Arab Spring overplayed & underestimated

This week, as I made my way to the region, I've been following the dramatic downturn of democratic governance in Egypt. A few initial thoughts before I hear more informed  perspectives:

PEOPLE POWER

While President Morsi's Mubarak-esque combination of autocratic proclivities and astounding detachment from reality are deeply alarming, the Egyptian people are again rising up in protest. So, the biggest beneficiary and hallmark of the "Arab Spring" is proving to be More Of the Same, but the democratic spirit of the movement -- the citizens themselves -- is unabated. They still expect functional, legitimate democracy, whether from Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood or someone else. And anyway, few reputable analysts were banking on Morsi's prospects as a democratic visionary. But elections do have consequences, especially when they're held too early.

THERE IS ANOTHER

We need to excise Morsi as the face of the Arab Spring, lest his blowout come to symbolize the whole Arab Spring. If Egypt's experiment fails, this by itself does not prove the Arab Spring was a ruse or a mirage -- as some of my fellow American observers have been blogging in recent days. Owing to its size, intellectual history and strategic importance, Egypt easily took first place as the symbol of the Arab Spring. Egypt may still prove to be the big test of this sweeping movement, yet other countries are also processing their own versions. 

Tunisia, where the democratic tide started last year, is showing the kind of measured progress that Western news anchors take for granted, and thus makes for few headlines. Despite continued uncertainty, including the recent Benghazi attack that killed four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador, Libyans remain optimistic and supportive of their new democratic-trending government. 

In Bahrain, last year's protests and the ensuing crackdown were largely limited in time and scope. The grievances remain and will need to be addressed one way or another, but this is not the garden-variety Arab Spring, especially since Bahrain is sandwiched between Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two of the least democratic regimes in the region. 

Syria's Assad regime is holding fast, for now, amid popular unrest and armed rebellion. Much will depend on Bashar Assad's individual mindset: He could hold out until the end, leave town just after his kids open their Christmas presents, or start using chemical weapons against his own citizens. That third option could provide a casus belli for U.S.-NATO intervention, which will horribly escalate the violence but may also end the dictatorship and keep Iran out of the post-Assad politics.

THE KINGMAKERS

The role of non-Arab states within the Middle East will also help determine the direction of political change in the region. Iran's support for Assad and its opportunistic use of Morsi's election in Egypt have been a negative influence on the Arab Spring, and should inspire greater resolve by reformers rather than a Western retreat. Turkey, once the moderate Muslim referee, needs to regain its composure and recapture its influence with Egypt and Syria in particular. Its recent military counter-attacks on Syria, its second fiddle at Morsi's Gaza cease-fire negotiations and the angry posturing against Israel are keeping the Islamist government from realizing its potential as mediator and guarantor among its neighbors.

The Arab Spring is definitely incomplete, even dangerous in spots. But this is the Middle East, after all. And the story remains unfinished and -- in too many cases -- untold. Instead of dismissing the significance or permanence of the democratic moment, Westerners should be joining with Arabs and others to see where and why the Arab Spring is faltering, and what we can do together to facilitate real, measurable and even lasting results.

GOP's Benghazi gambit neither practical nor plausible

Weeks before a Presidential election, a terrible tragedy occurred in Benghazi, Libya: a terrorist attack left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador. Politics is politics, so have at it. Since Americans went to the polls and re-elected President Obama to a second four-year term, however, treating Benghazi as Watergate 2.0 has become gratuitous.

There is a need to step out of the he-said-she-said moment. The entire premise that Susan Rice (our Ambassador to the United Nations) is under suspicion, or that any nominee to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should be blocked until we get all the answers, is neither practical nor plausible.

NOT PRACTICAL

What happened in Benghazi was horrible and tragic, and very possibly preventable. But it shouldn't have taken The Daily Show's Jon Stewart to point out the intrinsic hypocrisy -- that Condoleezza Rice sailed through confirmation for Secretary of State despite having knowingly lied about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" while she was National Security Adviser -- and no one in the Bush administration was ever held to account for intelligence gaps in the lead-up to 9/11, when nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Al Qaeda on U.S. soil. The United States continues to face foreign policy challenges around the world, and tying up key Administration assets and distracting public attention does our national interest little good. Any changes we need to make in our security deployments and intelligence vetting will not be facilitated by a process that has been antagonistic since a few hours after the attack. We need a strong and credible Secretary of State. And as has been noted, the fact that many Republicans would be happy to see John Kerry nominated instead of Susan Rice carries the unseemly scent of partisan angling for his Senate seat.

