Patricia DeGennaro2013-06-18T23:13:21-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=patricia-degennaroCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Patricia DeGennaroGood old fashioned elbow grease.Hillary Was Right!!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32647102013-05-13T16:01:25-04:002013-05-14T09:27:58-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/Obama Don't Hire Hillary. The one who knows she missed a perfect opportunity with the Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR) to restructure the DD dinosaur into a lean mean diplodevelopment machine. You heard it here, the former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton was right. Like she said, "what does it matter?"
Before we all get carried away here saying she doesn't care about the people who -- rest their souls -- brutally lost their lives in Benghazi, Libya that day, let's get our heads out of the political propaganda and think about what she actually meant.
Frankly, it doesn't matter that an administration member said demonstration, while the President himself came out the very next day saying terrorism. You say tomato.
What does matter is that the Congress is wasting our time and money rehashing rhetoric instead of reason. It does matter that you can't take money out of box A to put in box B and protect our diplomats, which Clinton reminded the Congress of time and again (we are not replaying that though). And it does matter that we are constantly looking to war to make peace. Do not forget the good ole US of A played a large part in overthrowing Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi. Like him or not, he really wasn't the U.S.'s leader to overthrow.
Nevertheless, Congress is worried about our government misleading us through a bad decision to put Ambassador Susan Rice on TV with half the story. However, they seem to forget that only 10 short years ago American intelligence was rewritten to chase after a "mushroom cloud" that never even existed. Can you say 'misleading'?
Over 5,000 dead, 20,000 wounded, countless deployments, suicides in the Army at an all time high, post traumatic stress, families broken, countless Iraqis dead and still suffering and over a trillion spent, whew, and the U.S. Congress is still talking about whether the Administration said it was a movie that sparked a demonstration that caused this atrocity or it was terrorism. Like one of us commoners out here can't figure out it was the latter.
Oh Senator McCain, we the masses are just not smart enough to see the light.
We the masses are getting pretty tired of you the Congress wasting time when there are real problems out there that must be fixed. If you'd like to start with the Benghazi issue, well then, why not.
Let's look at the state of our diplomatic and development foreign policy tools. The U.S. is so busy using its military might to promote peace that it has forgotten that the 2D duo needs the same care and support as well.
If Congress were at all serious, it would take this opportunity to take a hard look at the State Department and its U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) sister and see to it that they improve processes primarily so this never happens again.
Secondarily, each of these agencies needs to be valued as a compliment to our military not a hindrance to our future. It's time they went through a real bureaucratic review, trim the fat, improve recruitment and embrace a readiness program, much like their military counterparts, so we don't ever again send our diplomats unprepared for the environment that awaits them.
There is much more to be done in these 2Ds that I will not go into here. The bottom line however is that we must pay attention to more than military might. The U.S. needs to refocus and rethink this idea of using war to get peace when it is so much less destructive to use so good old-fashioned diplomacy and relationship building to get the that peace instead of continually fueling the cycle of war.]]>Going to Tehran: A Must Read!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29030702013-03-18T21:29:25-04:002013-05-18T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/Going to Tehran with vigor while insisting that the president and his entire staff do the same so we all can avoid another war.
This book sheds dramatic light on the central foreign policy of the Iranian government. The Leveretts superbly outline the true intentions of Iran and the way they are using international alliances and soft power to get there. Intentions are not as the neocon talking points imply. Iran wants to be a regional economic and political power not a nuclear one. Unfortunately, instead of listening to the nuances of Iranian policy and messaging, the U.S. Administration is allowing itself to remain deaf to the words of Iran's leadership. In essence, they seem to prefer to bypass diplomatic efforts that would set the stage for a long-term peaceful and reciprocal relationship and continue to threaten them with destruction through military force.
There is no doubt that the U.S. continues to be the strongest military power on the globe and can overmatch any other traditional power, however, it is losing influence both politically and economically throughout the world. This holds particularly true in the Arab and Persian populations from North Africa to Afghanistan.
Hindsight is 20/20 and the Obama administration should review past history in the region to clear up current misinterpretations of Iran's actions. The American unintelligible decision, which flies in the face of all moral rhetoric, to overthrow Iran's democratic president, Mohammad Mosaddegh, has not been forgotten by Iranians. Basically the Iranian government doesn't trust the U.S. because of its past behavior. They are under the impression that America's current intention remains squarely in the path of another regime change, which will install an unpopular Western leaning leader like the former Shah, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī. All actions on our side support this assumption and the Obama Administration is doing nothing to change it.
America's policy of random regime change has wreaked havoc around the world. Ironically, American nuclear technology shared under the Shah, gave birth to the current situation -- potential air strikes that could lead to all out war.
No one wants external interference especially when it is so lethal and ultimately takes away sovereignty, self-determination and human rights. As the Leveretts point out, former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski says, "there is a global political awakening" where regions like the Middle East are "scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination," and there is a "yearning for human dignity" and "cultural respect." Populations are "disliking the status quo" and "are susceptible to being mobilized against those whom they perceive as self-interestedly preserving it." In Iran and the Middle East, they have had enough of Western military and colonial intervention. Even Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi cautions against thinking all Iranians won't rally if attacked.
As the book point out, "for most Egyptians and other Middle Easterners, the main division in the world is not between democracies and dictatorships but between countries whose strategic autonomy is subordinated to the United State and countries who exercise genuine independence in policymaking. For most people in the Middle East, the Islamic Republic is on the right side of that divide." Iran, to the chagrin of the U.S. and Israel, is charting its own path and despite strangling world sanctions continues to do so.
Since the revolution, Iran continues to use soft power to enhance its influence in Asia, parts of Africa, and the Middle East. Tehran remains a vibrant city and until more recently, it also had extensive trade with Europe, which went beyond petrol resources (even Israel keeps Iranian farmers afloat as it looks the other way when it comes to importing Iranian pistachios - the best in the world).
Iran is actually a natural ally for the U.S. The population is well educated and has a rich economic, political and cultural history with superb diplomatic skills -- something the U.S. State Department should be modeling not condemning. Other than protecting itself during the American supported Iraq invasion to its territory, Iran has shown no propensity to use force unlike the U.S. and Israel.
In the past, Iran paid a huge political price to help free American hostages in Lebanon. The country has helped keep oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf. The Iranian government has offered to partner on security and invited American oil companies to invest in the country. It supported America wholeheartedly after the September 11, 2001 horrific attacks on the U.S. by using its allies to rebuild the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the warriors who took up arms to drive out the Soviet Union and, after 911, the Taliban. Finally, Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium for almost two years as well as and to buy nuclear fuel rods from Brazil through an agreement negotiated by Brazil and Turkey. Expecting a more level relationship for its efforts, it instead got nothing. U.S. administrations rebuked it at every turn.
Iran does want to be a regional power and despite all the American and Israeli efforts it continues to be one. Its success lies in its unwavering support of those who have been marginalized in the region. Rhetoric supporting Shi'ite minorities, popular elected governments like Hamas, and the subjugated Palestinian population ingratiate it to those in the region who are tired of ostensibly Western dominance and deadly intervention. It is time for the U.S. and the West to take a new path.
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have reminded foreign policy scholars like Hillary Mann and Flynt Everett to speak out about the flaws in U.S. policy and encourage all of us to demand that it change. Our world can no longer depend on military solutions for political resolutions.
In one military exercise after the other the Iranian government has been shown to be a viable opponent. The Leverett's suggest that the U.S. follow the examples of former Presidents Richard Nixon and Anwar Sadat. Their trips to "China and Jerusalem, [are] a form of recognition that cannot be taken back" and "the two sides [must] work to reorient their relationship, the recognition bestowed by a presidential visit cannot be reversed. It would undergird all future diplomacy and underscore confidence that reconciliation will come." If President Obama and his team are truly looking for an alternative that looks beyond war, they should schedule an overdue detour by leaving Tel Aviv for a historical visit to the city that may actually help lead to future world stability and peace -- Tehran.]]>Senator John McCain Instead of Chuck Hagel?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27411792013-02-22T16:18:59-05:002013-04-24T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
As long as the US has a commitment to a strong military it will have one. The US, however, not only has other needs at the moment, it must stop investing solely in this unending quest for ultimate security, which can never be achieved.
