Talks in the Middle East may indicate a shift in foreign policy doctrine:

• U.S.-Iran “talks:” The U.S. is considering establishing limited diplomatic ties with Iran.
• Israel Negotiates:  A cease-fire with Hamas and a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah.
• Syria engaged:  Europe opens up to Syria and Israel conducts indirect talks.

It seems that there is a paradigm shift occurring amongst many of the Western nations, especially the United States and Israel.  These nations could be experiencing an “ah-ha” moment in foreign policy doctrine.  The paradigm that has been the driving force behind most of American and Western foreign policy for the better half of the 20th and all of the 21st century may be evolving.  We could be witnessing a change from containment to engagement, from isolation to openness.

A foreign policy doctrine based on engagement could do well to combat the global threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism.  Perhaps the best way to undermine Islamic extremism is by undermining their base of support by engaging the regions that they operate and flourish in, instead of isolating them in hopes of internal collapse.  I suppose the greatest question of our time is whether Islamic extremism is a real confronting idea, so much that it challenges the authority and supremacy of liberalism?  I have a hard time believing that it is a real challenge; I see it more as a nuisance — but a very powerful one, nonetheless.  Powerful enough to eradicate an entire city if given the proper resources.  A prudent shift in foreign policy could prove an adequate preventative measure.

Is this the right move?  I think so.  The policy of containment is an anachronistic policy of the the Cold War, whose efficacy was questionable then, even though the Iron Curtain fell.  Furthmore, the world in which we live operates much differently than it did in the 1970s.  We don’t live in a bi-polar world anymore.  We live in a world with one really strong power (the U.S.), a multitude of other strong powers, and the rest (who are rising).  A policy which seeks to disrupt the internal structure of states by strategically cordoning them off and neglecting to participate in peaceful, engagmed talks to settle differences will not work in a world of many powers.  Hopefully a foreign policy shift amongst the West will lead to more sound statecraft and better diplomacy in a uni-multipolar world (to use Hunington’s phrase).

A recent deal between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah arranged for the swap of five Lebanese prisoners for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006 at the Lebanon-Israel border by Hezbollah.  The two Israeli soldiers were capture, upon order by Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, to be used as bargaining chips to free Lebanese from jail — the move apparently worked.

The Israelies, today, buried the remains of the two soldiers returned:  Sfc. Ehud Goldwasser and Ssg. Eldad Regev.  The exchange is important for Israel.  The Jewish population in Israel places great significance on the “Jewish family.”  The return of the soldiers, even if they are not alive, is of great religious and symbolic significance to Israel’s Jews.

One of the Lebanese prisoners released was Samir Kuntar.  Samir was 16-years-old when he was arrested by Israeli authorities for the killing of an Israeli police officer, a woman, and a child.  He is now 46-years-old, and a Lebanese national celebrity.  The release of Samir, and the other four prisoners, is seen as a political triumph for Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Lebanese held a homecoming celebration for the five prisoners with a banner in the background that read “God’s Achievement through our Hands.”

The victories for Hezbollah continue.  Less than a week following the deal, Hezbollah reached another milestone.  They gained veto power over government decisions in the Lebanese government by increasing their representation in the cabinet.  Moreover, the entire government of Lebanon — Parliament and Prime Minister — backed Hezbollah’s negotiation efforts with Israel.

Interestingly enough, in Lebanon, Hezbollah carries more political influence than the formal government in Beirut does.  Samir, the prisoner described above, is a Druze — one of the most influential religious sects in Lebanon; his release only adds to the credibility of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The primary reason given by Israel for negotiating with Hezbollah was that a prisoner exchange would remove some of the issues that Hezbollah uses to justify keeping weapons — namely, the retention of Lebanese prisoners.  The Israeli government also acknowledges that fact that the ability to negotiate with Lebanon means dealing with Hezbollah — directly, if need be.  Shortly after the release, Sheik Nassarah vowed his support for a negotiated settlement of disputed territory between Israel and Lebanon; a gesture seen by many as a sign of good faith.