NOT PLAUSIBLE

It makes little sense to argue that elements within the Obama administration would have opportunistically pushed the anti-U.S. protest angle in order to protect the President's anti-terrorism credentials ahead of the Presidential election. Even as a candidate four years ago, Barack Obama was being branded as naive for seeking to engage and win back the Arab and Islamic public. Mitt Romney consistently ridiculed Obama's foreign policy as the "apology tour", and blamed Obama's "appeasement" of radical Muslims even before the State Department had a chance to comment. With all this, if the Obama team were really looking to manipulate the information, it would have been far smarter to chalk up Benghazi to a one-off terrorist attack -- barely a blip amid the overall successful fight against Al-Qaeda. So, when Ambassador Rice went on all the Sunday morning shows and suggested the Consulate attack was connected to a current wave of popular protests across the Middle East, she was implicitly singing Romney's tune.

No one has been nominated yet to be the next Secretary of State, and it's not even clear how soon Secretary Clinton might choose to announce her own departure. The President won re-election with popular backing of his foreign policy performance, despite the early clamor over Benghazi. Republican Senators should settle down, and the Administration should follow the President's lead by not dignifying the attacks with anything beyond normal briefings and the investigation already underway.

Largely thanks to the Obama team's record of national security accomplishments, we again have real work to do, and the world is not waiting.

Benghazi worse than Watergate? GOP would know.

A terrible series of events transpired last month in Benghazi, Libya. As we all know, the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. personnel were killed in an organized, deliberate attack on the Consulate there.

In the days following the attack,  many questions and allegations were launched against the White House, largely by the increasingly right-wing Republican House of Representatives back in Washington and its media ally, Fox News. Why didn't President Obama immediately label the incident as a terrorist attack? Why did the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations initially suggest the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-U.S. protest march when -- as we eventually learned -- there was no protest, only the stand-alone attack? Why did the State Department not supply more security forces as had been requested by post? And so on.

While it took days for the GOP's political and media establishment to fully gear up in this very timely cause, Governor Mitt Romney was framing Benghazi as an indictment against the entire foreign policy of President Barack Obama, even as recovery operations were still underway. He was definitely ahead of the curve on using this as a political weapon.

Ironically, the Benghazi attack -- which cost us the lives of four brave Americans -- pales in comparison to unspeakably catastrophic tragedies like the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington (2,800+ dead); the 2005 Hurricane Katrina (1,800+ dead); Operation Iraqi Freedom (nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead). Each of these death tolls can be in large or small part attributed to incompetent and/or ideologically forced decision-making by President George W. Bush and his advisers. And, by the way, banging the war drums and beating an apologetic retreat whenever necessary has been none other than Fox News. Yet in the years that have followed, almost no one has faced any official or political consequences for any of these failures (unless receiving a Presidential Medal of Freedom counts).

And now, Fox News' own Brit Hume is feeling righteous enough to point out that "it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News, and a couple of others to do all the heaving lifting" on exposing the as yet unproven allegations of Benghazi wrongdoing and cover-up by the Obama administration.

There are definitely important lessons to be learned and applied going forward, and possibly careers to be ended. And it is never too late to start holding our government leaders accountable on national security. But if Republican politicians and journalists are going to lead the way on this, it would be nice of them to at least acknowledge the novelty, rather than acting like turning four deaths into Obama's Watergate -- or even WORSE than Watergate (and maybe Vietnam, too?) -- is not transparently political and contrived.

Rushing to blame, Romney disgraces us all

The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya have reinforced the sense of danger and uncertainty in the Middle East, and should spark a renewed -- and ideally bipartisan -- about how the United States can continue to repair its influence and effect lasting stability in this often chaotic region.

Even before we could know the extent of brutality and barbarism involved in the lynching of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- let alone all the other facts and factors involved --  the Republican Party Chairman and the Republican nominee for President were rushing to blame President Obama's "failed" policies for these outrageous assaults on the honor and person of American diplomacy.