This country can take steps to remain stellar on its national security structure to address threats and protect interests and still cut costs in the Department of Defense. The challenge will be to create an American, not bipartisan, but a holistic vision for the US with - oh my - an open mind that thinks and leaves out the politics for at least a period of time.
Now, considering the current and shameful state of the US government and all this party posturing and bickering, you too are probably saying "good luck with all that." Yet, as we become complacent with the current state of affairs feeling that our representatives are not accountable and never will be, we are wasting more time and money than any sequester may require. More importantly our government leaders are putting this nation at risk. Everyone is too so busy making the case that we need a huge security budget, but not one person is outlining why.
At a recent speaking engagement at the Brookings Institute, the Chief of Staff of the Army, Raymond T Odierno, said it well, [the military] must "develop a new strategy based on fiscal realities"....well I say about time! The trouble is that instead of developing a strategy, the military JCS are spending time and money on rhetoric and lobbying Congress to see it their way.
The Army is holding the jobs of over 200,000 civilians over Congressional heads to demonstrate why they can't handle cuts. Each force has basically laid out a state-by-state example of what types of hits each will take if they don't get their monies. That tells me nothing as far as national security goes or how the military intends to work in the next century.
I for one am worried. I'm also disappointed in our Senate leaders. The whole deal with former Senator Chuck Hagel is embarrassing and so is Senator McCains incessant focus on the tragedy in Libya and Hagel's comments on Israel. Why aren't they asking more questions that pertain to the military future of America. Where were the questions on how Senator Chuck Hagel would handle a sequester? Where were the questions about why the JCSs are lobbying instead of planning? Where were the questions about why the Army has some 90,000 soldiers deployed in 160 countries? What about the tanks, planes and ships that we are spending tons on and don't work, how will Hagel handle that? What's Hagel's vision to transform DOD into a lean, mean fighting machine so we can cut the excess or fat and meet the smaller but still huge budget that they will have?
It is also bothersome that Hagel couldn't bring the conversation around to focus on more relevant points. Chuck Hagel was a feisty US senator. Where was that in his testimony? He should have said "sorry that I said "Jewish Lobby," NOW let's talk about how we are going to agree on a national security budget for the United States of America!" Congress probably preferred to stay on the topic of whether the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was completely "Jewish" or not than talk about their own responsibility in letting the defense budget go haywire with a complete lack of oversight.
It is high time that President Obama flexes his leadership muscles. He cannot afford to have a secretary of defense that can't stand up to Congress and the JCS. It is too important to the people who serve and those they protect. Nor can the President afford to ignore that this nations priority needs to be on a comprehensive US international security policy that includes not centers on the pentagon.
Maybe the President should turn the tables quick and nominate Senator John McCain for Secretary of Defense. That might jar them into attention on the Hill and force Congress to focus on more than political shenanigans.
The President must also insist on a plan from the Chiefs (as should Congress). If they don't formulate and substantiate it, they don't get the money. Yes, we need to understand the cost of reductions, the stress on our service members, and the necessary measures to aid in civilian transition, but our leaders also need to be tough about needed change for the good of the nation by creating a military that meets our national needs not an unsubstantiated budget with random cuts to instill fear.
Pouring more fuel on a fire works. Unfortunately once it is burning out of control, like the DOD budget, it takes all efforts to cool it down so it won't burn down the entire house leaving no future for anything else. The opportunity for a long overdue re-balancing of our national security is now. This means that our leadership must get to work and spend their time on a new strategic plan for civilians and military instead of just wasting it away.]]>To Have or not to Have Gunstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23454852012-12-21T09:54:56-05:002013-02-20T05:12:02-05:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
From 2008-2009, guns killed 5,740 youngsters according to the Children's Defense Fund. Less military personnel died in Afghanistan and Iraq in ten years of war (5,013).
They are not alone. Plenty of adults die with them. In the US alone, some 9,000 people died of gun violence. Now brace yourself, this was within ONE year!
No this is not a tirade about guns. How can any breathing American not understand that weapons protect, not kill, (note sarcasm) even though every statistic shows us otherwise. After all every one needs a gun and a hummer (more sarcasm).
In the case of Connecticut, Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter, was a gun owner.
Despite the fact that she felt her son was dangerous she had guns and they failed protect her. They killed her, six other adults and twenty young children.
It is always more heart breaking when children are involved. But lets face it people, guns got us into this tragedy not out of it. The idea that people should have weapons to protect themselves from the ills of society is a cop out. It sure didn't work for Nancy. So despite the fact that this idea of gun ownership backfired, there are a slew of people out there that still think people should have more. They are going so far as to wanting to arm the teachers and no doubt the kids too. Really?
This argument was also used in the Jovan Belcher's case. You know the football player who recently shot his wife then himself. Well, the standard response was 'If she had a gun, she could have stopped him. " Yeah right. I can see it now, "Oh honey, could you hold your fire a minute or so while I put down the baby, get my gun and try to protect myself from you?"
Those guns belonged to Lanza, the mother, who was caught by surprise and even if she had a gun on her person, there would have been no way to react to her situation in order to save herself.
The larger question here is why on earth are we so preoccupied with having all the guns, all the time, regardless of their dangers or what is happening in society. Recent inquiries into Lanza's life show her to be paranoid and what Americans have now termed "preppers," which we can learn about through this organization called the American Preppers Network.
She, like many other paranoid Americans, was preparing in case the U.S. turns into a nation of anarchy. Kind of like Syria I'm assuming. She was getting ready for economic mayhem that will do doubt arrive since the American Congress and the President can't get its fiscal cliff talks in order. I wonder if she was also one of those who wanted to be prepared to fight off the government in case they were sending someone to take away their guns or preparing for the Mayan calendar end of thw world date. That'd be today folks and we are still here.
In truth, being prepared is a good thing. Socking away retirement funds or water in case you are hit by a hurricane are good starts. It's also great to save for a rainy day, be self sufficient, and independent or prepare for injury, illness or the death of a loved one. No one would argue with that, but come on, if the U.S. is truly heading toward this anti-government anarchy, we better find another way to prevent it.
No weapon is going to save everyone from total mayhem or the end of the world. I hate to tell you all this, but if the world ends you are going with it. It does not matter how prepared and self sufficient your are or how many guns and ammunition you stashed - you are on your way out with the rest of us and there is nothing your guns are going to be able to do about it.
Personally I think all this violence is a reaction to, and perpetuation of, seclusion, fear, and this consuming obsession with Armageddon that is driving people over the edge. Maybe if we spent a little more time and money on building the economy and intellectual capacity instead of hiding from and contributing to the demise of it, things wouldn't look so bad.
President Obama finally announced that he will have a plan by January to help curb the gun violence. Instead of applauding and aiding in the effort, the response is a 360-degree turn - people are running out to buy more weapons. No lessons of mice and men here.
I am free to end my life in many ways. Skydiving, driving, and even flying a plane, but I need training, preparation and a license for all of them. Perhaps a little gun control wouldn't hurt. No one is taking your weapons, all those who died by accident, drive by shooting or massacre and their loved ones would just prefer that these things stop. So, no big deal, get screening, training and a license. Chill, if there's nothing in your background you shouldn't worry.
Sadly, since those twenty innocent children lost their precious lives, many more have joined them. No life, liberty, doomsday or second amendment will be a worry for them.
Frankly, all this "my right to a gun" stuff is getting old. It is high time we look beyond "to have or not to have a gun." There is a reason these things are called weapons. Alternatively, let's take action so these horrific situations end. Yes, we the people must work on psychology, mental health, anger management and the like. However, beginning our efforts with a bit of weapons control would not be the worst thing.
These precious children should not be allowed to die in vain. We need to come together and work on stopping the violence with positive change. Then perhaps Americans can stop living in fear of fear itself thus withdrawing from, rather than, engaging in a more communal and peaceful society that protects all instead of just some.]]>Afghanistan: Time To End This Wartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13197222012-03-06T10:13:03-05:002012-05-06T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
This was not the first furious demonstration against the U.S. and its NATO partners, who Afghans consider occupiers, and it definitely will not be the last. No As-Salāmu `Alaykum or apology is going to help. Such blatant disrespect only further insights the anger and anxiety of endless war and violence that existed before the post 911 invasion and continues to thrive today.
The majority of foreigners, both civilian and military, should pack their bags and get out. Of course they will not. Afghanistan has this way of convincing even the savviest imperialist that there is hope the place might actually be tamed. This is an illusion. Afghans have their own culture and way of life and it doesn't coincide with the efforts of modernization by the West.
