The Facebook Criminal

It’s funny how Facebook has become so involved in today's society…Ahmed Hassan Bassyouni, an Egyptian man, was sentenced to six months in jail for starting a Facebook group to advise those interested in joining the military. Bassyouni said that his Facebook group did not represent the views of the government; he was simply giving advice on how to enlist and how to prepare the necessary papers. He was accused of “spreading military secrets over the Internet without permission.” Amnesty International urged the release of Bassyouni on the grounds that he was “being tried solely for publishing information readily available in the public domain.”

Personally, I think this whole ordeal is a bit ridiculous. It’s not like he was saying negative things about the military or government, and even if he were, its only Facebook…It seems to me that the Egyptian government should have bigger fish to fry.

What do you think?

A Fresh Arab Identity?

This is kind of in response to Nadia’s post, "Money, Money, Money..." I recently came across a very interesting article from the New York Times that discusses how Abu Dhabi and Qatar are using architecture and art to reshape their identities. Both Abu Dhabi and Qatar have sponsored the building of art museums and cultural centers. “Their goal is not only to build a more positive image of the Middle East at a time when anti-Islamic sentiment continues to build across Europe and the United States, but also to create a kind of latter-day Silk Road, one on which their countries are powerful cultural and economic hinges between the West and rising powers like India and China.” By focusing on art and culture, both countries are putting their wealth to good use for the advancement of their national identities. This social transformation is happening very quickly; however, some Arabs see fault with the plans.

As Nadia discussed (and I commented), there is a huge amount of excess in these oil-rich countries. However, while some of the things in Abu Dhabi may be excessive, this is a good use of the state’s wealth. These countries have lots of money to spend; it's good that they are using this money to make social and cultural changes. By trying to strike a balance between modernization and Islamism, these countries are doing themselves a favor. Their strides towards “redeem[ing] the tarnished image of Arabs abroad while showing the way toward a modern society within the boundaries of Islam” really helps to make these countries more accessible.

Here's the article if you're interested in reading it!! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/arts/design/27museums.html?pagewanted=1&ref=middleeast

Yemeni terrorism?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/08/varisco.yemen.terrorism/index.html

In his opinion piece, Daniel Varisco outlines his belief that Yemen is not a terrorist breeding ground, although recent news has seen quite a few terrorist plots coming from Yemen (including the Christmas underwear bomber, Anwar al-Awlaqi, an Islamic lecturer who has inspired Islamic terrorism against the West, and Ibrahim al-Asiri, the suspected mastermind behind the toner bombs planted on cargo planes coming from Yemen).

Varisco asserts that “the main reason Yemen is not becoming a major international terrorist base is that the Yemeni people have their own internal problems to resolve.” While this may be true, I am certain that the Yemeni people have the ability to multitask. He goes on to claim “Yemen could indeed become a terrorist haven if the United States continues to meddle in local politics and see international terrorists behind every bush.”

I completely disagree with this stance. While his assertion that the United States needs to make sure that it is not creating terrorists by being too overbearing is reasonable, I feel that the United States has a responsibility to American citizens and the rest of the world to ensure that preventable terrorist attacks do not occur. There is no such thing as being too cautious; recent plots have come out of Yemen, therefore the United States has reason to suspect that there are terrorist actions occurring in the country. It would be a travesty if the United States backed down from fighting terrorism and protecting Americans just because we are wary of being too imperious.   

Islamophobia

Last month, there was a deadly attack on Sayidat al-Nejat Cathedral (Our Lady of Salvation Church) in Baghdad. The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group that includes a number of extremist organizations and has ties to al Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed 70 and wounded 75. In recent days, twelve suspected terrorists have been arrested. This attack was the first of many targeting Christians over the past few weeks.

While there might not be a direct connection between these attacks and the current culture in the United States, I think that the United States is in an interesting position. The United States cannot ask those in the Middle East to stop targeting Christians with the current amount of Islamophobia found in our country. As a dominant world power, we need to set an example for the rest of the world. The heightened prejudice against Muslims in the United States does nothing to help soothe the relations between the United States and Muslim groups. So while I am not arguing that everyone should join hands and sing “Kumbayah”, tolerance of Islam can only help our image abroad. 

al-Maliki's Second Term as PM

While we were eating turkey, the Iraqis were shaping their government. Last Thursday, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani officially named Nuri al-Maliki to a second term as Prime Minister in a televised ceremony. His nomination came after months of dispute and power struggles within Iraq following the March elections. al-Maliki has the task of forming a new cabinet and only has thirty days to do so. Al-Maliki urges the Iraqi people and politicians “to work on getting past all the disputes that had dominated the past stages" in order to achieve success. In the proposed cabinet, the three major governmental positions will be filled by members of Iraq’s largest ethnic groups: the Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunnis. President Obama is very satisfied with this plan.

