Syria Will Be Part of Trump’s Legacy – But History’s Judgement Is Still Unclear

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

The president’s pullout of Syria is essentially an effort to force an end not only to our engagement in the area, but also to the basic credibility of the neoconservative worldview- as well as efforts in the future to shape global democracy and influence world order. There are plenty of Republicans who see this approach as heresy, and there are plenty of Democrats and media outlets who relish the blood-on-blood infighting to come (and who will strangely express their outrage at a decision they would have lauded once merely because the opposite of the administration’s policy is their policy), but the reality is much more nuanced.

On the surface, the president’s motivation is driven by polling. Our commander in chief is a populist at his core- not an idealist.  Most Americans (many in both parties) don’t favor extending the war in Syria. This is quite simply because we aren’t able to do what it takes to win. Assad’s forces are backed by Russia; there’s no way to build real stability in the region without a heavier hand than we are willing to take or through regime change, and there seems to be no way to force regime change short of open war with Russia. Further, as China increasingly begins to flex in the pacific and begins to highlight our “meddling in the affairs of others” -including Syria- as China launches their own massive campaign for development, seeking access to the natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa, the president is mindful that it’s from China where we face the greatest long term security threat, and it’s China who benefits most from our distraction to a protracted entanglement with Syria and Russia. Further, while the timing of Iran was the president’s doing, it’s also clear that they are a much greater threat to global security in the near term. Our security interest in Syria is that someone accountable to the UN controls and regulates the area- whether it be Turkey or the US, either will make certain that it isn’t ISIS. We really can only do so much.

But that’s only part of the story. Turkey’s interest in Syria isn’t focused first on restoring peace to Syrians. The Kurdish forces we have used since the beginning of the war in Iraq have fought with us because they are a people without a land. Spread throughout Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, this proud, ethnic population descended of Saladin is at odds with each of those nations as they seek to restore some autonomy. They have been capable allies because they have more than 1,000 years of history fighting for their own survival. Walking away from them when we are done will be a public betrayal that the Chinese and Russians will hold up as the true nature of “American Imperialism.” They will say that Americans come with high ideals, but leave when it’s no longer convenient. To Bush-era neoconservatives, it’s unthinkable; to Trump and his “America First” agenda, it’s a way to cross the bridge back from nation-building and burn it behind him.

In the long term, this may be the better move. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq, and increasingly the people of Afghanistan have come to realize that Americans come and Americans go. If we fool no one, and if we do really lack the resolve (and quite possibly the ability) to build regimes and promote democracy in the aftermath of conflict, then it is possible that the sooner we go the better. This may also help us usher in a day when America accepts that it is no longer the sole global hegemon and must share global military and economic influence with both China and Russia once again. If pulling back now gives them space we would have needed to cede eventually through direct conflict, it may increase stability in the long term also.

But in the short term, it’s a lot of bad taste. To those who can’t bear to see America as anything but a beacon of light that can dictate the ways of the world, it looks like a retreat. To those focused first on human rights, it’s a turnover of power to another heavy-handed imperial force that will bring another wave of increased violence before it can hope to bring local stability. While the president’s motivation may be no deeper than extending a political olive branch to a growing, centrist plurality of the American public focused on their own economy, anxious to make a trade deal in China and not willing to subsidize stability of the Kurdish population (so long as there’s someone on the ground containing ISIS), if America is a truly is a shrinking power, in 50 years this may be seen as a thoughtful and pragmatic preservation of resources. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Shamima Begum is a Mother… It matters

by with One Comment FeaturedGlobal

I am a mother. I gave birth to two healthy boys in a hospital, surrounded by professionals and never lacked anything I needed to take care of them as well as I could, except experience for my first-born of course. Shamima Begum is a mother as well. Contrary to me, although she gave birth three times, she can only hold one baby in her arms today. Contrary to me, she didn’t live in a safe environment with everything available in case the babies or she needed anything. Her husband didn’t read parenting books, didn’t wander the streets with his babies in a brand-new foldable pram or in a fancy ergonomic baby-carrier. Her children died. Both of them died and now she’s waiting with her third child for a future. A future in which both she and her child are taken care of, sleep safely and have access to medicines, vaccines, and doctors in case they should need them. Why is Shamima denied what every woman should be granted as soon as, willingly or not, they find themselves pregnant? Because when she was only a fifteen-year-old British girl with a less marginal future ahead of her, she made the wrong choice.