Leading the pile-on were many of my friends from the right wing of the Jewish, pro-Israel community. Had Obama only listened to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and shown him more respect while showering Israel with unprecedented military support and security cooperation, none of this would have happened. Ironically, this came hours after the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks -- despite President George W. Bush's uncompromising and single-minded campaign against Saddam Hussein. Even more ironically, these attacks came nearly a year to the day since Israel's own ambassador to Egypt was nearly lynched by a Cairo mob -- and only saved through the personal intervention of... President Obama. What a way to say thank you.

The Arab counter-revolution... finally

For better or worse, the other shoe has finally dropped in the Arab world. It only took a half-century.

So far, the regimes that have fallen at the hands of the new Mideast phenomenon known as "Arab Spring" all originated as part of decolonization that began in the late-1940s and continued through the 1960s. The despots being overthrown this season have largely profited from a legacy of defiance against the West, and new claimants to that title have challenged their rule. So far, no Arab monarchy has fallen or faced a serious existential challenge from the current movement for change.

Qaddafi was right about Jews

The stark images of Muammar Qaddafi being dragged through the streets of Sirte this past week reminded me of the hour I spent with him during his last visit to New York City a couple of years ago.


As a bonafide "Cold War Brat", this past week was not the first time I saw graphic images of a brutal, delusional dictator meeting the summary justice of his former subjects. Watching Nicolae Ceaucescu's execution 20 years ago on TV brought back memories of my childhood stay in Bucharest, surrounded by banners with his face, on every major street.

When our small delegation visited Qaddafi in his country's UN mission in Manhattan, we were continuing a dialogue on matters Israel and Jewish, which had even included visits to Libya -- though this was my first (and now, last) foray.

The scene was ad hoc and even surreal. The street outside was sealed off, and the entrance to the building was shrouded by scaffolding. In the lobby, behind a makeshift partition, we sat on cheap-looking, oversized sofas, while senior Libyan diplomats were perched on the arms. Halfway through our audience, the President of a major African nation arrived for his own meeting with Qaddafi, and rather than dismissing us, Qaddafi convinced his counterpart to join us, sandwiched meekly for another 25 minutes among a few American Jews.

Mission Accomplished... does Libya count?

I wasn't planning to shout from the rooftops over the success of President Obama's smart-power strategy in Libya, though I had blogged early this year that Libya was an opportunity for him. Not a confounding challenge, like Iraq or Afghanistan, or Egypt or Syria, but nevertheless an opportunity to turn a fresh page, at least back to the limited-engagement days of Clinton and Bush (remember 41?). This may not have been a slam dunk, but let's at least give the President credit for a good rebound shot.

Six months ago, back when I first posted on this, lots of Republicans seemed to be goading the President into invading Libya. The disappointment was palpable when he threw in with our NATO allies and let them do most of the work -- with no ground invasion, and with limited firepower after the first days of giving the rebels a head start. And in the end, it's been estimated that the entire Libya engagement cost Washington less than $1 billion -- no casualties, no PTSD -- and far less than the cost of one day in Iraq after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt.

Later, the Republicans' spent blood lust turned into anger that the imperial imperialist (Obama) needed to invoke the War Powers Act, even though President Bush (43) had invaded Iraq with only a vague contingency resolution from Congress, and in Libya no U.S. ground forces were committed. A few of my Republican friends have suddenly informed me they never even liked Bush's whole "democracy-building" agenda. Oh.

Qaddafi's fall helps Africans more than Arabs

It would be a mistake to think that the imminent fall of longtime Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi will directly impact developments across the Middle East. Within Africa, however the consequences may be far-reaching.

Qaddafi's departure will measurably ease the burden of the Arab League's deliberations, but could fundamentally alter Africa's power equation. Not so long ago, the Arab heads of state were holding one of their periodic, closed-door deliberations. Qaddafi suddenly proposed a joint invasion of Israel, to solve the Palestinian issue once and for all. Going around the table, the self-styled "king of kings" started assigning tanks and planes to each leader, based on the combined Arab numbers. When told how many hundreds of warplanes he should command, a dazed Bashar Assad -- Israel's most dangerous neighbor, no less -- asked what he was supposed to do with 100 or 200 fighter jets. Almost literally, for several years now, Qaddafi's voice has been the sound of one hand clapping inside the Arab tent.