The U.S. and NATO will dismiss the signs of failure, much like Brits and Soviets, and, instead, "stay the course." That is because their idea of "stay the course" involves two things simultaneously. The first is negotiation with the Taliban and handing over Afghan security to the Afghans or replacing armed NATO soldiers with armed Afghan ones. Might as well go right back to the civil war where the Taliban and mujahedeen fighters killed and maimed while fight for power.
Basically, the U.S. will again prop up the really nasty guys in tandem this time. The Taliban will get the government back and the warlord members of the former Northern Alliance will get control over something we like to imagine called 'security.' The Taliban will probably keep its name while the Alliance will strategically be called the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police hoping no one will notice.
Although the Taliban is really vile, during the civil war, the Northern Alliance was brutal. These warlord/mujahedeen fighters raped women, burned up communities, and brutally murdered and tortured anyone who got in their way. Afghans hate the Taliban, but fear the leaders of the Northern Alliance. They do not trust them now and I guarantee that these feelings won't change in 2014 when the troops retreat.
A new goal, followed by a thought process and strategy, is long overdue. If the parties want to leave without all hell breaking loose they need to start thinking beyond war.
There must be an Afghan political solution. The U.S. must assist the Afghans in stabilization the country instead of turning it into a martial state. Holding the space so that the Afghans can structure their own government instead just training a "security" force and causing yet more war is the key.
Recent FY 2010 figures show that the U.S. is spending around $2 billion a week on this war. I am sure two years later that it is more, but for arguments sake, I'll leave it at that. With 52 weeks in a year, and two more years of battle, that comes out to around $208 billion (oh what I could do with $208 billion!).
I tried, but cannot seem to find out how much a Jirga or a tribal assembly of elders costs (A Jirga is a large group of people, sometime numbering up to 2000, that makes decisions by consensus), but after a bit of research I can safely assume that it costs less than a million a week. Since I like to overestimate, let's just go with that number. At a million a week, the US can save a bundle over the next two years.
Now, why a Jirga you ask? Well, because this is the Afghan next best thing to democracy (and actually includes more people in the decision making than its American counterpart). Further, a Jirga will finally allow the Afghans to sit down and hash out their own future. While the West saves money and the elders debate lives will be saved because they'll be busy talking instead of shooting or blowing things up. Historically Afghans have found one way or another to work out immense differences through this type of method.
Time gives another opportunity. One that would include bringing in regional actors so they too can participate and understand the benefits of dropping the "great game." Pakistan, India, China and even Iran must agree to stop playing tug of Kabul. Perhaps in the process the U.S. can kiss and make up with Iran (I know, wishful thinking, but why not?)
The Afghans can develop an Afghan government for the people, by the people with Western mentorship instead of imposition. Let's face it folks the Afghan government has done nothing but pretend to try to like the constitution and centralized American style government forced on them.
Will it be perfect? Probably not. Tell me one governance system that is. Afghans have had a pretty tough history filled with endless war and talk about post trauma stress... so it will all take time and patience. Reminds me of that saying, "good things come to those that have patience." (ok, so I changed the last part, but you get the picture).
It is, however better than more NATO and U.S. officers dying, an all out Afghan civil war, propping up more malevolent warlords, or bringing back the Taliban so they can beat women if their shoes make noise.
In the meantime, it is time for everyone else -- civilian and military alike -- to reevaluate the lack of impact they are having and leave. Afghans need their space and the world needs to allow them to 'ask' for help when they need it. After all, it is preferable to ask for things not have them shoved down your throat.
Besides, there are too many compounds surrounded by concrete and barbed wire enclosing too many people doing way too little. I am not saying that they don't mean well, I'm just saying in that type of environment a small stealth imprint makes much more impact. Fortresses with armored everything don't really encourage relationships at all let alone long-term reciprocal ones.
Civilians can bow out fairly gracefully, however, it is those left behind to tear down the monstrous bunkers and the military withdrawal that will be a bit more complex to remove. The Obama Administration will have to be very strategic as it brings back most of its troops while leaving a very small contingency just in case. Historically as troops pack up and leave Afghanistan fighters from surrounding villages sabotage them. Both those in the British and former Soviet military can attest to that. Therefore, any extraction must be carefully calculated. Nevertheless, it must be done.
After speaking to some people on the ground, it is clear that the protests that were triggered by the Koran burning were a built up reaction to the overwhelming presence of "the foreign occupiers" and the Afghan people are feeling helpless as things get progressively worse. They continue to struggle for even the basics -- electricity, water, and food.
Taking steps to allow Afghans to take the lead while supporting their efforts toward peace, governance and security will satisfy interests on both sides. U.S. and NATO troops can go home leaving a somewhat more stable nation while continuing a political partnership with the Afghans and their neighbors. We will all save money, but more importantly we will save lives on all sides by finally ending this war.
]]>To Go or Not to Go to War With Irantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13079022012-03-01T12:10:08-05:002012-05-01T05:12:02-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/argue, again, for a war with Iran. Plenty of U.S. officials including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have also been in Israel to discuss this very issue.
Then, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who just essentially called General Dempsey a puppet of Iran, will be making his way over to mobilize the right-wing American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) to send American men and women back to war.
To make matters worse, the U.S. Congress seems to be yet again representing Israel instead of their American constituencies who already have war fatigue not to mention a $15 trillion deficit costing tax payer $4 billion a day. Senators Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) are pushing through "let's get everything off the table except bombing the hell out of Iran" legislation and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is siding with the Israel Prime Minister instead of the American Joint Chief who is right in his assessment that the U.S. should not rush to war.
Nevertheless, the U.S., Israel and their coalition of the "willing to overthrow every regime on the face of the globe" are continuously debating going after the next victim. Attacking Iran, however, will not be a simple shock and awe operation. Iran actually has a formidable military. Perhaps maybe the world is just craving a traditional war with air fights, naval standoffs, and tanks rolling in -- all coupled with asymmetric hybrid confrontations.
The most disturbing part of this whole picture is that the world seems to have forgotten that they can actually think beyond war. "All options on the table" seems to dismiss everything other than bombarding things, people or both. For too many years, Americans and allies alike have completely ignored robust diplomacy. They rushed into Afghanistan failing to acknowledge that the Taliban was ready to give up Osama bin Laden -- threats instead of savvy cultural posturing and negation led to a 10-year war. Everyone couldn't wait to hang Saddam Hussein despite the fact that all intelligence showed there was no mushroom cloud, not to mention the fact that he provided the United Nations with all the necessary documentation showing he had no weapons of mass destruction.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- America's top diplomat -- threw her patience right out the window calling for the Libyan President, Qadaffi, to be "captured or killed." In her most recent outburst, she is calling for mutiny in the Syrian army to, yes, rid themselves of President Bashar Al-Assad.
Next stop -- Iran.
So where is that "Diplomacy 3.0" that the US State Department's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was touting just two years ago. Apparently all those foreign service officers that were suppose to be deployed to "centers of influence" missed the Middle East and Southwest Asia and/or are more likely they are unsuccessfully trying to influence behind giant slabs of concrete and perpetual lockdown.
Governments of the world, let your people go. The days of addressing today's threats cannot be done behind armored vehicles and barbed wire or even at the barrel of a gun, people need to get out and get to know the people, not just hob-nob with corrupt ministers -- although that is important too. There are plenty of people who knew the "Arab Spring" was coming, but even the most seasoned diplomat can't evaluate the changes from behind bars.
In today's world, we need to stop warring and start a dialogue, one that lasts more than an hour and contains options other than coercive threats on the agenda. So what if we don't like them -- they probably don't like us much either. If you can get eventually along with one monarch or dictator, why not another?
The bottom line is that there are more options on the table than mutually assured destruction. Political, economic and, most importantly, diplomatic options for Iran exist. It is time for us to break out of this over zealous combat mindset and try something new. In the grander scheme of things, it is much better than sending more of our young men and women off to yet another war or causing Armageddon. Maybe 2012 will be the end after all, if, that is, we make our own prophetic nonsense come true instead of thinking critically in order to find a better solution than more war.]]>Time for Israel to Embrace the Arab Springtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12855742012-02-21T11:17:48-05:002012-04-22T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
It is quite clear to the Israeli government that this regional push toward democracy will directly affect them in a negative manner. After all, Israel continues to occupy over three million Palestinians in the West Bank and keep another million or so imprisoned in Gaza. Not necessarily a positive in anyone's book.