At first glance, this deal seems extremely lopsided — five “live” prisoners for two dead ones, what kind of deal is that? I must admit, when I first read about the negotiation I frowned a bit; the trade seemed ridiculous.  However, after I looked into the event a bit I began to understand the diplomatic motive.

Israel has recognized two things:

1.  They cannot “defeat” or “destroy” Hezbollah or the broader grassroots intifada-style movement.  The 1982 and 2006 invasions of Lebanon has forced Israel to reassess their foreign policy.  Israel cannot base its relations with its Arab Muslim neighbors according to a right-wing-hawk, Likud policy.  The only way to bring issues to settlement is by negotiation

2.  Hezbollah is undergoing a social and political transformation — they are a recognized and powerful bloc in the Lebanese government.  If Israel wants to pursue peace and reconciliation with its neighbors, it will require them to engage with groups like Hezbollah.

The deal, if nothing else, is symbolically important, in that it formally recognizes diplomatic ties between two contentious factions.  It also indicates that Israel no longer views Hezbollah as a nonnegotiable and illegitimate non-state actor.  These two factors will hopefully mend ill relations between the two groups, help to rein in hostilities, and set the platform for further political reconciliation and negotiation.

Furthermore, Israel has a unique opportunity to redefine the way in which nation-states deal with militant (state and non-state) actors.  Hezbollah is considered by America as a terrorist organization, thus precluding any chance at real political negotiation.  For once in a long while, I am agreeing with Israeli foreign policy.  What’s next?  Negotiation with Iran — ha, right.

I detest hot weather.  It’s too hot for jogging, one can’t legitimately drink hot drinks without confessing to a  caffeine addiction,  and my extensive scarf collection goes to waste.  But even more than all of these things, I hate it when people turn their air conditioning on so high that I get cold inside!  What do I wear when I leave the house: something that’s comfortable for the outside or the inside?  What does it say about our nation that I’ve taken to carrying sweaters with me in steamy Tallahassee, Florida, in July?

I would like to proudly publish here that our own thermostat at home rarely goes below 83.  At night, we use ceiling fans and a box fan in our respective rooms to stay nice and cool.  Yes, it gets rather too warm sometimes, but it saves a lot on utilities.  A recent article in Time by Joe Klein proposed that everyone immediately adjust their thermostats up 5 degrees in the summer and down 5 degrees in the winter.  If everybody in the country did this, we’d save roughly 20% of our energy devoted to heating and cooling.  Granted, put together that’s only about 11% of our energy expenditure, but it’s a relatively small sacrifice for individuals to make.  Additionally, that’s something we can all do right now, even though the dreaded GWB is still in office.

Klein claims that in 2006, the US spent 4 quadrillion BTUs on AC, which is more than the total energy usage of all but 21 countries.

So, what’s your thermostat set on?

And, anybody got any more suggestions for living greener?

(Coming soon: the case against frequent showering…….Gotcha.)

It is a very interesting national phenomenon that many Obama supporters are challenging the notion that Barack Obama’s middle name is a political liability.  Over 500 have joined this Facebook group called “My Middle Name is Hussein, Too.”  The members of the group and many others from the social networking site agreed to change their Facebook middle names to be Hussein to celebrate Obama’s birthday on August 4.  Daily Kos posted an article called “We Are All Hussein,” in which the author said that he was “sick of Republicans pronouncing Barack Obama’s name like it was some sort of cuss word. It is a national embarrassment that American political discourse stretches so far to the extremes of xenophobia and puerility that a candidate’s name can become an object of propaganda.”  By far, though, the biggest amount of publicity that this grassroots effort has received came from this New York Times article, “Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own.”

If you want to join the effort, join the Facebook event above and change your middle name to Hussein.  Also, you can join this Flikr group and post a photo like the one to the right with you holding this sign that reads “My Middle Name is HUSSEIN.”