From Arab Spring to Persian Summer?

Democracy breaks out across the Arab lands, and Palestinians take it out on Israel. Iran supports democracy for its enemies, dictatorship for its allies. Israelis hunker down.

Palestinians seem to be in an earlier stage of statism than their fellow Arabs in Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, or even Syria. Their resentment and their yearning for freedom can still be channeled against Israel at least as much as against their own leaders. As Syrians finally turn against the Assad regime, resident Palestinians have advanced the ruler's agenda by defying the fortified Israeli border. In the West Bank and Gaza, hard-core demonstrations against Israel have similarly spared Fatah and Hamas the worst kind of insurrection being witnessed around the Middle East. Palestinians certainly have grievances against Israel, but so did the Syrians and Egyptians who have risked their lives to overthrow their own leaders. For now, their adaptation of the Arab Spring is serving to bolster their established elites. 

Iran continues to support Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Assad in Syria -- while hailing the fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who was no friend of the Islamic Revolution. Also, the Islamic Republic continues to crack down on the innate dissent within Iranian society, lest the Arab Spring turn to Persian Summer.

Israel, of course, has little influence over the sweeping changes across its neighborhood. While championing democracy as a goal for the region, Israelis are fearful of radical movements that may use the resulting vacuum to take power in on or more of these nations. They prefer the devil they know... The fact that the Israeli government -- and consequently the Israeli public -- seems increasingly disinterested in negotiating with Palestinians certainly does little to keep the pragmatic Palestinians from being overruled at home. This is one bet Iran may be winning.

Why the Syrians are on their own

I was asked why the world is not taking more action in support of the popular uprising and basic human rights being threatened in Syria. By rights, the major powers should have stepped in the way they did in Libya, or at least call on Bashar Assad to step down (or at least revoke his medical license for systematically savaging a poor 13-year-old boy).

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Why now? Just because of what's been going on elsewhere in the region? The Assad family has put down localized uprisings before. Most Syrians may either hate the Assad regime or simply want democracy (or something else), but most people don't seem to be taking to the streets. Syria has been a brutal place for decades.

2. Everyone but the brave protesters seems to prefer Syria as it is. Even though Egypt is strategically vital, its territorial integrity was never up for grabs, while Syria -- a bit like Iraq -- has remained a precarious venture. Syria could disintegrate, in which case the region might plunge into violent anarchy.

3. So many powers are invested in Syria's status quo, moreso perhaps than with Egypt. Russia and France still retain old colonial designs on Lebanon and Syria's national life. The United States, obviously, has interests relating to Lebanon, Israel, and Iran. Though they be allies on generally good terms, Iran might use Assad's downfall to expand its role in shaping Syrian politics even more than in Lebanon, and to further streamline its pipeline of terrorists and weapons into Lebanon. Turkey fancies itself as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and it shares Kurd-a-phobia with Assad. 

4. Israel, of course, has relied upon its contentious yet predictable border, including Lebanon. It already lost one longtime neighbor in Hosni Mubarak, but at least there's a peace treaty locked in with U.S. financial and strategic support. Syria has no emergency brake. And if Israel ever did cut a deal with Syria, it could be a relatively straight -- if painful -- swap of Golan Heights for peace; but not if Iran steps in first.

The Syrian people have long deserved better than Bashar Assad, but they also know their predicament. Their resilience is impressive, and we can hope they succeed and that their rich intellectual and cultural heritage carries them through toward a more democratic future. But the vested interests will be vested, at least for now.

Obama as Netanyahu's straw man

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Shimon Peres were not the Presidents of Iran and Israel, respectively, I daresay Iran might have a nuclear device by now. Ahmadinejad is so offensive in his grandstanding and baiting that there's no way the Europeans could turn a blind eye to the nuclear program that progressed so quietly under Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami. And given Netanyahu's skill for shifting blame and avoiding actual talks with the Palestinians (yes, the Palestinians have also made troubles), the Europeans would have lost patience with Israel months ago -- if not for the visionary, statesman persona of Shimon Peres.

The AIPAC banquet is one of the Jewish community's premier annual events. They do a great job. Tonight, no news was made, but that's not AIPAC's fault.

