Teaching Lilly About the War on Terror

The War on Terror has been an enigma of sorts. It is has only loosely defined and grossly misinterpreted on both sides of the political aisle. Some say it’s a merely a Trojan horse for America to imperialize the Middle East and control the oil market while others are not nearly as cynical. These folks accept that the War on Terror is in fact the last great struggle for Western Civilization. It is as some have called it, the fourth great global war in history (for those that consider the Cold War the third great war.)

But despite all of these grand phrases and such, just what is the War on Terror? If you were to ask the average American in the street what he or she thought the War on Terror was, you would most definitely get a bevy of answers:

It’s a war against radical Islam.

It’s a war against Muslims.

It’s a war for oil.

It’s the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

We’re at war?

And while there might be many answers to that simple question, I truly wonder if people really understand just what is the War on Terror and why does it look the way it does. Why does it feel the way it does? What’s different about this war than the battles of the past? It is easy to accept what our leaders tell us so that we don’t have to think too hard about it but the fact remains that after nearly 5 years of battling this elusive foe, many simply do not know what it is we are trying to do. Mind you, for that I blame our president but that is a column for another day.

We, the capitalist modern West, are fighting a combination of radical religious fundamentalism and Fascism, as purported by Arabs and Persians who dominate the oil rich Middle East of Eurasia. That’s the headline right there but even that doesn’t really begin to describe in detail to those that need a better explanation what the whole point of this conflict is. In fact, it is because most people don’t really understand the headline that the war has become as muddled and misunderstood by the masses

Now let me tell you about Lilly. Lilly is a 17-year-old Mexican-American recovering meth addict from rural parts in central Florida. A friend of the family in the trailer park she lived when she was a little girl raped Lilly. She had a history of violence toward others that would make Sabu blush. To say our girl Lilly was limited in her understanding of the world would be a rather gross understatement. After nearly a year in an inpatient rehabilitation facility the girl could barely even fill out a job application and did not understand the concept buying insurance for her car what exactly the point of insurance was.

Now here’s the rub; Lilly will be able to vote in the very near future. In fact, if the current political trends hold, every pandering politician this side of Cuba will seek after her vote. When I think of how the message of what it is to fight the War on Terror has been so badly communicated, I think of poor, feisty, barely literate Lilly because if grown adults whom actually follow politics really don’t understand what is going on, this kids got no chance in hell of figuring it out.

One day at work, Lilly came to me after group and asked if we were going to get bombed by Iran. She stated that she had seen something in the on-campus that school on TV that scared her half to death and made her wonder if she was at risk. That prompted me to have to boil down nearly every important historical even from World War I to the War on Terror to its lowest common denominator in order for this girl to understand the current Iranian nuclear showdown. After about an hour of me drawing boxes and arrows on a marker board to illustrate the finer points of global policy and war, low and behold this child that resembles more animal than girl in her behavior actually understood the complexity of the War on Terror. She had somewhat of a difficult time explaining it to her peers but regardless; I was like a proud father watching his daughter taking her first steps into a larger universe.

That is when it hit me. My social studies teacher once told me that when you teach somebody something, you own that information for life. Teaching Lilly about the War on Terror actually cleared up some of the problems I had understanding the war. First off, and I didn’t realize this until after we were with our impromptu tutoring session, most people don’t know the first thing about fighting a conventional war, never mind an ideological one.

War is simply one mans attempt to secure resources for his people. Land is where the resources are kept obviously so as Sepultura once said, we war for territory. It its most base form, you mass an army to control the enemy’s territory and then either take over or sever their supply lines. Once you’ve done that, it’s over. The war is done. Mission accomplished. All of the ballyhoo, pomp and circumstance that we’ve learned in countless history classes regarding battles and such were about nothing more than the acquisition of scarce resources by competitive peoples.

People are expendable, good soil and a dependable water supply isn’t. People are replaceable; coal, oil, uranium, gold and other precious metals aren’t. That’s been the driving force of war, to risk people in trade for goods you cannot find elsewhere or are running out of in your own territory.

However, scarcity of resources may be enough for individual men to send millions of his brethren to their doom, but for those on the death march, even the ancient version of warring for oil was not appealing. That is where ideology comes in.

Whether it is religion, patriotism, revenge or the love of a hot chick, to make men fight you must give them a reason they can buy into. Convincing them to hate total strangers who look different from them is a good start but anyone who has studied marketing knows, you need a common denominator for people unite under. Once you’ve got your us VS them ideology rolling it’s easy to make men grab resources for you. It’s easy to commit mass murder in the name of whatever boogeyman you’ve created to unite your army.

The problem we’ve come to since the end of War World II is that somewhere along the way the ideology that makes men fight seemed to have surpassed the quest for resources that is the reason men are made to fight. The Cold War was absolutely about acquiring more resources or retaining the ones you had but those resources were for the first time in history actual people. Capitalist need people to buy their wares and Communists need people to man supply lines and make widgets. If either side had killed too many people then the whole point of the war would have been lost. After all, you can’t rule a country of corpses, until you are Tim Burton (cue rim shot).

