It would be my first blog on the great transformation taking place in the Arab World, and it is a transformation long overdue. What’s happening is not a freak moment in history but it is rather a natural reaction to what has been a long suppression of Arabs by other fortunate Arab oligarchs and bands of opportunists. Leaders, they were not. I remember when Omar Suleiman, the supposed Vice President of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, announced the latter’s resignation; I screamed of joy, I was ecstatic. It can happen! It just happened! I said to myself; Arabs can remove a president if that president betrays their trust, if he deprives them from basic dignity and freedoms. It first happened in Tunisia, but it was fast and it surprised everyone, even intelligence agencies that were supposed to be intelligent in gathering intelligence were unprepared for what was brewing. We did not it see it unfold day-by–day in Tunisia, Zine-Albidine Ben Ali rushed and fled the country, leaving everyone in a state of shock. I remember listening to the prophets of CNN and MSNBC dismissing rumors of contagion of this small revolution. They were wrong; the symptoms for the political and economic ills of Tunisia were prevalent in all Arab countries, hence, the revolution spread from the Atlantic to the Gulf, shaking the throne of some kings and toppling the self-appointed king of kings Muammar Qaddafi.
Egypt, January 25th, 2010 I was home all day glued to my TV watching Aljazeera Arabic. Hoping for a repeat, I see the hallmarks, but I am not sure. I read books describing revolutions of past history but I’ve never lived during or witnessed one, will the Egyptians do what their neighbors did two weeks before them, I have to stay tuned, I am. Every time Hosni Mubarak appears on TV, I say, this is it, only to have my hopes dashed and despair overtake me. During the three weeks, starting January 25th a struggle was taking place between the forces of the despot and the forces of the common weal. Sunday through Thursday momentum subsides and remains so until Friday, bringing another meaning to TGI Fridays, when the Egyptians come out in force after Friday prayers to demand the removal of the regime.
Egyptians did remove the regime, so did the Libyans, but with a heavy price. Moroccan compromised for greater transparency and accountability to the Parliament and elected representatives of the people. Yemenis deposed of the head of the regime but not the regime. Gulf countries bought the people’s hearts and tolerance of the regimes with an expensive and expansive social safety net. The Libyans suffered huge number of fatalities in their quest for freedom. Freedom has a price. Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he miscalculated, had he shown mercy to his people and spared them the months of bombing and killing by mercenaries, they could’ve been reciprocal toward him after his capture. Alas, as the common wisdom taught us: you reap what you sow. Arrogance is blinding. Wittingly or unwittingly, Bashar El-Assad is following in Gadhafi’s footsteps, believing that mass murder will save his dynasty.
Bashar El-assad is betting on the strategic alliance his country has with the republic of Iran and the complex make-up of the sectarian allegiances in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Middle East have seen the disastrous consequences of a civil war in Iraq, and it is trying by all means to avoid a repeat of such a scenario that could engulf the region. Russia will try it’s hardest not to break with its last ally in the Middle East. If the regime in Syria falls, Russia will lose its last totalitarian friend in the region. The people of Syria, however, are betting on their determination and the tectonic movements around them. Just like no one has predicted the spontenous start of these revolutions, no one can foretell how will they end. One year on, The transformation is still progress.

Shpoonkle is an international legal reverse auction free site and is quickly becoming a global leader in centralizing a free legal marketplace. Our company offers a wide range of services designed to empower people through Shpoonkle – aiming at aiding attorneys and clients, any time, any place, and on any device. Shpoonkle is not a referral service. The services on the site are currently free to both Attorneys and Clients.

Continue Reading

By Aamir Qureshi for MSNBC

Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States fears he will be murdered if he leaves the sanctuary of the prime minister’s official residence after he was branded a “Washington lackey” and a “traitor,” according to a new interview.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph newspaper, Husain Haqqani said that “certain powerful quarters” in Pakistan — the paper said this was a reference to the country’s ISI intelligence agency — were behind the claims against him.

Haqqani is at the center of a scandal that threatens to topple Pakistan’s government over an alleged request to the U.S. to help stop a coup by the army, following the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

In October, a U.S. businessman of Pakistani origin, Mansoor Ijaz, wrote an article for the Financial Times newspaper claiming Haqqani had written a memo to U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, who was then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, supposedly promising to replace Pakistan’s national security hierarchy with people favorable to the U.S. in exchange for help in reining in the military.