After the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House gave generally bland speeches, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech full of pride and platitudes, and crowned by a defiant pledge that Israel will "never" return to the 1967 borders. President Obama never suggested Israel return to the 1967 (really, PRE-67) borders, but it was clear Netanyahu meant to tar the President as having done so. BIG applause on that. Great stuff.

If in 2000, the two sides were at a point where Bill Clinton could paint a vision of what Israeli-Palestinian peace could look like, we've reached the point now where the best Obama can do is share his vision of what Israeli-Palestinian NEGOTIATIONS could look like -- and he still got pounded by Netanyahu.

Democracy is the goal, whether by revolution or evolution

A few years ago, when the United States signed a bilateral cooperation agreement with an "emerging democracy", it included language committing both sides to human rights and democracy -- and one could assume that was Washington's way of promoting some American values. But it turns out, it was the other country's own foreign minister who insisted on the language. As he explained, he needed it to convince his government that Washington takes progress and transparency on these issues seriously.

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is rumored to be searching again for safe haven somewhere in Africa, while also insisting he'll never give up. Laurent Gbagbo, the former President of Cote d'Ivoire, is locked up tight. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has been questioned in an investigation into corruption during the three decades he served as President (while his military comrades continue to call the shots). And so on. This is all truly inspiring, and no doubt more longtime despots will follow suit.

Africa and the Middle East will never be in the same, and mostly in a good way. But just mostly.

Gbagbo's democratically elected -- and Great Power-delivered -- successor, Alassane Ouattara, is no champion of democracy. For the most part, the heroic opponents of Qaddafi's rule are more rival tribes than a movement for pluralistic respect for human dignity. 

Not every freedom fighter ends up governing like a Nelson Mandela, and not every opposition leader is an Aung San Suu Kyi. In too many cases, Europe included, "democratic" activists only want a free election in order to get into power. They make long lists of promises to sincere Westerners. If human rights advocates openly assist the opposition in its bid to unseat an autocrat, why should the regime cooperate? Much of our work is convincing the autocrats that they can open up and respect fundamental rights (if not yet the one about popular rule) without losing their hold on power. 

The latest revolutions and uprisings are a positive trend, but it is too early to know the outcome in any affected country. And the threat of ignoble ejection definitely weighs more on the minds of the remaining dictators. But it's still worth facilitating interim progress, WHERE POSSIBLE, especially if it can mitigate death and destruction while paving the road to eventual peaceful -- and sustainable -- transition.

Welcome to MST - Mideast Saving Time

Recent incidents in and around Israel have been driven primarily by local factors, but the sweeping drama elsewhere in the region has eclipsed what might otherwise have been sharp reactions in the West.

The barbaric attack on a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar prompted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to announce hundreds of new housing units over the pre-1967 Green Line. The attack could have been an effort to remind Israelis and the world that Palestinians are dangerous, even when Muammar Qaddafi seems to be hogging the title of Mideast menace, but more likely this was just the one successful terrorist mission of the many that Israeli forces thwart almost on a daily basis. The same set of factors can explain the latest Jerusalem bombing attack.

The fact that Washington and even the United Nations were distracted with the momentous jockeying over international Libyan intervention – and that U.S. President Barack Obama has accepted for now that Netanyahu is unwilling or incapable of acting more constructively than his Palestinian counterparts – meant that little notice was taken of the massacre or the Israeli response.

Rocket strikes from Hamas-ruled Gaza against civilian targets deep inside Israel may have been meant to test the new security regime between Israel and a still rudderless Egyptian regime, as well as showing that Gaza can be at least as dangerous as the West Bank – a headline grabber. If Netanyahu’s response to the Itamar attack was knee-jerk and politically calculated, the mobilization against Gaza was obvious and unavoidable. The State of Israel must be able to protect its citizens.

When my friends complain that the murder in Itamar of both parents and three of their young children got next to no coverage in the American press, they are mistaken. However, it was understandably overshadowed by Qaddafi’s campaign against thousands of Libyans, continuing protests and mass killings elsewhere in the Arab world… oh, and the Japanese earthquake-tsunami-nuclear trifecta (!!). Downplaying the deliberate butchering of a Jewish family is unseemly, and so is overstating its significance relative to other immediate crises near and far.