As the Arab Spring continues, Western influence wanes. In tandem, Israel is becoming more isolated. This isolation has not transitioned into support of the democratic civil society movements of its neighbors. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. These anti-regime populist movements, which arguably started with the Green Revolution in Iran, have instead pushed Israel toward a more agitated, fear based and increasingly paranoid posture.
In response, the Israeli government has moved on two fast and furious initiatives. The first is to escalate the annexation of the West Bank by increasing settlements and confiscating land, while keeping Gaza under its thumb with daily aerial bombardments. And the second is to ensure its hegemonic position in the region by directly challenging its only capable opponent -- Iran.
According to a new report by Israeli organization Peace Now, Torpedoing the Two State Solution - The Strategy of the Netanyahu Government, there has been a "20% rise in construction starts in the settlements -- at least 1,850 building starts for housing units, 35% of them (650 units) in isolated settlements east of the planned route of the Separation Barrier" and "at least 3,500 units under construction during 2011 (started to be built or continued construction from previous years)."
The report goes further to say that although the Netanyahu government promised to dismantle illegal outposts, this has been skirted by, instead, making them legal. In addition, more roads connecting Palestinian towns have been severed by settlement expansion making it close to impossible to travel and if Palestinians do, they will encounter even more checkpoints. There are some 500-plus "physical impediments," as the United Nations calls them, in the West Bank. B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, reported that, in addition to permanent checkpoints, the army erects hundreds of surprise flying checkpoints along West Bank roads at will.
Israel is successfully appropriating the West Bank to ease its fear-based obsessions. It craves a level of security that is non-existent yet these policies continue.
Despite the consequences, keeping the Palestinian territories is, in the Israeli mind, one major step to keeping them protected. This along with their ever-growing stockpile of weapons, nuclear and otherwise allows the Netanyahu government plenty of time to focus on its desire for imperial dominance and the destruction of its only regional competitor -- Iran.
Israel has been testing the waters for some time to see if it can in effect bully Iran into relinquishing its, to date, minimally influential regional place. To keep the pressure on, Israel has relied on the West to impose sanctions while continuously threatening Iran with military strikes. This has been going on since about 2004. For almost ten years now -- give or take -- Israel has claimed that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and at any moment it will drop it right in the middle of a bunch of nations it actually has good relationships with just to destroy Israel.
No one can deny Iranian President Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric against Israel, but if they were to really to use nuclear weapons that would be a surefire way to wipe out not only Israel, but major portions of the five surrounding states in the process and most probably would poison many more -- including Iran itself.
Our bombs today are much more powerful than they used to be. "Today, the B-2 Stealth bomber is capable of delivering 1,280 times the destructive power that the Enola Gay brought to bear on Hiroshima in 1945" says Peter Fedewa in his Ploughshares Fund blog post Nuclear Weapons To Scale. Thanks to the US taxpayers, Israel has twenty-five of them.
Various authors, including this one, have voiced numerous ways to use diplomacy to solve this Israeli-Iranian doomsday scenario. Iran is in no way perfect, but it has at the very least shown ample willingness to talk. It is most unfortunate though that Israel, and by proxy its US supporters, are hell-bent on war.
It seems that Israeli leaders have dismissed the fact that "all options on the table" includes robust diplomacy and actually conversing. Although it took about seven years for Muammar Qaddafi to come around, the Iranians were only allotted about twelve weeks from the Obama Administration to put up or be punished with yet more sanctions. Bush, as you might recall, labeled it as part of the 'axis of evil," which gave that Administration a sub-zero chance.
Yes, talks take time. It may be easier to pick up a weapon; however, that would probably guarantee one of two things: 1) everyone will end up right back where they started or 2) due to nuclear fallout -- we will all be dead.
Sanctions at this point are definitely working. How can they not? In addition to freezing Iran's hard currency assets and boycotting their banks, the West has successfully sanctioned everything from pistachios to caviar and carpets and now they are targeting Iranian oil. This has not only starved a lot of very poor Iranians who don't even like their government, it has set Iran's nuclear timeline back several years back.
Let us get real, though: sanctions will not and cannot work forever so why not get our diplomatic efforts moving toward preemption through negotiation instead of preemption through total destruction.
The US can and should immediately take the lead in this effort. It would behoove the Israelis to forgo war and jump on board -- for once.
Israel's short-term future may be guaranteed by occupation and bullying. In the long run, however, it is a high-risk wager to continue on such a violent path. A path that will only ensure more anxiety, mistrust and unrelenting blowback, which we have already seen for many years. Reaching out with a handshake instead of a weapon is the only way to guarantee the semblance of the security the Israeli state desires.
It is time for Israel, and those who support it, to rethink its defensive posture and look at the regional push toward democracy as an opportunity instead of a threat. No, it won't gain friends overnight, but at least it will start to convey that it is a willing partner in the region. A partner that prefers peace and security for all, not just Israelis, as well as one that is against war and destruction not committed to it.
]]>Military Budget Cuts: No Big Deal or Excellent Opportunity?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11817532012-01-03T16:51:06-05:002012-03-04T05:12:01-05:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
It seems inevitable that US forces will be looking at about a $450 billion budget cut over the next ten years. Moreover, if Congress doesn't stop its incessant bickering over who stole whose cheese, the military will then lose an additional $500 billion to cover the US government's flagrant disregard for Congress's failure to responsibly use your tax dollars.
So I ask you all out there in US land -- what is the big deal? Warren Buffett could cover the $45B a year decrease (or $95B a year if the full cut goes through) before you can say Goldman Sachs. Although I bet neither Warren Buffett nor Goldman Sachs would lend or, in this case, give that money away without first figuring out what recipient is going to do with it and, more importantly, what they are going to get out of it.
This, however, is not true for Congress or the Pentagon. Like previous downsizing ventures, the Department of Defense is scrambling. They will be managing these defense reductions on the fly. Congress will yet again mandate cuts without any semblance of a long-term strategic view making it impossible for the Joint Chiefs to make any true change.
Yet again, the status quo will no doubt win out and any possibility that our military's top brass will be able to ensure that US forces remain ready for a relatively unknown and increasingly complicated future is as unlikely as finding human life on mars.
One can hope, but historically, cuts in defense have failed to produce the real change. Successive U.S. administrations have failed to outline a post Cold War defense strategy while American interests have remained constant over the years and any recent attempt at a global national security or grand strategy has been preempted by fear of rocking the defense department boat, political infighting and, more importantly, two wars.
And yet again it seems the powers that be are reverting to past practices instead of future realities. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's first major policy address focuses on air and sea-based capabilities and highly modernized adversaries which are code words for "the US is sending military policy right back to the cold war paradigm." The Administration is, again, repeating history. The Army will shrink substantially to control current debt and fatigue after a decade of war. While America's other forces ramp up and focus on China, which will replace the defunct Soviet Union.
Forces will be subject to the age-old percent budget based ancient parameters instead of need. As usual the Army will get the lion's share and the same old safe solutions will be again based on past budget deduction cases and, not on the hard choices and changes our military must make. Choices like keeping planes and ships in production, which support Panetta's speech and are sure to please the military industrial complex, do nothing to address larger national security requirements.
Unfortunately, percentage cuts, which are the easy way out, will probably win out. Thus, it is up to those who lead to ensure that America's military remains strong and able. The military chiefs must not allow petty politics to intrude on making a comprehensive military assessment and creating a 21st century military to address its outcome.
Despite the inevitable drawdown, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military have a unique opportunity to make wide-ranging change in the pentagon as a whole. By streamlining bureaucracy, minimizing operational overlap, reorganizing personnel and improving the capacity of all troops to truly exhibit "jointness," America's forces can continue to be the modernized, adaptable, and rapid reaction military that the United States needs or, if you will, a lean mean fighting machine.
In this context, it is also time that the Defense Department embraced "lessons learned," instead of gathering them up, filing them and staying the course much like it did during the Clinton Administration and, again, miss this chance to bring the US out of the Cold War and ready for the next decade.
