatred toward us. With their support, we can offer them the financial and technical assistance that they need to rebuild their infrastructure, their agriculture and their economy. With their support, we can offer them the needed resources to rebuild their human capital and start attracting foreign direct investment. But without their support, we cannot possibly have any positive influence in this region at all; our only influence will be that of brute force, bribery of corrupt officials, and outright coercion. It will be a long, hard, costly and bloody endeavor, and the people of these countries will continue to suffer.
Let?s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Let?s not also forget that this is a highly Muslim-concentrated area, the Islamic concept of duty to come to the aid of fellow Muslims would no doubt ensure a huge influx of jihadists in this type of a scenario. Why on earth would we want to intentionally provoke a situation that would not only radicalize existing moderates in the region, but could also potentially cause the influx of a concentration of radical jihadists from elsewhere into an already unstable region (that has nuclear weapons no less)? We would be begging for a nuclear proliferation problem.
We like to assume that we would have the upper hand in such a scenario. But we have been in Afghanistan since October of 2001. And we have yet to assume the upper hand. The fight in Afghanistan has the potential to become much more difficult than it already is. Nor would it be unheard of to expect other major powers to back these radical jihadists with economic and military assistance in much the same way that the US backed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Beyond the fact that roughly 1/5 of the world?s population is Muslim (approximately 1.5 billion people- 85% Sunni, 15% Shia, Ibadiyyas, Ahmadis and Druze), we have to remember that Muslims are the majority in 57 states (out of 195). Most of these have Sunni majorities, which gives them added political power.
China has traditionally backed Pakistan. What would China do if the US were to find itself at war with Pakistan?
India has tremendous economic and security interests in the region. Let?s not forget that while India has been in nearly continual conflict with Pakistan, primarily over the Kashmir issue, it has the second largest Muslim population in the world next to Indonesia. What happens if India were to side with the U.S. in a potential conflict with Pakistan? It will have a very difficult task justifying that position with its very large Muslim population. A U.S.-Indian alliance could also spark more terrorist attacks in the Kashmir region; it could also create added tension to the already tenuous relationship between India and Iran, which has a long history of support for Pakistan. Or, if radicals gained control of Pakistan?s nuclear arsenal, a nuclear attack against India could spark a nuclear altercation between the two nuclear powers. Or, what if radicals then gained control of India?s nuclear arsenal?
On the other hand, what happens if India for some reason (either via a coup or due to Muslims gaining the upper hand in the long-running Hindu-Muslim conflict) were to side with Pakistan against the United States? It seems unlikely now, but not completely unrealistic considering the on-again, off-again relationship between the U.S. and every country in that region. We constantly flip-flop in our foreign policy. An attack on Pakistani soil would be a perfect example of this type of wishy-washy foreign policy, as the Bush administration guaranteed Musharraf that the U.S. would never do such a thing (as much as Karzai wants us to). Speaking of Karzai, what if he is ousted and we find ourselves at war with Afghanistan. What would India do then, given its friendship with Afghanistan?
Also consider the U.S. position on Kashmir, which has a predominantly Muslim population. Pakistan wants a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 UN resolution, to essentially allow the people to decide which state the region should belong to. India refuses a plebiscite, claiming Kashmir and Jammu as an integral part of India. The U.S. is arming both sides through billions in aid to Pakistan and selective proliferation to India, but insists Pakistan stem terrorist activities flowing from inside its borders, and at the same time discourages India from attacking Pakistan. Yet an escalation of war in the area could backfire badly.
Beyond all that we still have to consider a slew of other states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia ? not to mention the central Asian states – all of which have economic and/or political and security interests in the region. How will they react to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Finally, what would such a scenario do to oil prices and availability? I?m 100% in favor of America developing alternative energy sources, but again that?s my opinion, and the oil conglomerates have not been listening to me. Unfortunately, the facts are that the oil lobby is a very powerful entity. Even more to the point, our country could not ween itself off of oil overnight, even if it wanted to. We have to consider what such an escalation would do to oil prices, and the overall availability of oil.
The oil embargo of 1974 (in support of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war against Israel), in retaliation against the U.S. for its support of Israel had devastating economic and political consequences on the U.S. and much of Europe. Also, the more recent boycott of Danish products across the Muslim world, in retaliation for the 2005 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, demonstrates the ability of the international Muslim community to act collectively.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would also demonstrate the fickle and hypocritical nature of America?s foreign policy. We supported the Taliban when it served our interests (to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan) in spite of clear human rights abuses. But now we condemn the Taliban (and much of the Muslim world) over the very same human rights abuses (against women ? etc.), while we also continue to ignore similar or same human rights abuses in China, Saudi Arabia, Israel ? etc., when it?s convenient for us to do so. We did the same thing with Saddam Hussein; arming him in spite of clear and egregious human rights abuses when he was our ally, and condemning the same actions when he wasn?t.