Personally, I am pleased to see the Iraqis continuing to work towards solidifying their government.  I feel that by having the three largest ethnic groups play influential roles, the people of Iraq will be best represented. I am interested to see what al-Maliki does during his second term.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/25/iraq.al.maliki.pm/index.html

Simulation

I think that Peacemaker is a great learning tool. I got a little too into it today and spent a good portion of my afternoon playing it.  I experimented with both violence and diplomacy, yet each time I tried the simulation, it resulted in the Third Intifada. As a highly competitive person, I wanted to keep playing until I was able to reach peace. I’d get very close and then there would be one tiny thing that would throw off the entire peace process.  This is an accurate representation of how things work in the Middle East, since even small actions can have large consequences on the peace process.  

It was difficult for me to make some of the decisions, particularly when I was trying to take the diplomatic route. I didn’t want to lose approval from either side so I tended to play it safe with my decisions. By not taking direct action, I ended up not being the strongest leader (which the game told me each time I lost!) 

The simulation builds upon what we have learned through course readings and class discussions; by playing the simulation, I was able to put what I have learned to practical use. I wouldn’t say that I learned any substantive information from the simulation, but it was definitely a good way to see how different actions affect the peace process. While it is a nice break from staring at a textbook, the simulation is an effective learning tool because it makes the conflict seem more real to people not directly impacted by it.  

Reconstruction

I am an intern at the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) at the Army War College. It’s been really interesting so far, especially since I’ve been assigned to a really complex project. I’m working on a proposal for a new model for Reconstruction and Stability operations (basically trying to find a way for the military to help rebuild nations after conflict). In my research, I have come across quite a few case studies of operations in the Middle East. I am basing my recommendation on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Afghanistan. The PRTs aim to combine both civilian and military staff and to extend the authority of the government, promote and enhance security and facilitate humanitarian relief and reconstruction operations.  If you’d like to learn more about the PRTs, I suggest you look at this report: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADG252.pdf

            There is a lot of opposition to much of the United States' involvement in other countries but I feel like the United States has a responsibility as a world power to help democratize and stabilize volatile nations. By spreading democracy through nation-building, the US is helping to foster a new and improved world system. 

            

"Court in UAE says beating wife, child OK if no marks are left"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/19/uae.court.ruling/index.html

This man from the UAE slapped and kicked his wife and 23-year-old daughter, injuring both, and was brought to court under charges of abuse. The court ruled that he punished them too severely, although “a man is permitted under Islamic law to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he leaves no marks and has tried other methods of punishment.” As discussed later in the article, violence against women goes against all of the teachings of Islam. Under shari'ah law, “it is ‘absolutely unlawful’ to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.” While I suppose that they were trying to make strides against violence against women, the fact that this court ruled that it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife and children, as long as he doesn’t leave marks, is completely outdated.

What do you think?

Is the war on terror winnable? What would this look like?

If the War on Terror is able to be won, there would be no more terrorism. The world would be a much safer place because there would be no attacks on civilians and wars would be fought conventionally.

I know that this is pessimistic, but I do not think that the War on Terror can ever be won. I think that it is a noble goal but there is no way to completely  eradicate terror from the world. For one thing, the War on Terror is a war on a concept. Because there is no concrete enemy, there is no way to evaluate when the war has been won. Certain terrorist groups can be removed but terrorism as a concept will always be present.

I am planning on having a career that involves counterterrorism and national security.  It might seem weird that someone who wants to spend her life protecting her nation from future terrorist attacks doesn’t believe that the terrorist attacks will ever stop. I do think that it is possible to prevent terrorism, however, it will never truly be eliminated.

Research Topic

I just posted on the Wiki but I thought I’d describe my research paper topic a little bit here so it is easier to receive feedback from you guys!

 I am trying to research how the use of terrorist tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed since the mandate period. In order to do this, I’m going to need to evaluate the goals behind the attacks and the extent to which these goals were met. Because there have been so many instances of terror since the beginning of the conflict, I will probably select a few major terrorist attacks and focus on those.

I’ve started researching a little bit and have already found so much information.  I think it will be a really interesting project!

This is the first time that I have ever kept a blog..I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing this but am excited to figure it out! That said, please bear with me as I get the hang of this.

I came across an interesting article this morning... Apparently, the Dove World Outreach Center, an evangelical church based in Gainesville, Florida, has been rumored to have plans to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to commemorate the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. "Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist that it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive." (Dozier) This demonstration would undoubtedly cause much anger among Muslims. General Petraeus warned that images of a burning Quran could be used to incite anti-American sentiments and could potentially be very dangerous for Americans worldwide. 


I think that General Petraeus was right in warning against this demonstration. While I understand some of the emotions that are playing into this church's decision to burn the Quran, doing so would do some serious damage to our image abroad. Some may argue that the Dove center has the Constitutional right to do this. However, since exercising this right to demonstrate could cause more harm than good, the Dove World Outreach Center should not be allowed to go through with this.


If you're interested, here is a link to the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090600589.html