The War on Terror is an extension of the Cold War. If you were to look at the possible endgame for the radical Muslims, what you would get is a world full of fellow believers whose sole purpose is to keep this ideology alive. Islam, like all belief systems feeds on humans willing to drink Kool-Aid. That’s it, that is all there is to it. I’m not even sure if Bin Laden and company has thought far enough in advanced to what they’d do with a world where Mohammed wasn’t threatened naked white chicks and newspaper cartoons.

That in a nutshell is why this is such a hard war to fight. If killing people were the way to win then the Muslims would have already lost, just ask the Japanese what I’m talking about. But that isn’t it. Even taking territory such as in Iraq and Afghanistan does next to nothing for us in the grand scheme of things because having control over those places doesn’t cut the average Muslims steady supply of blind faith.

However, not fighting is an even worse option than fighting badly. Because just as we cannot cut their supply of faith, it is that endless supply of faith that keeps them in the quest for the resources they seek. And that resource is us.

Somewhere in Central Florida a 17-year-old Mexican-American girl came away from a rehab understanding why we fight. Only 300 million more left to go.

US pressuring foreign banks on Iran

Isolation appears to be the name of the game when dealing with Iran. In theory, this is the best of all possible options where stability in the Middle East is concerned. Economic pressure and an ability to manage your country's finances are what were responsible for bringing down the USSR so it's a good model to use on Iran...in theory. You see, the more pressure we place on Iran, the more underground they will go. Every sanction or limitation we place on Iran on enlarges the black market where they do their greatest work. So on paper this is the way to go, in all practicality however, this will accomplish nothing more than continuing to turn Iran inward in that secretive North Korean-ish way.

US pressure has prompted four major European banks - UBS and Credit Suisse of Switzerland; ABN Amro of the Netherlands; and the London-based HSBC - to reduce their business dealings with Iranian banks and businesses in light of Iran's intransigence in the international crisis surrounding its nuclear enrichment program, The New York Times reported Monday.

Officials in the Treasury and State Departments have invoked various laws addressing banking and antiterrorism, specifically a 1984 statute banning any dealings with nations deemed sponsors of terrorism and the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. An additional directive signed by President George W. Bush prohibiting business activity with partners suspected of contributing to the proliferation of unconventional weapons specifies Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization and its Atomic Energy Organization as off-limits.

Since any bank maintaining a branch in the US, as nearly all European banking institutions do, is subject to US law, the US brings no small amount of leverage to its demands. Foreign banks have already been financially penalized for failing to comply with US decrees regulating foreign business policy. Two years ago, the Federal Reserve fined UBS $100 million for transferring dollars to - among other countries - Iran. ABN Amro was fined $80 million for violating anti-money laundering regulations and sanctions against both Libya and Iran.

In addition to legal pressure, officials have also campaigned in Europe and the Middle East to persuade economic powers that Iran is too unstable to function as a viable business partner. US pressure was a factor in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's April decision to raise Iran's rating as a credit risk.

Over the last year, Iran's economy has shown a growth rate of less than five percent, and its stock market has plunged over 20%. "I think there is a real and growing sense that there's a risk associated with doing business with Iran, with lending Iran more money, or providing it with a line of credit," Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security told the Times.

New Review: The Swamp

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

You might not think that a book about the cyclical transformation of Florida swampland into livable, productive land and then back to swampland is very interesting -- but you’d be wrong. You’d also be missing out on a tale of one of America’s longest lasting, near-mythical sagas.

Like the Lewis and Clark Expedition or the California Gold Rush, the taming of Florida’s Everglades is its own fantastic story with heroes and villains, twists and turns, and tragedies and triumphs, including a rare moment when Democrats and Republicans got together to do some actual good for our country.

The dramatic story of Florida, in essence, compelled Washington Post reporter Michael Grunwald to write ,“The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise.”

We are living in an age where our greatest inventions and quality-of-life resources are quickly becoming our undoing. Grunwald takes this theme and runs with it, specifically by cataloguing the transformation of the Everglades and asking why mankind insists on rehabilitating Mother Nature before she incinerates, drowns, or blows us all back to the Stone Age.

A host of images come to mind when one thinks of the Sunshine State. Orlando’s Disney World, the happiest place on Earth; Miami’s South Beach, made famous by shows like Miami Vice and the movie Scarface; Daytona Beach’s Bike Week celebration; Ft. Lauderdale’s Spring Break parties; the Florida Keys’ snorkeling, dolphin swimming and sport fishing, made famous by the Beach Boys; Tampa’s Gasparilla pirate festival; and the Florida Panhandle’s Redneck Riviera .

With all of the ballyhoo and fun-in-the-sun advertised about this celebrated state, one rarely remembers that huge amounts of land south of Orlando used to be a swamp -- a river of grass as it were. The subtropical marshlands known as the Florida Everglades is one of a kind. The Everglades has been home to innumerable species of plants and animals. It was once the uncontested home of the Seminole Indian tribe. It was once and it remains today one of America’s greatest attempts to tame and control Mother Nature. Continued

New Review: The Lost Gospel

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

Clearly, an alternative version of the crucifixion story puts all that we know about Jesus’ life and death on its head.

