LyrArc Article Gist
Trofimov provides a much needed perspective to the situation in the Middle East in 2015. The title about redrawing borders on ethnic lines is misleading, as the essay's conclusions point to the need for various communities to find a way to live together without ethnic cleansing and intolerance in attitudes. With modernization different communities, Sunni and Shiite, already live together in the larger cities in the Middle East. Trofimov points out that the original intentions of U.S. president Woodrow Wilson were for diversity, and building modern institutions of government as the best way forward. This was not carried out by British and French rulers following struggles for independence against the colonial authorites. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Britain and France were the dominant powers, and the boundaries were drawn up for Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other states, under the British-French Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. Britain and France increased the role of minority groups to maintain their control following independence struggles in Iraq and Syria, a situation which helped Alawites gain control in Syria and Sunnis in Iraq. Shiite rule in todays Iraq has not lessened tensions, and intolerance only creates tensions in the broader region. Which makes redrawing boundaries around ethnic lines in a defacto acceptance of the current situation, not the lasting road to peace in the Middle East. In Iran, Russia with Britain was involved in the partition of parts of Iran into three zones, a Russian zone including Isfahan in the north, a British zone in the south east and a neutral zone in the middle. This happened in 1907 soon after a independence movement helped write a constitution in the 1901-1907 period, showing that many foreign powers were involved in the region, not just Britain and France. The discovery of oil in 1908 by a British company created the question of how to distribute the profits, which led to 70 years of disagreement and tensions in Iran. The resulting tensions exacerbated the conflict between religious authorites and Mossadegh in the early fifties with the fear of Communism, and exacerbated the conflict between the religious authorites and the government under the Shah by 1979 with misuse of oil wealth, ending with his overthrow and the supreme authority of the Ayatollah. Oil has proved to be as divisive, and wasteful of development opportunities, in Iran as it has been in Nigeria and other oil dependent nations. Multiple issues exist in the Middle East, not just the artificial redrawing of boundaries by the French and British, which makes the defacto redrawing of boundaries along ethnic divisions, not the answer but another step with its own dangers, along the path towards peace and economic development in the region. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Biden calls ending the war in Afghnistan a "wise decision" for the American people. He says in his foreign policy speech that "it is about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries." A Pew Research poll shows 54% of American adults support the decision.  In a sense the decision had already been made. Biden cited the Doha agreement president Trump signed a year ago with Taliban that called for the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners which included most of the top commanders, and no agreement on the future of Afghanistan. The decision had come much earlier than that when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the period of George Bush were rejected by the American people for the cost and lack of purpose during the presidential election of 2016. That period marked the rejection of policies set under Reagan, Bush and Obama for starting American involvement in the Iraq-Iran conflict first on one side and then on the other side. All the time precious resources that were needed for infrastructure and services in education and healthcare were diverted to these wars, impoverishing America and also Europe. Looking beyond the words thrown around for political advantage both Trump and Biden and the American people, had decided to put these wars behind them 5-10 years earlier. Biden said assertively that America had made a tragic wrong turn, that was all he could say about Reagan, Bush, Obama policy. In the meantime he stated something else was happening- the US was losing its position in the world by wasting its resources in these wars that do not serve the interests of America. "There is nothing China and Russia would want more in this competition than the US to be bogged down for another ten years in these wars."  Biden was saying that he had the courage and tenacity to make a decision that was the right one and a wise one for America against all the transient opinion of people who lacked a grasp of what was happening to the American people- the increasing impoverishing of America in both rural and urban areas. And a similar situation in Europe. It was time to take a new turn, close this chapter, and write a new one in American history, brighter and with new sense of hope. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zapotosky of the Washington Post explains what the Supreme Court's partial approval of the Trump travel ban means for visitors to the U.S. He points out that the Supreme Court's version is limited because it only applies it to persons without any bonafide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S.. In addition the Court urged the administration to complete its vetting procedures review. The travel ban was for 6  countries Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria. There are conflicts and wars in most of the countries on the list. Also important to bear in mind is that the administration presented its case as one in which this was a temporary measure till vetting procedures are addressed to reduce the "investigative burden."