I’m not defending her choice, but I’m deeply convinced that all teenagers make mistakes.

Edit: If she had smoked pot, shoplifted or drunk more than she should have, there would be no question as to whether or not she could return to her native country. She’s not a drug addict, neither a neglecting parent. But she went too far, to Syria, to ISIS, to a romanticized utopia. She believed, as many teenagers did and still do, that she knew better and that she would be taken seriously and useful there. She thought she would be loved and doing the right thing, proving her family, teachers or whoever said she’d better listen that they were wrong. She says she’s willing to change if that can change authorities’ minds about her coming back. Isn’t that what any lost and contrite teenager would say? She has been through so much we can’t even begin to imagine, and she’s still grieving her dead babies while nursing a newborn and trying to keep him alive. 

Shamima Begum deserves better than to be forsaken and denied: she deserves a second chance including psychological support, medical care, and the certitude that as a mother. She has a duty toward her son: doing her best to ensure he grows up in a world made of opportunities and learns from his mistakes. Because just like any other kid, one day, he’ll make some too. 

Similar Read: Shamima Begum Is a Mother… It Matters 

Shaming Shamima: An Unlikely Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobal

Shamima Begum, to forgive or not to forgive? The request of this 19-year-old British Muslim to return to England after defecting to ISIS has sparked debate on the issues of remorse and culpability of minors for serious criminality. A martyr, a victim, a misguided youth, an accomplice to terrorism, a precedent for case law. Shamima has certainly divided opinion over how her wrongdoings should be viewed. Never in recent memory has a supporter of terrorism generated such controversy and even more surprisingly, sympathy.

Support from the public is undeniably linked to her young age. Shamima made her decision to join ISIS when she was 15 years old. A child beyond 10 years old committing any crime can still be tired and sentenced under British Law. Her decision to stay with ISIS continued past her turning 18 when she was fully capable as an adult to take criminal responsibility. Now at 19, her naivety is coincidental and unfortunate at best.

Let’s consider if this was a British boy who had been radicalized and fathered a child whilst part of ISIS. Would they be given sympathy for their regret? What we have here is a gender bias from both men and women on social media that no one is talking about. ‘She’s a victim’ ‘she was groomed’, ‘she’s traumatized.’ Were the teenage boys who defected to ISIS at the same age ever given victim status? Where was all this uproar for them? Two similar cases of British-Bangladeshi men were repatriated back to England only because of legal reasons, not on the basis of forgiveness. The same should apply to a female member of ISIS.

Having made the case that she is fully culpable for her actions, the question now is does the punishment fit the crime? The legal dilemmas here are more complex than many of us realize. Our (Head of ) Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, states his decision to revoke Shamima’s citizenship was in the interest of national security. Foreign terrorists and accomplices are also banned from entering the U.K. under the same principle. Opponents argue she has not been given a fair trial to be prosecuted and sentenced.

However, the statistics presented in Parliament last year revealed that only one in ten of all jihadists returning to the UK were prosecuted. The Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, Nikita Malik, has expressed concern about British laws not being robust enough to allow for prosecution in these cases. The current legal framework prohibits much of the evidence collected on terrorists abroad being admissible to court. There is the very real possibility of Shamima being free on a technicality despite her openly saying she left to join ISIS. It is therefore unfair to label Sajid Javid’s decision as purely political, xenophobic or washing hands of responsibility. Risking miscarriage of justice really is at the expense of Britain’s security if Shamima (and subsequent cases) cannot be adequately prosecuted.