Although these efforts are encouraging, the overall national trend of ignorance and xenophobia is still astounding.  The most recent poll I could find on the issue (Pew Research, May 30) shows that 11% of the electorate believes that Obama is a Muslim.  Even more startling, 79% said that they had heard rumors to that effect, and a further 9% aren’t sure what religion he is because they have heard conflicting things.  I don’t think it would surprise anyone to learn that Americans have generally unfavorable views towards Muslims, and a Muslim would never have a chance at a national election at this point.  Perhaps someday we will become more enlightened, but until then, it is important that Obama’s supporters and staff directly confront these rumors and whisper campaigns to mislabel him as a Muslim.

-David Hussein Manes

McCain’s chances of remaining competitive in this 2008 presidential election hinge on his ability to distinguish himself from the wildly unpopular President Bush, and so far, McCain is failing miserably at overcoming this crucial obstacle.

To be fair, here is the McCain speech that most closely addresses this third term label, and you should read it for yourself.

McCain begins to fight this toxic label with this line: “I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues.” But then he provides no real distinguishing features. Two of the biggest factors that separated Bush and McCain were offshore drilling and climate change - Bush recently announced his shift to recognize climate change and fight it, and he also closed the gap with McCain by calling for an end to the ban on offshore drilling. Perhaps the only real issue that still separates the two candidates is treatment of detainees, but they have only small differences. McCain has always been a genuine opponent of torture, and I applaud him for that; however, he still agrees with Bush that blocking detainees from fair trials is good policy.

The third term tag is crucial for several reasons. First of all, it is largely true. McCain and Bush advocate similar policies on almost every single issue with few minor exceptions. Second, Obama’s campaign and its allies have latched onto this message, and it is already airing in commercials all over the country. Third, the media is giving it a lot of attention and scrutiny, and they aren’t finding cause to overturn the label. Last, the tag is taking hold with the people. A July 1 Gallup poll shows that 68% are “concerned that, as president, John McCain would pursue policies that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued.” Only 15% are not concerned about this possibility at all.

With Bush’s approval sinking below 30%, his image is in shambles. His major policies were clearly repudiated in the 2006 midterms, but McCain seems to have not picked up on that warning shot. If McCain wants to be competitive in this election, he needs to find a lot of really good and loud ways of distancing himself from the most unpopular president in modern history or else he will lose badly.

For our national and global readers, the four writers on this blog attend Harding University, a conservative Christian university located in Searcy, Arkansas and affiliated with the Church of Christ.  A quick glance at the posts on this blog should easily show that we are probably well outside the mainstream school of thought at this particular school, but we enjoy our discussions and we have all benefited greatly from our contact with a lot of great students and professors. Harding has a lot to reccomend it in terms of its personal connections.

That being said, Harding’s biggest shame has been its suppression of academic freedom that has come in the form of censorship and intimidation.  In the past, this blog has written about censorship and intimidation that has come from the administration, teachers, and school-sponsored organizations that clearly advocate a right-wing, close-minded approach to understanding religion as well as politics. It is understandable that a Christian institution would want to have certain ideological goals in mind, but it is inexcusable for an academic institution to actively suppress open dialog in favor of one-sided indoctrination.  One of the worst recent examples of this type of intellectual oppression is the apparent censorship of Dr. Mark Elrod, who runs one of the most popular blogs in Arkansas.

Dr. Elrod’s blog has attracted almost half a million viewers over the past few years, and recently, he attracted even more notoriety after an audio interview with downintheblog.com and some subsequent blog posts on the politics of gay marriage.  Evidently, not all of this attention was positive, though, and some individuals chose to complain to the Harding University administration instead of challenging any of the points made in the interview or the posts.  To its enormous shame, the Harding administration seems to value certain of its loud alumni over its obligations as a legitimate academic institution.  As a result, Dr. Elrod will be making his blog private.

Harding has a lot of qualified teachers and a lot of great people who make up its tightly-knit community.  Although it has great potential as an academic institution, Harding’s greatest shame is its disregard for academic freedom.  It is important that students learn how to think, not what to think.  If Harding truly desires to be a university, it must turn from its shameful habits of censorship and embrace the most fundamental value inherent in higher education: the value of ideas and continued discussion.