Had the Itamar murders taken place a few months earlier, they would have received far more press, and Netanyahu’s decision to build more West Bank housing would have attracted far more condemnation. When Israel launched Operation Cast Lead two years ago in Gaza, President Bush was preparing to conclude his White House tenure and Americans and the rest of the world were out on Christmas break. That timing definitely worked to Israel’s advantage, reducing the unavoidable negative publicity. It cuts both ways.

Libya can save U.S. in Mideast

Rather than compounding the military campaigns to which President Bush originally committed us a decade ago, the intervention in Libya can become part of a broader transformation that ultimately stabilizes the region, restoring and even breaking new ground in the credibility and legitimacy of U.S. influence and power in the Middle East.

Libya seems to be a perfect fit for U.S. intervention. Despite the Bush administration's rapprochement with Libya, unlike Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Qaddafi is hardly seen as Washington's ally, so there's little of that imperialist baggage or angst. The United States is acting under a genuine coalition, including participation of Arab forces. The Arab League, and China and Russia, have stepped back from their original assent to the Libya intervention, but they were fully aware that the UN Security Council resolution was authorizing more than a simple "no fly zone".

The United States was too involved in Mubarak's fortunes to intervene in Egypt, and Bahrain is home to our Fifth Fleet and it's Arabia's new Achilles' Heel. Qaddafi has established himself as the quintessential isolated fanatic dictator, and not without merit. Also, enabling the rebel tribes to remove him may open opportunities for further mayhem, but in reality Al Qaeda has failed to manifest itself in any of the Mideast turmoil, including in Libya where Qaddafi and other critics of international intervention have revived Osam bin Laden as the poster child for status quo tyranny.

About those Iraq comparisons...

Who can forget that famous line from Newt Gingrich, who told Fox News that “the more difficult it gets, the more the President golfs and the more the President hides.” Relax, Gingrich wasn't dissing former President George W. Bush -- notorious for playing golf and vacationing -- he was actually criticizing President Barack Obama, just two days ago.

It was genuinely entertaining to watch members of the Republican foreign policy elite warn of Libyan mission creep last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press". Of course, NBC identified Richard Haass as President of the Council on Foreign Relations rather than as a former policy advisor for both Presidents Bush. To their credit, both Haass and the elder Bush understood the limitations of U.S. unilateral force. As for the younger President Bush, well…

The coordinated international military effort in Libya bears no resemblance to the junior Bush adventure in Iraq, especially since it was authorized under an expansive resolution by the United Nations Security Council. What's more, France -- which Bush 43 left behind -- is not only on board, it took the diplomatic lead. And even the Arab League found a rare moment of courage, just long enough to sign off on the Security Council resolution. (For all those complaining that Obama isn't taking the lead on Libya, see under: Bush 43.) 


There may be good reasons to not act or to do even more in Libya, or to do it differently, but this is not comparable to Iraq, for the reasons above and for so many more reasons that should be as obvious as they are tedious to list. Also, George W. Bush was the President of the United States who reopened diplomatic and trade relations with Muammar Qaddafi's Libya, with some fanfare. Yup, that would be another difference. 

Downplaying violence of Libya's rebels helps no one

The Libyan rebellion could end today, if Muammar Qaddafi decides to take some deal from the international community and the forces opposing him, or it could continue for some time. What distinguishes Libya from the other countries being overtaken by popular frustration and protests is that Qaddafi's opposition is armed, organized, and dangerous.

Non-violent protest is a noble undertaking, and where it inspires or succeeds, all the better. In Libya's case, tribal allegiances have been suppressed for 40-plus years, the regime has been especially brutal, and Qaddafi unleashed his wrath and fury early in the peaceful phase of demonstrations. The American Revolution was certainly violent, and it had to be, though the British oppression that provoked it was mostly economic and political rather than physical. Non-violence is not a prerequisite for legitimacy.

The outcome is far from certain, even if the rebels succeed. Will there be anything resembling a democracy that respects minority rights? There seems to be no military guarantor of security and stability, as has so far emerged in Egypt. Although many nations, including recently the United States, have traded with Qaddafi's Libya and supplied weapons, the West cannot be considered his sponsor in any substantive sense. His downfall need not be a rebuke against Washington, and NATO, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council seem to be mostly on the same page.