"The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot” by Herbert Krosney as presented by National Geographic, chronicles the remarkable story of how the Gospel of Judas was written, condemned, buried, found, stolen, locked away, nearly destroyed, disassembled, and finally resurrected and republished for a modern audience. The Gospel of Judas was never meant to be seen by anyone of the Christian faith, and because of the helter skelter nature of Middle Eastern antiquities, it almost never was.

Krosney starts the tale in Egypt where a local who was trying to make a buck by finding ancient trash buried beneath the stands, stumbled upon a tomb that had been the final burial place of the aforementioned gospel. From his hands the gospel, as well as a few other preserved ancient documents, ended up in the hands of a local Egyptian dealer. Though he had no idea what he was holding, he still tried to garner a large fortune for it.

“The Lost Gospel” reads like a spy novel as this unlucky dealer travels around Europe and the US trying to find a buyer, only to be ripped off by a former colleague. This same dealer, unbeknownst to him at the time, nearly destroys the gospel in trying to protect this coveted document.

We learn that eventually a guardian angel comes to rescue the document and takes Judas on a journey of rehabilitation. A quarter of the book is dedicated to illuminating the painstaking process of piecing together the shattered and tattered remnants of the gospels while attempting to translate its ancient script. It’s like CSI, but less dramatic. Continued

Mexican Drug Bill Worries Police

Readers of this blog should know by now that I am a big fan of decriminalization when it comes to drug possession. I believe that the way to stop drug use is to treat the users, not lock them up in a place where that will most assuredly amplify their addiction. On my job I treat kids who, while they may need therapy for family dysfunction, don't really need drug treatment for the dimebag of pot they got caught with in the parking lot of the local Waffle House.

I absolutely abhor drug use and I want to eliminate its scar from the face of humanity but the way to do that is not with prohibition, which never works. Let the police concentrate on the mafia bosses and leave the party users alone to seek treatment when they are ready.

Police and business owners from Mexico's beaches to border cities say they are worried a measure passed by Mexico's Congress that decriminalizes possession of cocaine, heroin and other drugs could attract droves of tourists solely looking to get high.

Mexican and U.S. government officials insist that the bill eliminates legal hurdles to prosecuting drug crimes large and small. But it also lays out specific amounts of drugs - including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and Ecstasy - that can be legally possessed for personal use.

President Vicente Fox has yet to sign the bill, but his office praised it shortly after Congress approved it on Friday.

In Juarez, which borders El Paso, Texas, 58-year-old waiter Raul Martinez said Sunday he was worried "for the kids of Texas, the kids of Juarez. I worry for all the kids."

Martinez, who works at the popular border-area bar the Kentucky Club, noted that American teens already swarm the city's bars and clubs because the Mexican legal drinking age of 18 is rarely enforced. He said he feared the new measure could lead youths to try hard-core drugs.

The legislation also confused some police.

"On one side, they're asking us to fight it," said Jose Valencia, a police officer in Mexico City's tourist-oriented Zona Rosa district. "On the other, we have to allow consumption."

Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use." The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Under the bill, people would be allowed to posses 2.2 pounds of peyote, the button-sized hallucinogenic cactus used in some Indian religious ceremonies. Police would also no longer bother with possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana or 0.5 grams of cocaine - the equivalent of about 4 "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.

The law lays out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, MDMA (Ecstasy, about two pills' worth) and amphetamines.

However, the bill stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs - even small quantities - by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

And sales of all those drugs would remain illegal.

A former Pentagon anti-drug official, Ana Maria Salazar, said the law would make it easier to convict street-corner drug pushers and more difficult for people to bribe judges and prosecutors, who now have discretion in deciding what quantity of drugs are for "personal" use.

"All of those who think this legalizes drugs in Mexico, not only are they wrong but they are going to get in a lot of trouble if they come here and try to use drugs," said Salazar, now a political and security analyst in Mexico City. "It's designed to go after the smaller groups of drug smugglers."

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan agreed the measure could actually make it easier to prosecute drug crimes because it attempts to "precisely specify the amount of narcotics in possession of a suspect to allow a criminal prosecution."

But some fear the new measure could make drug-related violence worse in places like Nuevo Laredo, a city across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas, which has been terrorized by deadly battles between rival drug gangs. Since Jan. 1, there have been 92 killings in the city of 330,000, including eight police officers.

"Here things are very tense and many of our compatriots have died," said a police officer who asked only to be identified as Jose. "What will happen if we have to concede them the right to use drugs?"

Shining shoes for tourists, Elipio Rodriguez said drugs were already everywhere in Nuevo Laredo.

"There by the bridge (to the U.S.) anyone can do drugs," he said. "Police always patrol there, by those who are selling, and nothing ever happens. Do you think something will change now?"