Pure percentage cuts do not make good strategy. They instead cause infighting and fail to look at the overall defense picture viewing the parts instead of the whole. Leaders must therefore look beyond. The US is coming out of two wars where it amassed vast lessons on bringing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, including National Guard and reservists together to win the fight. Turning our back on these joint operational gains would be a mistake.
The Joint Chiefs and Combatant Commanders must come together to turn the tide away from politics and strategically asses what is needed for a stellar combined force ready for the next twenty plus years while making the Pentagon as disciplined as the troops.
They are part way there. According to the Stimson Center's report,What We Bought: Defense Procurement from FY01 to FY10, among other things, the military has "completely upgraded all the Army's vehicles, bought more ammunition than expected, acquired a whole new fleet of F-22s and C-17 cargo aircraft for the Air Force, and a lot of new naval vessels." All absolutely necessary, however, the main problem, after ten years of upgrades, is not modernization; it is the lack of a long-range comprehensive strategic forecast of the future operating environment including threats and opportunities across regions. That is what will shape future US intervention and defense policy. It includes economic austerity, but is not beholden to it.
Without a complete strategic assessment it is truly impossible to make any reliable assessments as to whether the current force is "good enough." No one really knows whether an "Air-Sea Battle" focus will prove sufficient, or even right. Devoid of a strategy and proper prioritizing of US national interests, the armed services is again left only with an increasingly difficult "math problem." One that focuses solely on who gets cut and who gets cut out.
No one can predict the future, but it is counterproductive to try to guess what, where and when threats will present themselves. These types of faulty determinations leave consecutive Administration with the inability to guage whether it should invest more or less in air, sea, or land forces (or combinations thereof). The result is inevitably quantitative assumptions, political debates about which party is better on defense, and, no surprise, parochial competition between services.
Today's political leaders must play a part in this as well. Rather than consuming themselves with partisan politics and protecting the military-industrial complex, they must take their oversight responsibility more seriously. Congress must understand that within the context of our economic concerns, our nations security is going to depend on a disciplined Defense Department that must plan strategically in order to protect the American people.
Until American lawmakers and military leaders commit to the necessary changes for the nation's defense, this country is limited to random military decisions and pure speculation on threats and force structure. In the meantime, if the military can do nothing else, it must invest in educating and training the highest quality soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors while encouraging civilian excellence as well (the highest-quality diplomats, foreign service officers, intelligence professionals, and first-responders, to include our teachers). Our human capital is the only outlay that is more likely to guarantee future success since no one has the courage to engage in strategic planning despite an increasingly uncertain future.
]]>Iran and the Nuclear Weapons Clubtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11254652011-12-02T13:45:08-05:002012-02-01T05:12:01-05:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
Outrage over the behavior of the international community and its endless war-drumming rhetoric and sanctions is understandable. Acting like a bull in a china shop is not. All things considered, both sides on this equation are behaving like spoiled children who exhibit no end to their temper tantrums because no one is getting their way. Russian and China are actually sounding like the only rational voices. Nevertheless, the problem is all these children masquerading as international leaders and diplomats have deadly means of coercion.
Let's face it though, no one is innocent here. The Iranian government for its part is playing with fire while the U.S., Israel and the west keep stoking the ashes daring Iran to put it out. The bottom line here is that all of the above want Iran to end their nuclear program because they are terrified Iran is making weapons. To date there is excessive speculation, but nothing has been proven. Problem is this: it's like the pot calling the kettle black.
The very countries calling on Iran to scrap their nuclear program are armed to the teeth with their own nuclear weapons. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Israel are all nuclear powers. Germany, the Netherlands and the rest of the NATO countries are "sharers" of nukes kindly supplied to them by the US. Together they could destroy all of mankind ensuring that no life will exist on this planet for, lets say, the next several million millenniums.
In an effort to move toward a non-nuclear world, which is a no-brainer, most countries have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), by which they all basically try to promote the use of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes while halting the proliferation of nuclear materials for weapons. Iran is a member of this treaty. Israel is not. In fact, the most vociferous instigator of pummeling Iran and sanctioning it until it shrivels is the one country that refuses to admit they have nuclear weapons of their own or sign the NPT. And, might I add, no one is talking about bombing them. Israel, India, and Pakistan, for that matter, all have nuclear weapons and don't get sanctioned, but get just about all the military support they want from U.S. and the west. Talk about double standards.
No wonder Iran thinks turning their backs on a bunch of thugs climbing embassy walls and tearing up papers is OK. They and the whole world are confused as to who gets to do what, when and where. Apparently they just didn't get the memo that a state's freedom ironically depends on submissiveness, subservience, and, giving up sovereignty not fighting the west's status quo.
Iran has been through this before. Britain wanted all its oil without sharing the proceeds. Like most people who get their resources stolen, they decided to end that zero sum deal. However, instead of saying -- gee you're right, we should pay you for your oil -- Britain, with the help of the American CIA, decided to conduct a good old fashioned game of "regime change" overthrowing Iran's one and only democratically elected leader. In came the Shah, followed by the Mullahs, and here we are sanctioning the crap out of a country we all helped create. We will never learn.
So now everyone is mad because Iran wants to be part of the worldwide international club of "do as I say, not as I do."
Really, what's the difference if Iran has British, French or German embassies in Tehran? They don't seem to be making any difference in the grand scheme of things. The back and forth rhetoric hasn't changed in decades. There is no progress in helping the Iranian regime see that they're atrocious behavior must change. These diplomats haven't been able to build better relations, find out anything about Iran's nuclear program or help improve Western relations and move non-nuclear negotiations forward. Only Turkey and Brazil could do that and the Americans ignored them anyway.
And what if Iran has nuclear weapons, really? Does anyone really think they'll use them before the rest of us? Personally, I'm more concerned about Pakistan, who has no leadership, and the fact that Israel and India get U.S. support in their nuclear ambitions without any accountability at all.
At this point, everyone should just calm down and take the marbles they haven't already lost and go home. Until the world's wayward diplomats realize that to get anything done, one has to compromise, be consistent and at least try to be fair, nothing is ever going to change. Putting a nuclear free zone across the region would have been a brilliant start, but, of course, no one wants to give up their precious, and extraordinarily lethal, toys. They just don't want anyone else to have them.
Since that is really the case, I suggest we all get used to a nuclear world that, like it or not and due to all the stubbornness, will include Iran. As the world turns, I'm sure this will all lead to another endless and senseless war, which I'll remind you -- none of the "deciders" will be the ones to fight.
]]>Governments, Wake Up!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9253872011-08-12T11:34:07-04:002011-10-12T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
They are missing all the clues that their western based hegemonic system is just not working, yet no one seems willing to recognize this, they just keep plotting along in the same and, more often than not, destructive course. The unrest that the world is seeing across all nations is a striking sign of imminent change. From the riots in England to the Arab Jasmine Revolution to the outcries in Chile for education reform, people have had enough of their selfish governments. The vociferous complaints from populations across the globe that their governments are untrustworthy, corrupt, inept and, quite frankly, unwanted echo from place to place.
This unrest is an irrefutable indication that today's global governance and economic system are not only ancient but also defunct. The world needs bold leaders and unlimited thinkers to begin to spearhead an already rampant change before it turns into downright anarchy.
Global pleas for change have been stirring for decades challenging the current world order of zero-sum, hegemonic, economically exclusive, and colonialist shortsighted policies. Perhaps in the past a non-transparent closed club society that dished out thoughtless policy with no accountability was possible, but the Cold War is over and that behind closed doors negligent mentality can no longer continue. Today in a social networking Wikileaks world there is no way to hide political intimidations, malicious intentions or just pure recklessness with constituent concerns and, more importantly, everyone's future.
People are completely tired of the status quo. Whether it is the crackdown in Syria or the failure of a shattered U.S. Congress trying to pretend they care about fixing the debt, populations are openly demanding change. People want a more equal playing field with a say, not just a hollow vote, in their fiscal and political future. Further, if the governments can't provide good management and necessary services, people want them out.
In England, the riots began with individuals who feel they are trapped in a society with a government that doesn't care for them. The same was true in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt and, unless you are delusional, it is in your own backyard as well.
Many of those protesting in England are victims of long-standing unemployment, segregation or social exclusion due to a handicap or an excuse to make some people seem to be difference from others. Most have reached out even pleaded for help, which they never received. Not from police, government or social structures put in place by leaders to directly address these social problems. Rather than find ways to minimize social isolation, it is just easier to watch them suffer, fall into crime and go directly to hell or jail whichever comes first.