LyrArc Article Gist
Mohammed bin Salman, 31 years old, is made the successor to his father King Salman. Prince Nayef, 57, the crown prince is removed from this position. Nayef was Interior Minister. After the current king assumed office in Jan. 2015, he promoted his son to the position of defence minister, overseeing the state oil company and overseeing economic affairs. He put together a plan Saudi Vision 2030, and the kingdom has taken a larger role in international affairs under his leadership as the U.S. under the Obama administration moved away from the Saudi policies in Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen. Under Salman the Saudi kingdom has moved to confront Iran in Syria and Yemen supporting opposite sides in the conflict, and with Saudi aircraft bombing targets in Yemen.  Recap- for more depth see groups and links and search. In international affairs the Saudis grew restive as the Obama administration failed to setup a no fly zone in Syria to protect its Sunni population. Following the chemical weapons attacks in Syria the lack of a U.S. response led to the Saudis turning down a Security Council seat.  Early confrontation occurred in Bahrain with a Shiite population and Sunni government. The Saudis then intervened to support Sissi in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood government as the liberals drifted away from the Brotherhood. With Iranian and Russian support for the Syrian government in Damascus against rebels, the Saudis began to use oil policy leading to an effort to let oil prices fall by loosening production limits, believing it would hurt their rivals even more. This hurt Iran, Russia and Saudis, each in a different way. Some of the roots of the Russian involvement in Syria are also related to this. Russia responded to the oil price drop by relying less on exports, and letting devaluations help the Russian economy become more self sufficient. Iran by working to get a deal with the Obama administration on nuclear development to get out of the sanctions regime that hurt Iran's economy. The Saudis cut some subsidies and Prince Salman led the effort for an initial public offering for Saudi state oil company Aramco. As time progressed the Arab Spring with protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and even before that in Iran for greater freedom, morphed into a sectarian struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. The roots of Islamic State are in the unrest in Mosul, Iraq's largest city, with the Shiite government of a pro-Shiite prime minister, leading to the fall of the city to the militants. He was replaced by the current prime minister Abadi to accomodate U.S. insistence on keeping out sectarian sentiment. This is why the problem is so intractable. Desire for freedom plays a role, but religion also plays a role, not only that but there are two versions of Islam in the region.  Remember Gandhi's admonition- "an eye for an eye that makes the whole world blind," as India struggled to set up a democracy in the South Asian region, after the British left.         ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's "Worthy Fights" provides a better perspective on the Syria-Iraq conflict- about a conflict in Syria that was the result of president Obama not acting when a "red line" of the use of chemical weapons was crossed. A similiar point is made by U.S. Secretary of State Clinton. Both advisors to Obama were ignored in favor of Mr. Donilon and other White House adviosrs who lacked the experience of Panetta and Clinton. On the Iraq conflict Maliki's misguided sectarian policies were not sufficiently constrained by U.S. effort to preserve earlier hard won gains under the Bush administration. At the end of the Bush administration Iraq was returning to a peaceful period and the war had largely been won against old Saddam loyalists in Anbar province. Ultimately Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy and his failure to heed the advice of people with that experience such as Panetta and Clinton, was the basis of the crisis inadvertently created in Syria by a tendency of inaction. The Syrian situation was not fully grasped as leaving Sunnis to suffer Assad regime air attacks creating 2 million refugees, something that should have prompted action by the international community. With Sarkozy gone in France and Cameron unable to convince the U.S. alone, or move forward with the French unilaterally, the inaction phenomenon of the Obama White House left the entire Sunni communty throughout the Middle East without any support as they watched the destruction in Syria. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WIth extensive experience as Chief Investment Officer from 2003 to 2012, Sauter has seen market swings and extreme volatility over a long period of a decade. For the current investment cycle and the pullback in Oct. 2014, he points to the pullback of -16% in spring 2010, and pullback of -18% in summer 2011. In the bigger picture of the chart for this period since 2010 these pullbacks look less significant. There are reasons for a pullback. The conflicts around the world bring more uncertainty for business investment, though Sauter's point about the conflict being more than any period since 1946 may be an overstatement because this includes the period of the Berlin Airlift, Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, Korean War, Vietnam War, and the twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.There are problems in the eurozone economies with near contraction in Germany in the 3rd and 4th quarter. China is slowing down at the same time. The U.S. economy and lower oil prices are the bright side of the picture. Overall the comment by Christine Lagarde during the eurozone crisis in 2012 is still relevant. When asked about the situation then, she suggested adding perspective to what was happening by asking "compared to what?" referring to the situation in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Sauter says investors who remain steady are more likely to be happy some years from now that they remained that way....