Aside from possibly establishing a limited "no fly zone", we need to give the rebels some space to wage their own battle for Tripoli. Whatever Libyan government results will likely be no more lethal than Qaddafi has been over the years, and there will probably be more opportunity for collective leadership and transparency.

Overall, the press coverage and commentary have downplayed the two-way violence in Libya, exception for concerns that weaponry might find its way into the hands of terrorists (imagine that!). Discounting the rebels' use of force does a disservice to the Tunisian and Egyptian transformations still underway, and to the murmurings of change elsewhere in the region.

There is no shame in a violent uprising, especially if it is justified and moreso if it is objective reality. The price of liberty is not just martyrdom, it can also be violent combat and ruthless aggression against a tyrant. It would be valuable for a Western audience to be reminded of this once in a while.

Frankfurt attack raises many flags

Last Wednesday's attack on U.S. personnel at Frankfurt Airport is cause for concern. Obviously, the loss of two American airmen is painful in itself, along with the two injured. But there are other reasons to worry, or at least to wonder.

Germany is the lynchpin of U.S. force projection in Europe, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Most of those attacked were members of a "security team" and the suspected shooter is a Kosovar Muslim. Although he may have acted on his own impulses, there are just enough coincidences to be not so coincidental.

This evokes several potential interests, including Balkan-Russian nationalist tensions and Iranian backing for Balkan Islamists. The victims were connected to the U.S. intelligence and security network, so this was not just some random transfer of "boots on the ground". Did the Kosovar just get lucky, or was he pointed in the right direction by someone looking to test U.S. readiness or just exact some specific revenge?

Dramatic change is sweeping the Middle East, and it's not clear who stands to benefit -- United States, Russia, Iran... Muammar Qaddafi himself was behind a few attacks on U.S. personnel in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, but that was a quarter-century ago. Very little in Europe or the Middle East happens by chance, which may be why so many of their citizens employ conspiratorial motives to explain American behavior.

Timing, location, targeting, method -- these are important clues, and it's likely many of the intended audience have already received and understood the message. The rest of us will have to just... move along.

Qaddafi's Quran

When I commenced my Arabic studies, over 20 years ago, our Jordanian Christian professor supplied us each with a thick green Quran. On the title page was a dedication from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. We didn't use it so often, but it was interesting just to have it, considering that our classroom was a ten-minute walk from the White House.

I had fantasized of someday thanking Col. Qaddafi for the gift of "his" Quran. Years later, when I had the opportunity, our subject turned out to be issues of Jewish identity and Zionist theory, with which he was surprisingly well-versed. I had forgotten all about his Quran, until just now, after two weeks of following the hot struggle for Libya's future.

Muammar Qaddafi has not been the normative face of Islam, especially since he now claims Islamic extremists are behind the Libyan rebellion. But in his stylized defiance, there has been a certain Arab pride. Ironically, though, it is regular Arabs and Muslims who now rise up out of their own sense of intrinsic pride. Printing Qurans does not make one a prince of the Arab nation or the Islamic umma. Not for very long, at least.

Recalling the king of kings' speech of speeches

The following is excerpted from a blog entry I posted September 23, 2009, after watching Muammar Qaddafi address the United Nations General Assembly. I can't say I foresaw this month's events, but at least I wasn't taken in. I did tell his UN ambassador that -- unless we were to break off diplomatic relations with Libya -- the man should be allowed to stay anywhere he likes within these United States. I also got to show Qaddafi a few things about modern Orthodox Jews. More on that later...

How not to prevent mass murder in Libya

Some well-meaning human rights advocates, among them supporters of Israel, are responding to Qaddafi's mounting campaign against his own people with calls to investigate human rights practices in Libya. This reminds me of the evangelist sporting a sandwich board with the words "Repent Now," as an asteroid is about to obliterate New York City.

There were some noble and tactical efforts to expose Qaddafi's human rights violations over the years, especially while Libya has been a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. But right at this moment, the actual and potential loss of life in Libya is staggering. Auditing tax returns and dispatching a special rapporteur -- even expelling Libya from the Council -- will have zero impact on how many thousands Qaddafi massacres in a desperate bid to preserve his rule or exact revenge.