The U.S. practices selective proliferation with India, and selective sovereignty with those it chooses (today Pakistan, tomorrow someone other than Pakistan), while at the same time violating the sovereignty of other states- depending on its whim at the time.
The United States government insisted that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, but the United States itself has refused on several occasions to return foreign nationals (being held on death row in America) to their state of domicile because the U.S. wanted them to face execution, and the home state did not uphold the death penalty. We also continue to refuse to acknowledge the ICC because we don?t want American military personnel tried in an international court. How is that so different from the Taliban wanting Bin Laden tried in an Islamic court?
Rather than blindly accepting that America holds some God-given moral superiority over the rest of the planet, we need to realize that everywhere, humanity has a God-given right to live, love and prosper. Our children have the right to grow up in an environment free of air strikes and constant assault from an external enemy. They have the right to attend schools without fear of being maimed and killed inside of them. And they have the right to be children, instead of orphans. No state has the right to take that away from your children, or from mine. Imagine now that Senator Obama is planning to escalate the war on terror where you live.
Dear John, thank you for this long but informative piece! I am still reading it but wanted to thank you.
and Metin, very nice to hear from you after a long time and thank you for teaching us what is what in the US although- you might now- most of the readers and I myself already know the basic facts of American life. Mine was a provocative statement and personal dissatisfaction. And of course, what we can do else? US is a global power and her acts directly shape our lives. I feel i have the right to talk about it. No need to start teaching basic;)
Erkan, you should include the New York Times in your reading. From that you would know that Palin is – I dare to say – “postmodern” in a way like you and like Obama.
Here is a short piece from the New York Times, August 29: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30palin.html
Senator John McCain?s surprising selection to be his vice-presidential running mate, took Alaska by surprise, too, not long ago. Though indisputably Alaskan, she rose to prominence by bucking the state?s rigid Republican hierarchy, impressing voters more with gumption, warmth and charm than an established record in government.
It was a combination that dumbfounded her rivals.
?She wouldn?t have articulated one coherent policy and people would just be fawning all over her,? said Andrew Halcro, a Republican turned independent, who along with Tony Knowles, a Democrat, ran against Ms. Palin for governor in 2006. ?Tony and I looked at each other and it was, like, this isn?t about policy or Alaska issues, this is about people?s most basic instincts: ?I like you, and you make me feel good.? ?
?You know,? said Mr. Halcro, invoking the Democratic presidential nominee, ?that?s kind of like Obama.?
Erkan, my apologies for coming across as an imbecile. I did not mean to suggest that you or your readers possessed a certain lack of knowledge about the basics of American life.
But I still think comparing Tansu Ciller to Sarah Palin is like comparing a rotten apple to a green apple. Neither are red, and sweet. But one is juicier…
🙂
Happy Ramazan to all!
Thank you Metin for your intervention. Honestly, since the time we met in Irvine, I cannot think bad about you. sometimes words are stronger than intended.
Christian, you are right. Maybe I should read NYT more but since September 11, I gave reading or watching American media regularly. I will also quit the Turkish press but that’s my dissertation topic, i cannot help it:)
Hi, Erkan. I haven’t been around for a while, but now I am back.
And I want to say that I hate this “feminin-masculin” stuff, because I don’t know what “feminin” or “masculin” mean.
That is, when a woman is aggressive, people say she acts like a man. But when a man is aggressive, people don’t think he’s acting like a man, because a man is not necessarily aggressive.
Actually, men in politics are usually less aggressive than women. And white politicians are often less aggressive than politicians who belong to minorities. Why? Because women and ethnic minorities have to struggle harder to reach the top, so only the strongest survive. And often the strongest are also the most aggressive. But while people would easily say that Condoleeza Rice acts like a man, nobody would say that she “acts like a white woman”… well, I admit I met a black guy once who said that the black community in the US wonders if she is really black, so maybe this last part of my reasoning is flawed 😀
First of all, welcome back Selene. Secondly, I am aware of what you hate and so i used quotation marks. Still, we need to use cliches to convey our messages:) and i guess i could convey what I meant.
Thanks for the link to On the Issues.
John McCain was a terrifying enough prospect as America’s next leader, Sarah Palin is just a joke.
I can only imagine that some people like the pretty wrapping paper, no matter what foolish things that paper contains.
Have you viewed this terrifyingly Disney-type Republican advert yet?