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama invited NYT's columnist Thomas Friedman to the White House for an interview on Saturday afternoon April 4, 2015. Here Friedman gives president Obama's response to his questions, and Obama's concerns about the heated rhetoric in the U.S. and Israel on the negotiations with Iran detracting and distracting from his key goals of protecting U.S. interests and Israel. On the Sunni states, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Obama points out that there are some tough conversations needed about changes inside their societies which pose a greater threat to the governments than Iran. Obama says he understands perfectly that Israel and the Jewish people after their experience of the last hundred years are determined to not let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and their right to be concerned that the agreement could let Iran clandestinely develop one. Obama says the verification is extensive and covers any facility in Iran, any suspicion about secret facilities, yet it leaves the subsequent decisions if Iran created difficulties, to a international body over which the U.S., UK, France, have no control. This is a principal issue for critics of the negotiated agreement. No mention is made of why Iran simply discarded the option of sending the atomic material to Russia to be processed into nuclear rods for the Bushehr nuclear plant built by Russia only a few days before the final outline was developed. And why the U.S., with allies Germany, France, UK and Japan, did not offer the Iranians an economic aid package if needed in return for the billions Iranians invested for that atomic material, to ensure that the atomic materials are shipped out of the country- to create a nuclear agreement that would be credible to all parties. The economic aid would benefit Iran modernize its oil industry, including refining operations, meet basic import needs, and provide tangible proof to the Iranian people of our best intentions for the future, that president Obama strongly espouses in the interview. The interview does show the quandary president Obama faces in Iran for strong action, that is a result of failed policies with Iran since the Eisenhower administration's intervention 1953 during the Cold War that displaced the elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran and setup the Shah's regime in 1956, the support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the war against Iran, which Obama mentions in this intervew. In the light of the repeated failures of the U.S. policies a Democratic party leader faces increasing reservations for taking strong action against Iran's development of nuclear weapons capabilities, preferring to exhaust every diplomatic channel, and take risks in the hope that time will give the Iranian people an opportunity to to reintegrate in the global community and pursue the peaceful development of nuclear energy. This strain in president Obama's thinking is evident throughout the interview with Friedman. Other aspects of president Obama's policy in the Middle East shared in the interview are about supporting the Sunni states in some areas, and Iran in some areas, at the same time as the nuclear issue is "put in a box" and separated from the regional conflicts. Friedman presents this as the Obama doctrine, yet it appears to be coming after a series of improvisations in foreign policy following a failure to act in 2011-2013, when the "once in a lifetime" opportunities presented by the Arab Spring were not taken up by the Obama administration, leading to the region's current disintegration....

LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Mohammad Ayoob of Michigan State University looks at the tit for tat military responses of India and Pakistan and tries to interpret the mixed signals of the Pakistan military and civilian president Imran Khan. He says Imran Khan had the difficult task of being in line with the top generals of the Pakistan military and at the same time responding to international pressures to de-escalate the crisis. Imran Khan asked India not to take the confrontation further or Pakistan would have to retaliate, and at the same time emphasized de-escalation as the goal with pressure from Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and China. The nuclear doctrines of the two countries which differ from the manner in which the U.S. and Soviets operated during the Cold War, also make escalation dangerous. Prof. Mohammad points out that the military in Pakistan plays a different role in the state since it was created in 1947. With military control of nuclear weapons any danger of losing control of the state and its position in the state since 1947 could lead to reckless strategies, says Prof. Mohammad. Mr. Imran Khan had to speak in different terms to different audiences in a kind of double speak in this situation. Mr. Khan spoke in terms of development and the need for Pakistan to fund the needed infrastructure always at the back of the mind in the current situation at the outset of the crisis. Much of this was lost in the ensuing hours of the crisis. Yet this remains the dominant need in South Asia as Mr. Imran Khan faces the challenge of meeting his promises for development as much as Mr. Modi faces the challenges of development to catchup with Asian neighbors South Korea and China who have shown how this can be done. A longer memory does show China and South Korea falling behind in the fifties and sixties before making great progress in the last 3 decades by pursuing peaceful cooperation with earlier adversary Japan,  and in the case of China the U.S.  