Note:  The following is an excerpt from my research proposal for my summer class:  U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century:  Dynamics of Change.  I wanted to post this to see if it could spark any beneficial discussion.  I am currently researching and writing my first 10-page draft.  Aside from the usual forum discussion, any comments could help me in my policy draft.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States found itself facing violence and chaos from two opposing religious factions – the Sunnis and the Shiites – and a northern region that is all but completely autonomous from the central government.  Despite the recent de-escalation in violence and insurgent attacks, attributed by many to the 2007 military “surge,” the core issue of a stable, viable Iraq is far from being solved.  The prospects of a multi-state solution have been marginalized in favor of a single-state Iraq.  The single-state solution, despite its support, is an anachronistic policy and should be abrogated as official nation-building policy.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East.  Borders drawn by early 20th century diplomats and politicians of Western nations have produced a convoluted geographical make-up, resulting in some of the most violent and tumultuous regions in the world.  The United States has discovered this geopolitical fact first hand in Iraqi.  Inter-ethnic conflict, a quasi-separatist northern region, and a central government lacking political authority, the U.S. is faced with an acute political dilemma that will require a change in course.

Despite its lauded success, the surge has not solved the essential issue in Iraq:  a stable and legitimate central government.  As political strategist Steven Simon identified in a recent article, the surge merely gives the illusion of political workability for the current Iraqi government; the prospect for long-term political stability in Iraq is nebulous, at best.  In order to remedy the geopolitical mess that is Iraq, the United States must seek a new course of action.

While the U.S. still holds a relatively influential position in directing the course of Iraqi politics, it should consider the political option of initiating the partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni polities, according to their religious and ethnic make-up.  The partitioned states should be loosely connected under a political federation with Baghdad serving as a shared city-state, federation capital.  It is in the interest of the geopolitical future of the Middle East and the objective set by the United States to a rebuild a stable, democratic Middle East, that a serious consideration is given to the prospect of re-drawing the archaic and incorrigible borders of the current Iraqi state.

This question may turn out to be the proverbial wrench in the engine for the Obama campaign. From the NY Times:

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday that he might “refine” his policies for Iraq after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But hours later he held a second news conference to emphasize his commitment to the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The seemingly confusing and contradictory rhetoric may appropriately illustrate the complex question facing Obama and his campaign: what happens next in Iraq? The answer isn’t as simple as it has been portrayed. Complete withdrawal, aside from being a logistical nightmare, isn’t as politically or strategically savvy as it has been made out to be.

Contrary to popular belief and even statements made by Obama himself, the likelihood of a “withdrawal” from Iraq in 16 months (as has been the standard “stump” answer given by Obama) isn’t an accurate representation of the pending reality. The concept of “pulling out of Iraq” is nothing but a game of perception. The Obama campaign is going to make it seem as if America will leave Iraq; however, the truth of the matter is that although Obama may implement a new strategy (which could include a phased reduction in troops), a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 16 months (set aside from its logistical barriers) is a political and strategic misrepresentation of what will actually happen.

What probably will happen is something similar to what I wrote about earlier this year. A transition to a “residual force” or an “over the horizon” force is one possibility. However, it is also very possible that Obama will make that claim that in order to maintain peace and security in a highly volatile region, the necessary amount of U.S. forces will be kept in Iraq — of course Obama, with his rhetorical skill, will make the comment more elegantly and in a way that will seem more accepting to those of the “pull out of Iraq” cohort in the American political society.

There is a possibility that the question of what is really going to happen in Iraq may turn into a sort of evolving standard for Obama. I’ve always sensed a certain divide between what Obama says about Iraq and what may actually happen. It isn’t as easy as saying “I will implement a plan that will withdrawal all American combat troops within 16 months of my inauguration.” It’s a great political one-liner and it resonates well with many people. However, I, personally, wouldn’t put much stock in the 16 month withdrawal time line.