The debate has since shifted to the issue of her citizenship. The ‘bloodline’ law in Bangladesh means Shamima may be a citizen there by default because of her Bangladeshi mother. Bangladesh are in the process of disputing this with the Home Office, meaning the U.K. could have illegally rendered an individual stateless. Shamima also has the right to appeal the Home Office’s decision by proving the Home Secretary acted disproportionately.

One fact remains: she admits to joining ISIS. This in itself is the definition of proscription and is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If she is accepted back into the U.K, she will be tried and sentenced in accordance with those laws. An indefinite/temporary ban from re-entering the U.K. may ironically be the more lenient punishment, all things considered. Quite simply put by Sajid Navid (Home Secretary), if you back terror, there must be severe consequences. 

Similar Read: God Save the King, the Demise of a Regime 

Syria, the Office Potluck of International Relations

by with One Comment Uncategorized

“When you’re invited to the holiday or general office potluck, there’s a natural reluctance to jump right in and grab a plate. The United States engagement with the Syrian Civil War is no different. The reluctance to intervene should be maintained for as long as possible.” 

There’s a wide range of opinions on the current Syrian Civil War. I can bet dollars to doughnuts, no one who isn’t in Syria or Syrian has a true clue on what they’re talking about. That goes from the President of the United States to the AmandaRyan Facebook page of your high school classmate and husband who post their very narrow suburbs of Atlanta point of view of the conflict. The Syrian conflict is much more layered than seeing awful video clips of children being rushed to hospitals, and the knee jerk reaction post of the AmandaRyan account, stating, “Why don’t we do something?!”

Speaking of AmandaRyan, one of them thought it would be a good idea, instead of getting catered food, for the office to have a potluck. Potlucks are a hairline above spaghetti night at vacation bible school. And no, I’m not a foodie or food snob, I just don’t like bad food and neither does my stomach. And potlucks produce nothing but questionable looking and even more questionable tasting food. Why? Cause people can’t cook, just that simple. Some people have no business dabbling in the world of cuisine for they don’t know what they’re doing. They prepare and cook based on what they think should go into a recipe, or worse based on how they think it should taste. The result is crockpots full of boiling goo that’s supposed to be jambalaya. No, thank you.

Back to Syria.

Syria is in a sense a potluck. For starters most don’t even know where Syria is, they don’t understand the variables involved in the Syrian war, and they don’t understand why. Yes, in a simplistic way the Syrian war is between the government of Bashar Al-Assad vs rebellious forces vs a group who calls itself the Islamic State. The group was said, by then candidate Trump, to have been co-founded by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. The denouncement Trump gave is equal to someone saying, by me not liking the Backstreet Boys, it led to the creation of One Direction, crazy! Anyway, there’s three legitimate groups fighting. None of them are factions in which the United States should side with. None have pure intentions in their actions – meaning neither of the factions are fighting to establish a wholesome, non-oppressive, democratic society. No, all sides are fighting to control Syria the way they see fit, and we simply don’t know enough to understand or decide which fit is best. Which is bad.

Potlucks are generally bad for their cuisines made to the liking of a specific individuals. Unlike restaurants or people who cooked something so good all types of people request it from them, the United States should never get involved in a foreign affair in which the clear purpose and clear reasons is not understood by both the United States and the people we’re supposed to help. Simply go down the list of every bad American intervention and I don’t have to explain myself.

For a potluck, the best plan of action to avoid eating and being labeled antisocial is to simply go into the break room to show you’re aware and your presence will be noted. However, at no point are you getting a plate. The United States has already made its presence known regarding the Syrian conflict, and there’s no need to do more. Syria may look like jambalaya and we know how to get down on some jambalaya, but in actuality it’s a cold and unseasoned minestrone soup. 