Anyone familiar with the role played by the U.S. in China's civil war, and the Japanese invasions of Korea and China, during four decades of conflict,  followed by the cooperation offered by Japan and the U.S. to first South Korea and then China can see that progress is possible and lays the foundation for development. A recent article in The Guardian reports that China now lays more concrete every 2 years than the U.S. did for the entire twentieth century. None of this would be possible had Chinese leaders in their wisdom and passion for development not pursued development first and foremost, setting aside historic wounds. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Walter Mead describes the roots of the refugee crisis in 2015, as millions of refugees flee Syria, Iraq, and other countries in the Middle East, lying in the failure of governments throughout the Middle East to accomodate modernity, women's rights and technological progress into the old Islamic thinking. He says he sees this in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and other countries in the Middle East. The Arab Spring which aroused so much hope for the people of the region has floudered in the failure of both the Islamic leaders, the military elite, and civil society to come up with a consensus rooted in what a modern Islamic society that accomodates modernity, women's rights, the participation of people in their government, technological progress should look like. The Western nations of Europe and the U.S. also underwent soul searching to come up with a modern Christian society through its own struggles, which the Islamic societies have failed to do; and as a result floundered and broken up by sectarian, religious and military conflicts. Mead takes the long view, yet falls short when it comes to how European leaders and societies face individual challenges to bring their own Christian faith and ideals into the real world, in the way chancellor Merkel has responded in Germany. Europeans have had their own period of conflicts and civil wars, the refugee crisis and refugees in chancellor Merkel's words who "have gone through the hell of a civil war" are very real, and how each European responds defines who he is and how far Europe has come from its own dark days....

LyrArc Article Gist
Readers of the NYT reflect on the Syria-Iraq conflict and the experience in Vietnam. Stuart Gottlieb, who teaches American foreign policy and international security at Columbia University, describes Logevall and Goldstein's Vietnam analogy for Syria as a situation on how one can go wrong by relying on historical reference when new thinking is required based on existing challenges. Others point to the situation in Vietnam as Kennedy's war with 16,000 advisors already on the ground. Kennedy's words "let every country know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will support any friend, oppose any foe...," were part of the Cold War in the early sixties that Kennedy inherited from Eisenhower and Truman starting with a Communist Iron Curtain falling over Eastern Europe and threatening Western Europe. The situation today is quite different in a Middle East with little to do with Russia and China, at the same time sectarian with Sunni and Shia, and aspirations of Arab people for freedom from dictatorships....

LyrArc Article Gist
As Russia makes gains in the whole Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine the UK approves use of its long range missiles inside Russia. Biden is on the verge of making a similar decision as Iran sends long range ballistic missiles to Russia according to reports in NYT. Use of American long range missiles is not expected to affect Russia's overall military position in the Donetsk region in the east. The US and president Biden has only reluctantly provided support for use of US weapons systems to not risk escalating the war. Even artillery on the Russian side was off the list of approved use till Russia used it in Kharkiv border region at which point it was approved. Russians see Kiev as the origin of the Russian State in the 1400's, and eastern region of Donetsk as Russian if western Ukraine seeks to join NATO and EU. Britain has opposed Russia since 1750 as it saw Russia as the threat to an Empire it was building in South Asia, in India that financially supported its Empire worldwide. Britain has a long history of engaging Russia in conflict to protect British trade interests and expand its imperial influence as in the Crimean War fought in 1850's against Russia with the French to gain control of the Ottoman Empire and its Arab states for its trade and imperial interests. Republicans other than Mr. Trump and his supporters are for stronger support to Ukraine following US policy of opposing invasion to achieve military goals since 1900 against the Japanese in China and the Vietnam War was fought on the same basis in the 1960's considering the South Vietnamese state as an independent republic, just  invaded by the north, by North Vietnam, just as the US had done in the Korean War between North and South Korea. In the Vietnam War nationalism played apart with the Vietnamese nationalism prevailing by 1970.