Unrest in Europe, the Americas or the countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East ring out in collective reality. People feel forsaken, sacrificed by governments that prefer to horde resources, promote ignorance, and encourage divisions among people all of which lead to helplessness, intolerance and conflict.
Fortunately what is happening today is a movement of people who are trying to reinvent internal government operations giving them at least some control over the governance systems in their countries. Unfortunately, other than reaching for the age-old solution of crushing those who oppose them, governments sit idly by watching.
Government leaders are flummoxed. Either they don't know what to do or they prefer to cling tight to their autonomous authority. Regrettably it seems that not one government has any intention of giving up the grip they have on the current and severely unbalanced and class based global structure that has made so many destitute, war torn, jobless and quite simply miserable.
The bottom line is that 1) it is time for those in government to shape up or ship out and 2) people need to educate themselves (without cable news and political talking points - I'm thinking books and the library here) about what really will help them live a better life - economically, socially and politically.
Today's vastly selfish and warring policies are not solving the world's woes. It time for all of us to be innovative, educated and cooperative in looking for new ways to bring a better life and world to all.
No one says it is easy to change ourselves or our governance systems. In fact, no one can change you, that has to be your own doing. However our governance can be changed by us and since national governments probably won't be going away anytime soon, it is time to break up the bureaucracy and figure out how to implement a more cooperative comprehensive integrated system that focuses more on people and communities. A good start would be to encourage more engagement and diplomacy and less coercion and war.
Governments are internally polarized and set up to create their own self-aggrandizing bubbles. You have each ministry or department organized to specifically target a need -- defense, diplomacy, treasury, commerce and the like. The difference today is that all of these sectors are increasingly interconnected and no policy can be implemented without affecting the other. Therefore we need lawmakers and advisers who understand, or are capable of teaching themselves, the complexities of issues while evaluating potential national and international impacts.
This often means that one must be creative and ready to try new and often controversial tools to manage the impact of current day situations like the world financial crisis. Governments need teams and people who can work together to solve and mange problems -- outside of political nonsense -- not those who sit around posturing for their own personal fame on party lines.
People are reclaiming their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it would behoove governments to catch up. Be forewarned -- if you all don't, other leaders will (and are) emerge (ing) to help people redesign the governments they want. Ones who will represent and work for them, ones who want win-win solutions because they know decisions globally affect millions of people locally and vise versa.
Wake up governments, this is a worldwide insurgency. It's your choice to embrace it or go down with the likes of Hosni Mubarak -- kicking and screaming. Now is the time to put authoritarianism, not to mention politics and partisanship aside, open your mind, and find a new way forward. One that includes not some of the people some of the time, but all of the people all of the time.
]]>Netanyahu and the U.S. Congress: A Love Festtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8667642011-05-26T10:45:32-04:002011-07-26T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
However since Israel is, according to Netanyahu, the "only thing right thing in the Middle East," Congress continues to listen and smile. This is ironic because of his complete irreverence for U.S. policy, interests and arrogant behavior toward them and the U.S. president.
Israel's government did not even hesitate to defy the president. Minutes after Obama's speech about a long awaited agreement on borders, Israel's government announced a massive expansion of two settlements in East Jerusalem's much disputed territory. I truly believe Netanyahu now knows the real truth -- a two state solution is no solution. The peace process has been over for sometime and his speech to the U.S. Congress solidified that.
The Prime Minister's words were purely a charade. Of course Israel is more than happy to enter peace agreements with the entire Arab world as long as the agreements have nothing to do with Palestinians and are on Israel's terms. Despite this and the fact that U.S. policy was completely dismissed, the American Congress showed its approval through an endless standing ovation. As Nancy Pelosi said, "if the Congress agrees on one thing, it is Israel."
Israel will continue to get its over $3 billion a year so that it can buy more weapons, it will continue to get its debts paid courtesy of the Cranston Amendment and it will continue to build settlements with billions of dollars of U.S. loan guarantees ($10 billion approved in 1992 over 5 years and another $9 billion in 2003). In fact, despite Israel's announcement of new settlements post President Obama's speech, the U.S. has announced that its foreign military financing will be increased. Nothing like being rewarded for bad behavior.
Overall, as of 2005, the U.S. has given Israel more than $154 billion in economic and military assistance. That number is considerably higher when you take into account all the special circumstances the country is afforded as well as other monies appropriated including $1.6 billion to build housing solely for Israelis. If only Americans who recently lost their homes due to the financial crisis would have received the same courtesy.
As Netanyahu professes, Israel is the only democracy "in a region where gays are hanged and women are stoned." However apparently there is nothing wrong with bulldozing houses, using white phosphorus on children or blockading people so they starve.
After declaring that Israel does not need America's help with nation building or American troops on their soil (although he is perfectly happy that America continues to be Israel's benefactor), Netanyahu had no problem demanding that America use American tools, and our soldiers, to pacify Iran. Iran must not build nuclear weapons, but there is no reason Israel shouldn't have nukes or fail to declare them. Israel is always the exception to its own rules.
The Israeli government continues to reserve the right to do as it pleases despite U.S. policy or human suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis. And further, unlike any American constituency, it has the complete and total bi-partisan support, politically and financially, of the U.S. Congress. Both governments apparently agree that peace lies not with the body who purportedly has democracy, a massive military and a robust economy, but in the hands of those being subject to, yes, colonialism, control and repression and quite simply have no way of governing a partitioned non-State.
As Netanyahu said, there are over 650,000 Israelis settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank. All of which are going nowhere. He also reminded Congress that there is "an America beyond the beltway." It would do him to revisit that statement, because there is a world beyond Israel as well and it is changing rapidly. It is one that supports a new dynamic where people are demanding freedom, justice and civil rights while moving away from Hezbollah and Hamas not to them. Instead of seeing this and how both those organizations are entering the mainstream just to survive, Netanyahu is holding on to years of entrenched fears.
Netanyahu and his friends in Congress fail to see that this movement, now being termed the Arab Spring, is one that challenges the current prejudiced system and its status quo. Therefore he should not be professing Israel's "profound debt of gratitude" for those who are hanging tight to what is instead of what can be. He should be wary of them. As President Obama said, "societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder."
It would serve Israel and its leadership much better, and the U.S. Congress for that matter, to heed President Obama's message and join the regional movement beyond war. After all true security is never achieved through weapons and force, it is engagement, diplomacy and strong relationships that truly ensure a sustainable future and ultimately a secure one.
]]>Israel: Your Last Chance Is Nowtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8636852011-05-18T16:27:27-04:002011-07-18T05:12:01-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/Nakba Day when the Palestinians remember the exodus of their people and the loss of a State due to the unilateral declaration of Israel. On that day, Israel found itself in the same position as Syria's Bashar Al-Assad and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi -- firing at peaceful demonstrations and killing unarmed civilians.
These civilians were decedents of the Nakba, Palestinian refugees who have spent their lives in overcrowded refugee camps. They want to go home and they want their voices to be heard by Israel. So off they went on a march toward the Israeli border. Refugees from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were on the move and Israeli's soldiers punished them for it. Many were wounded and several lost their lives.
Despite the fact that these young men and women were slain before they even got close to the border, Israel was intent on making itself out to be the victim. It complained to the United Nations, an entity that it does not even respect that Lebanon and Syria should be held accountable for violating its sovereignty taking no responsibility for their own lethal actions.
The real strategy for Israel should have been to allow the protesters to reach the border, hold them there and protect their right for peaceful demonstrations. What was obvious though is that Israel is incapable of protecting peaceful protests; it has become much too comfortable instead with solely firing weapons.
Force was used to create the refugee situation and force continues to be the action of choice. Unfortunately for Israel it has done nothing but make the Palestinian people fight harder for their rights and self-determination. Israel must now face the truth. The 63-year experiment to displace a group of people in favor of a theocratic state just isn't working.
Those who marched on Nakba Day, in the territories and out, are reflecting the greater regional discontent with government repression. In this case, Israel is not an exception. No state will remain viable while millions of people are dominated, marginalized or occupied. It is time for change and, more importantly in Israel's case, peace.
As the dictators of the region tremble, two have come to Washington to try to convince the U.S., again, that they will pledge loyalty in lieu of democracy just to survive. His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are making that case for continued support. The difference now is that it is not in America's interest to invest in either.