Charlottesville, Virginia… The LCR Responds…

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPoliticsUncategorized

We asked 4 of our contributors with different political views to weigh in on the Charlottesville rally that unfortunately turned violent last week, and this is what they had to say…

“Watching the events unfold in Charlottesville, Virginia confirmed to me that we as a Nation are truly going backwards in time. Seeing the violence erupt and hearing the vile chants saddened me. I waited patiently for President Trump to come out and address the Nation. Though there are many of his stances I do not agree with, President Trump is still my Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, though he had the ear of America, President Trump’s speech left so much to be desired. I was not comforted, not inspired, and especially did not like President Trump’s underlying tone when he stated “on many sides.” – Left Healthcare Professional 

“This past weekend’s terrorist tactics of the white supremacist groups in Virginia shouldn’t be too shocking. Though outwardly violent and thankfully not the everyday norm, many non white Americans feel a form of extreme and punishing outcomes everyday. Outcomes in which white Americans never deal with. From racial driven draconian drug law enforcement to environmental racism, many Americans saw this weekend as another episode in the story in which is America.” – Independent Texan Male“

All Americans have the right to assemble and peaceably protest (even White Supremacists). The issue in Virginia is that a subsection of White Supremacists are taking violent action against their counter-protestors, possibly feeling bolstered and empowered by the aggressive rhetoric of our current President. The so-called “alt-right” no longer feels ashamed, with their ideologies represented in the White House by Steve Bannon at the very least. Although it is unfair to judge an entire group or ideology by the actions of a single terrorist in their ranks, it IS fair to judge a group by their reaction (or lack thereof) to this gravest of crimes against our Country and our Freedom. Anyone who views the violence in Charlottesville, VA as unacceptable must explicitly condemn it as so or America will endure much worse.” – Unaffiliated Humanist Musician

“The events of the last two days in Charlotesville are a worrying sign of where this country is headed. The hatred that was on display in Charlottesville as was the terrorist attack that resulted from it was both shocking and upsetting (an attack reminiscent of tactics used by ISIS). The president’s refusal to explicitly call out white nationalists was disgraceful, especially coming from the man who criticized Obama for not using the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” and was seen by those groups as a tacit signal of support. It was however encouraging to see the backlash he received for his comments from his colleagues in the GOP. One can only hope that they will continue to take principled stands against him.” – Center Left College Student 

Related articles:

Heather Heyer, “A Very Strong Woman”

Merck, Under Armour, Intel: “Unacceptable!”

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

“Attack ISIS, Not Linda Sarsour”

by with No Comment FeaturedGen Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tr0CFik2k&feature=youtu.be

Over the weekend, Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian Muslim-American organizer of the women’s march, gave a speech in which she used the word ‘Jihad’. And the Internet exploded.

Right-wing media outlets seized the opportunity to make it seem as if her speech was proof of Muslim-Americans attempting to foment ‘Jihad’ against the US and Donald Trump. Even prominent liberal figures attempted to distance themselves from Linda. However, anyone who took the time to actually read the text or listen to her speech could clearly see that her use of the word ‘Jihad’ was being completely and sometimes purposely misconstrued. It is clear that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the use of violence. She was giving a speech about speaking truth to power.

This type of reaction to the simple use of a word is absolutely ridiculous and blatantly Islamophobia. Such a reaction is essentially saying that Muslims cannot use a certain term in their religion because it makes people uncomfortable. Some pundits defended Sarsour; yet, they still criticized her word choice.

There are two important points that need to be made. First, she was quoting a hadith- a prophetic saying. So those asking her to “think about her word choice” are essentially asking her to change the wording of her religion to suit the needs of others. Second, Western analysts are continuously saying that moderate Muslims should “take back Islam” from extremists. I’m not even sure what that means, because when a moderate Muslim who is an outspoken civil rights activist like Linda uses the word ‘Jihad’, those same analysts turn against her.

Saying Muslims should stay away from words like ‘Jihad’ is to suggest that Muslims should stay away from all controversial topics. The word ‘Jihad’ means to struggle and is most often used to denote an internal moral struggle. It’s a word that has been appropriated by extremists and bigots. It’s also important to note that the only group that interprets the word ‘Jihad’ to exclusively mean terrorism is ISIS and their affiliates. That does not mean its meaning has changed nor does it mean that Muslims should shy away from using the word. Any argument to the contrary plays right into the hands of bigots and extremists, and further perpetuates Islamophobia.