I don’t doubt Obama’s ability to work his way around this tempestuous and complex question. And I am, by no means, stating that Obama is a two-faced, flip-flopper. The question of Iraq isn’t something you can answer for the American people in one 15 minute speech. What to do in Iraq is a complicated question with an answer equally, if not more, complicated.

I recently came across a reference in a book to “RaptureReady.com,” and The Rapture Index; I knew right then that I needed to share this with as many people as possible.

This description of The Rapture Index comes from the site: “You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we’re moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.”

The Rapture Index is currently at 169 out of 225. It has increased every year for the past several, but still isn’t as high as it’s all-time high of 182 in September, 2001. The creator of this site describes his efforts as an attempt to decrease the arbitrariness involved in the study of prophetic activity that may signal the apocalypse.

Here are my top five observations about the Rapture Index:

1. Using diplomacy with Iran and getting them to open up their nuclear program looks like a definite precursor to the endtimes (see under the category of “leadership”).
2. There has been a “rash of crimes related to witchcraft.”
3. Global warming is not occuring.
4. Ecumenism deserves its own category to track those evil cooperative alliances between religious groups.
5. Under the category of “Beast Government” is this explanation for it’s 4 out of 5 rating: “EU p[ens a new treaty.” The EU is the beast government.

I hope you all enjoy RaptureReady.com. I really do wonder how many people believe in this type of eschatology and how many people follow sites like this for information about the pending apocalypse. I don’t mean to mock these people too much, but it does frighten me to think that very many of them could be in this country, voting, and even in the current administration.  But just in case they are right, are you rapture ready?

I recently had the privilege to hear Mark Schneider, former Peace Corps director and Senior Vice President of the International Crisis Group, speak about human rights and US involvement in Afghanistan. He came to FSU’s Center for Human Rights as a part of their summer lecture series, so of course I jumped at the chance to hear him. (Don’t you just love college towns?) I thought that his take on our current situation overseas would be very interesting for all of you, as well.

In a nutshell, the news from Afghanistan is rotten. Mr. Schneider said that the insurgents are more powerful now than they were two years ago, and since 2005, there has been a 600% increase in suicide bombings. The opium industry is the only one that thrives, and the judicial system is completely corrupted by drug trafficking. Apparently, the drug lords tell poor Afghan farmers that they’ll buy their crops come harvest time if the farmers allow them to cross their fields without turning them in. So the poor people are trapped in a vicious cycle: often, they’ll get a better deal on their crops from the opium dealers than from any sort of aid coming from the international community, so of course they’ll choose the option that gives them the most income. This is in spite of the fact that everyone would be much better off if drug trafficking did not exist.

Mark Schneider calls this a problem with “Rule of Law.” In order to provide real justice to the people of Afghanistan, the international community must scratch the current police force and court system and begin rebuilding from the bottom up. The current force consists of highly underpaid, under-trained young men who used to be drug traffickers themselves. So he wants to take everyone out of the field, put UN troops in their posts as they are trained for eight weeks, and then put them back into place with several “police mentors” who could oversee operations for a few years. Schneider acknowledges that this would be a huge operation, in scope and expense. But the best long-term solution is never easy in the short-term. The international community has a responsibility to protect the poor people of Afghanistan, who are among the poorest in the world.

Schneider also mentioned that Afghanistan has not received nearly as much attention as it deserves. He considers Afghanistan and Pakistan, as harborers of the Taliban, to be the most dangerous places in the world to the US. In what might have been the biggest understatement of the year, he said that he deeply regrets that they have “failed to receive proper resources” because of US involvement in other areas, such as Iraq.

Just for some background: The International Crisis Group is an NGO that was founded in 1995 after the Bosnia crisis. They have workers in the field conducting interviews and doing research, and this data is eventually translated into briefs which even the UN security council reads. Schneider said that they offer strategic thinking where diplomacy isn’t working, and they always support rule-based, not force-based, international order.