U.S. interests are only served if King Abdullah and the Gulf monarchies stop pandering to the extremist and chose democracy, opportunities and freedoms for the people. As for Israel, it is in America's interest and theirs to do the same. Building a wall or murdering unarmed protester is not the answer. The world at large understands this as well.
It won't be long before a group of countries join the Palestinians in their own unilateral declaration of a State. In fact, this is sure to take place in the United Nations in the next few months. Israel should join this movement and be the first to declare a Palestinian State and invest itself in the States success, not, as it has in the past, await disaster.
Israel is one of the top 50 most prosperous states. There is no reason why it can't move forward and share its knowledge with the Palestinians helping to train those who govern, develop infrastructure and lay the foundation for a solid economy. It is not a competition for dominance nor is it zero-sum; it is a necessary camaraderie for mutual advantage and existence.
Further there is no reason to start dumping arms in Palestine. There are enough in the region already. In fact regional disarmament should be a priority. Why not use the plethora of Israeli arms to form a regional alliance for protection of peoples and resources to move toward abundance and wealth, which is much better than constantly vying for annihilation of the other.
The right of return must be addressed and reparations for confiscation of homes and land are essential. There are plenty of ways to tackle this. Work out a division plan to allow returnees to move into the settlements instead of destroying them, develop and implement economic and urban reconstruction plans so that Palestinians have a place to return to encouraging all to live and become members of their communities. If Jewish settlers choose to remain, they like their Palestinian counterparts in Israel will live under that States laws. And resource distribution is vital, Israel must recognize this especially since they own so little, but have the knowledge to disseminate it fairly.
Finally, each must have their own capitol city while Jerusalem becomes an international center for all people of all religions. A place to celebrate the steps toward inclusion and ultimately setting a precedent for no longer tolerating discrimination or unjust treatment, displacement or genocide against those who are not like you.
There is no denying that when individuals see positive change, their views of hopelessness change. When diplomacy and relationship building is implemented, resorting to war becomes an afterthought not a reflexive action. This is the only way.
Israel must take the initiative now. It is its last chance. If it does not it will be destined for one of two outcomes -- a one-state solution (which would in the end benefit everyone the most) or no state. Because when people cannot move beyond fear and war they will inevitably and, more frighteningly, unconsciously fail to see that they have set themselves on a path to destruction.
]]>Just Egypt? Or World Insurgency?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8170192011-02-02T13:34:51-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/said it in his Cairo speech: "tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations." Further, he should have added, this continued through the West's worldwide support of dictators that robbed the people of their rights, livelihoods and resources.
All too many examples of abuse and corrupt practices have led to the current events across the globe, most notably the daily events we are seeing in Egypt.
Egypt's people reached a tipping point. What has now become a national revolution is a real time example of the global frustration over The Great Game, which is unfortunately not limited to, as its often noted, Afghanistan.
Although we may not want to acknowledge it, groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda are a result of colonial and Cold War policies noted in Obama's speech. All this redrawing boundaries and playing with people's nationalities and religions has taken its toll.
This uprising, which is reaching beyond Tunisia and Egypt to Jordan, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon, is not limited to the Arab World. We have been witnessing it just about everywhere, albeit piecemeal.
In Iran, there is the Green Revolution protesting the Ayatollahs. Here in the US, we have seen the Tea Party make inroads in Congress because they are angry at partisan pettiness and special interests that have led to an absence of governance. In Europe, there have been riots in France due to discrimination and unrest in Ireland because the collapse of the financial markets left them broke. The Spanish government fell because the people wanted their military out of Iraq. In Africa, Asia and South America you can find gatherings of people who are demonstrating against tyrants purported to be Prime Ministers or Presidents doing anything but working for them. Worldwide we see social media, blogging, and Twitter used to organize movements against governments that are silencing voices or prohibiting freedoms.
Populations are frustrated. Lines between rich and poor deepen while big business and international banks help themselves to resources and wealth without repercussion. Western leadership all too often supports dictators, helping them stay in power despite corruption and abuses.
Small countries have little power to change their situation, to survive they band together or succumb to Western pressure to fall in line with Western rule. The US itself is content with the illusion that ignoring events like Egypt and keeping President's like Mubarak will sustain its hegemonic control.
Countless weapons sales, unwarranted torture and arrests and abject poverty have all contributed to current events. As has the western fear of eastern democracy.
Egypt has shown that allowing populations to play their part in change has silenced the extremists. Yet, the US and others did not know how to trust. Instead, they helped Israel lead the coup against Hamas and continue to cut ties with Lebanon due to political participation by Hezbollah. You would think events like Egypt would help them learn. Instead, Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Saudi's King Abdullah get unlimited support despite their continued human rights abuses. This also holds true for the powers in Columbia, Rwanda, Indonesia, Uganda and the People's Republic of Congo.
Despite all the efforts to ignore the masses or keep them ignorant and in check, the insurgency has begun. The Tunisian and Lebanese governments are gone and those from Egypt, of course, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen are not far behind. There are even rumors of Syria's Assad getting ready for a similar movement in Syria. If the US would have only waited, it could have saved trillions because it is fairly sure that Iraq would have followed.
The Great Game of world hegemony must stop. We need a new system. One that goes beyond the fight to control other governments, economies, forces and people. It is time to learn from others like Turkey who are showing new ways of engagement and statecraft based on understanding and sharing, not overtaking and dismissing others interests.
Instead of asking the rest of the world to catch up to the West, it is time for the West to take part in the changes that are being led by the rest of the world. Led by the millions in Egypt who also want the American dream of opportunity and prosperity.
Dictators and royals alike must be our past not our future. Global government must be staffed with those who care. Therefore enabling the world to feed itself, prohibiting the desecration of the environment, educating the masses to participate and standing together against the ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities.
Egypt is an example we should not just watch but respond to. The West must stand up and support the end of Mubarak's reign. It should take a break from providing arms and financial aid to authoritarian regimes. Finally, the world should declare a movement of solidarity with not only the Egyptians but also all people who deserve better.
As Obama said, "We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning." Let us tap into that courage and support a new beginning for a democratically free and peaceful Egypt as well as for the rest of the world.
]]>A Missed Opportunity at the State Departmenttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7985932010-12-19T17:01:30-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Patricia DeGennarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/
To State's credit, the review says all the right things about reducing reliance on contractors, empowering Chiefs of Party, working on "smart power," and evaluating and increasing accountability standards. Yet these are hardly novel observations, especially to those of us who have worked in the field for years.
Of course, new ideas are not necessarily good ideas. The report fails to put forward any specific strategies for achieving its objectives, even though they represent widely-held consensus positions. Worst of all, the review shies away from State's most urgent need: increased funding from Congress, without which it will be impossible to accomplish the report's recommendations.
The QDDR is a missed opportunity to honestly and candidly address some fundamental dilemmas. First and foremost, State -- like many other federal bureaucracies -- must downsize and reorganize. Doing so will require making some hard choices. The department will have to let some people go. In the words of Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, the State Department has become "a jobs program." It employs too many Beltway veterans and political appointees, who in turn fill too many positions with friends and supporters. This kind of soft patronage will never completely disappear -- nor should it. But the practice diminishes America's ability to revolutionize its diplomatic corps and prevents talent from outside the foreign-policy establishment from making potentially valuable contributions.
Partly as a result of these self-inflicted wounds, State is frequently sidelined in the policymaking process. Consider the limited role State plays in making Afghanistan and Pakistan regional policy. The late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (may he rest in peace) was unquestionably a brilliant diplomat. Yet it was well known that he was struggling in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly owing to the fact that he felt it necessary to create his own little "Af-Pak" policymaking fiefdom, disconnected from the diplomatic corps. Had Secretary of State Clinton been put of charge of the Afghanistan/Pakistan portfolio -- as she should have been -- she would have been able to draw on State's deep bench of regional experts instead of having to reinvent the wheel. Given the complexity of that portfolio, it's impossible to say for sure whether Clinton would have fared better than Holbrooke -- though it's hard to imagine she would have fared any worse.
Perhaps the QDDR's most valuable contribution is the portrait it provides of an American foreign-policy apparatus organized into strict silos, in which each agency has its own agenda and interests, its own mission and focus, and its own bureaucratic culture. The resulting competition within the system is far from healthy.