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican party has split shows the New Hampshire and Iowa Republican  primaries says WSJ in this video that is essential to understand 2024. Demographic expert that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) talked to in this video say Donald Trump has brought in working class voters into the Republican party, no question about that. Yet in doing so and with his style he has alienated what are suburban Republican voters, higher educated with college degrees, the country club type that was long been associated with the Republican party since 1900. Taking the Iowa and New Hampshire voters the WSJ shows in visual dynamic graphs that half of voters in both states did not vote for Trump. There are no differences between Republican voters who voted for Trump and who voted against Trump when it comes to gender, age, they are evenly divided for gender and age. Difference is in education and suburban. Higher educated, suburban Republican voters acted to vote against Trump. This means says WSJ is that the Republican party has now effectively split up. Immigration is not as important to these Republicans who voted against Trump, foreign policy is also important which is not so for Trump voters. Ukraine matters for these voters who voted against Trump. Abortion also matters and the economy matters for these Republican voters who did not vote for Trump. In the backdrop of all this is the advisers who surround the president, the chief of whom may be Jake Sullivan, not just for foreign policy but also on issues such as immigration. Where Michael Shear of the NYT who has covered the White House for 30 years shows Jake Sullivan actively pushing to close down the asylum and parole avenues that are surging migrant flows, and to get Biden to close the US Mexico border under a bipartisan deal worked out by Lindsay Graham and Chuck Schumer in the US Senate. Sullivan, Michael Burns and other thoughtful, careful advisers are helping the Biden administration navigate the Israel Palestinian conflict and the Ukraine Russian conflict. The Middle East is what tripped Jimmy Carter with the Iran hostage crisis, leading to the Reagan period and Reagan economic culture that is unwinding today with huge gaps in incomes and educational opportunities that never existed before in the US. What also tripped Jimmy Carter was the split with the party that John Kennedy and LBJ built on the foundations of the FDR Truman period, and his handling of the Kennedys that effectively split the Democratic party. This is the situation that is now happening in the Republican party as the Reagan era and its culture of extremes comes to a close. Of extremes not seen since the Great Depression of a working family struggling to live on wages near the poverty level in a automobile factory in Michigan before the UAW settlement that Biden was on the picket lines for, and the $55.8 billion pay package that was put forward for Mr. Musk at Tesla. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Rumsfeld talks in this interview about the conflict between the US State and Defense Departments about a post war Iraq that delayed decisions and gave time for the Iraqi insurgency to develop. Colin Powell at the State Department, and Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor, let Ian Bremmer continue for too long as the sole authority in Iraq operating from one of Hussein's palaces, giving the feeling of a foreign occupation force and fueling insurgency. Rumsfeld favored letting one of the Iraqi exiles provide interim leadership, wheras Powell felt the exiles did not have the legitimacy in Iraq that was needed. The result was indecision that left Bremmer in charge for too long. Asked why Rumsfeld did not fire Bremmer, he says Bremmer acted as the Presidential envoy. His criticism of Rice and Powell centers on their not letting the President decide by providing the options and the pros and the cons. He says the surge was more psychological in its impact and less significant than its made out to be, because the Anbar Awakening had already led Sunnis to move away from Al Quaeda. The insurgency came in stages, first with the Baathists and thugs from the old regime, then the foreign elements and Al Quaeda through Damascus, and then the Mohtada Sadr Shiites, it was not a single enemy or a single event. The memoir is not a defense of the Bush Presidency or decisions, but takes the kind of look at events that is reminiscent of Dean Acheson for the events of the Cold War under president Harry Truman....

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges is the U.S. Army Commander in Europe. He describes the threats facing the U.S. in an interview with Sohrab Ahmari of the WSJ. Hodges says Russians are preparing for a conflict five or six years down the road, and should have capabilities built up in 2 to 3 years. The U.S. military remains stretched with 9 of 10 division headquarters committed to some requirement, and new crises popping up unpredictably, such as Islamic State and Ukraine in 2014- a situation not faced even at the height of the engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget sequestration cuts continue to limit the army's capabilities just when additional resources are needed. Hodges calls for depth in resources as the only way for the army to be there to counteract bad actors in Europe or the Middle East, or some other place. With further budget cuts the army will have to drop down to 420,000 personnel from 500,000 today, just when the number of crisis areas are increasing, hurting preparedness and modernization....

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says he hopes Hillary Clinton will take a mediating role to bring all the Iraqi political factions and ethnic communities to work together in a democratic framework, and not go their separate ways into sectarian conflict once more. With the US out of Iraq by June 30, 2009, this is critical. Friedman says Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are not separate wars, but part of the same war, and the same struggle to win credibility for democracy and reconciliation, education, women's rights and modenization for the Muslim world as a way forward. Its the only alternative to looking backward. He says he has never bought into the idea of Iraq as the bad war, Pakistan as the necessary war and Afghanistan as the good war. In fact he says experts point out that very little will spread out of Afghanistan when the US leaves. But Baghdad has been acentre of culture, education and influence in the Middle East for centuries, so getting it right there after so much American effort and sacrifice has been invested there, is crucial for the Muslim world to move forward in the right direction....