Ijaz, who claimed he had been asked to convey the message to Mullen, further alleged that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari supported the move. The Financial Times operates behind a paywall, but Ijaz also wrote an article for Pakistan’s The News in November describing his allegations.

‘Hysteria’
Both Zardari and Haqqani denied Ijaz’s claims, but Haqqani subsequently resigned.

“I’m a guest of the prime minister (Yousuf Raza Gilani) with whom I have had a long-standing political association. There are clear security concerns given the hysteria generated against me. Staying at the prime minister’s house is the safest option,” Haqqani told the Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday.

“My good friend Salman Taseer (the late governor of Punjab) was killed by a security guard because he heard in the media that the governor had blasphemed. I’m being called a traitor and an American lackey in the media with the clear encouragement of certain powerful quarters even though I’ve not been charged legally with anything,” he added.

He said that he had left the prime minister’s house twice, once to go to court and another time to visit the dentist because he had toothache.

“The president and prime minister are firmly standing behind me and the government is not going anywhere. This is psychological warfare against the government,” he told the Telegraph.

In December, Zardari, who was married to former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, said people should pay tribute to her memory by guarding against anti-democratic conspiracies, an apparent reference to tensions over the memo scandal.

He said his wife’s death was also a conspiracy against Pakistani democracy.

“I therefore urge all the democratic forces and the patriotic Pakistanis to foil all conspiracies against democracy and democratic institutions,” said Zardari in a statement sent to reporters.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistanis, United States Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Husain Haqqani, Memogate, Mike Mullen, Pakistan, Pakistanis, PPP, United States, Yousuf Raza Gilani

The U.S. formally ended the Iraq War today. As The New York Times reports:

Almost nine years after the first American tanks began massing on the Iraq border, the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission here, closing a troubled conflict that helped reshape American politics and left a bitter legacy of anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world [...] For Americans, the ceremony on Thursday marked an uneasy moment of closure, with no clear sense of what has been won and lost.

Lasting nearly a decade and claiming close to five thousand American lives, the war became for many a Rorschach test of the U.S. role in the world. There are millions of people in the world whose first thought when asked to describe America is that we are a country that invades other countries, and Iraq is the premier example. The war was controversial from the start, a war of choice meant to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. When those weapons failed to be found, U.S. motives were further questioned (some said it was always about the oil) and the war was recast as an effort to promote democracy. Even as U.S. forces withdraw, the war remains controversial, with some expressing concerns about a precipitous withdrawal and others defending the withdrawal as prudent.

I suspect that the war was never about weapons of mass destruction, oil or democracy. It was about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. It was about Hussein trying to assassinate George H.W. Bush and the former president’s son deciding that simply would not stand. Hussein had good reason to expect a covert attempt to remove him from power as soon as George W. was inaugurated, though he probably never imagined such an overt attempt as a massive land invasion. The 9/11 attack created a “permissive environment” in which the exercise of American power in the context of removing a dictator-behaving-badly was well within the bounds of the “new normal,” but I’m not sure it would have mattered. Bush would likely have found a way to remove Saddam from power one way or another. One could make the case that the attempt by a foreign government to assassinate a sitting or former American president constitutes an act of war. Sadly, that case was never made, at least, not in public.

Historians will debate the causes of the war for many years to come. What can’t be debated is the outstanding performance of the U.S. military. The all-volunteer force demonstrated once again that our soldiers will answer the call to duty, even when it means serving in far off lands. The greatest mistakes of the war (sending too few troops and disbanding the Iraqi army) were made by administrators, while military leaders found innovative ways of working with Iraqi tribal and sectarian leaders (the Awakening Councils) and imbedding troops in local communities, strategies that went a long way toward stabilizing Iraq. As our troops return home we can be justifiably proud of their service and sacrifice. They removed a dictator from power and gave Iraq a democratic government – now let’s see if they can keep it.

And finally, let’s return to that idea of Iraq as a Rorschach test of the U.S. role in the world. Yes, the U.S. invaded another country without having first been attacked. Yes, we removed the leader from power and then carelessly crushed all the social institutions that could have provided order, setting the stage for a violent sectarian and tribal bloodletting. That is all true. But we also worked over years, sacrificing lives and treasure, to rebuild what had been destroyed. If a Rorschach test can reveal many different perspectives then my hope is that history will note the negative while focusing on the positive and conclude that the U.S. ultimately did more good than harm and set Iraq on a path to being a prosperous and free country.

Photo Credit: MSNBC