In recent years, I've made numerous research trips to Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. While officials in Washington pay lip service to cooperation and integration, interagency coordination in the field just gets progressively worse -- especially between civilian authorities and their military counterparts. This is particular true in Afghanistan, where there is no single, leading civilian agency to work in tandem with NATO and American military forces. The United Nations purports to play this role, but the reality on the ground tells us otherwise. Endless NGOs, IOs and government agencies swarm places like the Ministry for Women's Affairs, independently implementing programs without host country input, wasting time, energy and money. The military often duplicates these efforts, sometimes employing its own civilian network, creating a chaotic patchwork of development and security efforts that stymies the herculean efforts of thousands of dedicated civilian and military professionals.
With any luck, the QDDR might represent a first step in reforming the State Department. Yet since the biggest problem is a lack of interagency coordination, a review of a single department -- even one as vast and as critically important as State -- will not suffice. What's truly needed is a review of the entire foreign-policy apparatus -- a report that identifies ways to reduce counterproductive competition and encourage genuine cooperation. How long, one wonders, will we have to wait for that?
"Everyone talks about it. The 'situation.'" That, Emma Williams explains, is how both Israelis and Palestinians refer to the 60-plus years of violence that has ensued since the unilateral declaration of the Jewish state, and the ongoing displacement and occupation of the Palestinian people.
In her extraordinary first book, It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street: A Jerusalem Memoir, Williams manages to capture the human suffering on both sides of this conflict by living in the "situation" and not ignoring its frightening circular impact on the parties. Her honest accounts of the impact of suicide bombings on Israeli society juxtaposed with Israel's nonstop pounding of Palestinians under occupation leaves you breathlessly grappling with the sheer magnitude of this pointless violence.
Israelis and Palestinians have both fallen victim to what seems to be a spiraling destruction of themselves. "We were happy. It was just the situation, living alongside two extraordinary peoples who were bent on killing each other. Except," says Williams, "they weren't all. The killing was being driven by the few."
Williams, an Oxford-educated medical doctor, wife and mother of four, begins her story as she moves to Jerusalem with her husband Andrew Gilmour, a United Nations official, in the summer of 2000. Peace still seemed a distinct possibility, says Williams, until "on 28 September, Ariel Sharon came marching in" on the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif, and triggered what is now known as the second Palestinian "Intifada" or uprising. Sharon himself rejected the notion that his visit was the provocation that set Palestinian passions aflame, but Williams points out: "You can believe what you like of the legends and whispers and mysteries, but you cannot underestimate the significance of the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif for millions of Jews and hundreds of millions of Muslims."
Williams goes on to explain that Sharon's true goal was to provoke an end to the Camp David accords and Oslo peace agreement -- an affront to both the Palestinians negotiating in good faith, and the Israeli opposition Labor party, who now looked like they were negotiating with nothing more than a thuggish counterpart.
But such was the nature of the Ariel-Sharon-driven Second Intifada, that Israelis were denied a clear picture of the people they occupied. Says Williams: "IDF officers sometimes confided that they dreaded a well-coordinated mass campaign of non-violence above any form of resistance: Palestinians were not supposed to look moderate, reasonable."
Instead, the indoctrination was relentless. Living as a Westerner in Jerusalem, Williams noticed that Israelis "no longer saw them (Palestinians) -- literally and figuratively." When IDF combat units blasted through walls of homes "searching, arresting, looting, beating, and blasting out again to do the same to the next family... we were told that 'terrorist nests' were being rooted out."
Each page reveals unacceptable injustices toward Palestinians, the pain of the Israelis -- and yet the asymmetry in this conflict is startling. Israelis seem utterly clueless about the havoc their occupation wreaks, and then shocked when the violence spins their way.
Shortly after Emma's arrival in Jerusalem, Palestinian resistance groups started a massive campaign of suicide bombings in Israel in retaliation for the assassinations of their leaders, many of them moderates. As one Israeli mother tells Williams: "Look what happens every time we assassinate one of their leaders -- more violence, more suicide bombings." She blames a handful of Jews diaspora for pushing Israelis "to hit them (Palestinians) harder and harder 'until they learn.' 'You must do this,' they rant from far away, 'whatever the costs.'" But the costs, she says "are the lives of my children."
Per chance, I was in Jerusalem directly before the second Palestinian intifada. I can remember palpably feeling the tension between Israelis and Palestinians. Although most residents at the time felt a breakthrough toward the establishment of a two-state solution was still possible, my observations told me otherwise. Settlements continued. Young Jewish men, newly emigrated from America, sat on chairs in front of Palestinian homes trying to intimidate the owners. The soon to be Prime Minister Sharon's home was firmly wedged in the middle of Arab East Jerusalem, in defiance of the very concept of ending the occupation and exchanging land for peace.
Most startling was the project in West Jerusalem near the Wailing Wall. The Israeli government spent days expanding the wall under scores of Palestinian houses that were directly above. You could see the floorboards of their homes as you walked through the tunnel of expansion. As Williams notes consistently through the book, "What could they do?" In my opinion, the situation was clearly counterintuitive to peace. Just weeks before Prime Minister Sharon's provocations, I recall telling an Israeli friend the situation was about to blow. A few days later it did.
And the peacemaking politics were not much better. As a backdrop to her story, Williams describes an increasingly intransigent Israeli negotiating position trying to wrangle out of commitments to UN resolutions, while their partners on the other side -- the fresh-from-exile "Tunis Crowd," possibly the worst negotiators the Mideast has ever seen -- jockeyed for mere crumbs.
It is hard for many of us to imagine living in a land that is so clearly divided between peoples. The strain of occupation, roadblocks, and military containment gave birth to reprisals that cast an entire population as "terrorists" and people who don't value life. But death, horror and destruction don't recognize nationality or religion. War happening all around, land confiscations, no access to food, deliberate electricity and water deprivation, and young, sick children and birthing mothers denied healthcare because the Israeli Defense Forces won't permit them to travel to hospitals. People continuing to be displaced. The reality is that the endless violence preys on everyone -- the old and the young, the healthy and the sick, and the men and women, the Palestinian and the Israeli, the occupier and the occupied; all of whom are simply trying to get on.
Williams captures it all through her own experiences living on both sides of that fence. She describes her frustration waiting in line at "yet another checkpoint" to get to her job in the West Bank or to drive her Palestinian nanny home. And she should know. This brave, crazy Englishwoman gave birth to her fourth child in the midst of the Intifada -- in a Bethlehem hospital still under siege by Israeli soldiers.
At one point, I truly had to close the book and walk away from it for a while; the reality of people's lives became so frightening. Williams on her way to a prenatal checkup is, as always, forced to go through a checkpoint in Bethlehem, a Palestinian town under containment by the IDF. In the queue, she watched the young Russian immigrants who were now Israeli soldiers allowing or denying the sick access to the only hospital, and the elderly denied the right to go to their places of worship to pray.
Directly ahead of Williams was a Palestinian woman, also noticeably pregnant, trying to pass through the checkpoint in order to see a doctor: "She offered her papers and her appointment card... Dennis [the soldier] was unmoved, and motioned with one circling finger for her to turn around. She complied, wordless." There was no logic, no reason. Williams asked why the soldiers had refused to let the woman through: "Challenged, he looked mildly embarrassed. 'How do I know she's pregnant?' he said, bolstering himself. 'Everyone's fat around here.'"
The irony of the checkpoints, Williams notes, is that "this was not about security. Even the IDF said checkpoints didn't work." The real reason, she says, is that checkpoints "close down lives: waiting, each car, long enough to be searched and then not searched, just made to wait, to gnaw with frustration day after day, twice a day."
The doctor knows she can walk away from it and return to England or New York. But Palestinians will have to continue to endure. Williams left Jerusalem in 2006, and the "situation" continues to spiral downward. "Is it too much to hope that the situation will be addressed at last?" she asks.
If you read one book on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, read this one. You get a good dose of the politics and history of the past and present, but woven through it all is the humanity of both Palestinians and Israelis, through the eyes of an exceptionally gifted observer. In the end, Williams is right on target when she says:
As long as it remains easier to reach heaven than the end of the street -- or field, or school or hospital or the next-door village, let alone Jerusalem, the City of God -- then no security measure yet devised will stop people seeking a gruesome short cut to end their hell on earth.
