Don't Panic.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Ramallah, Palestine (West Bank)

 
Paris.  Beirut.  Baghdad.  This has been a bad week.  Terror attacks from the self-described Islamic State (also known as ISIS) have shaken several communities and killed hundreds so far.  Paris, in particular, experienced several simultaneous shooting sprees, bomb blasts, and a hostage situation (which eventually turned into a mass execution).  Truly, the depravity of ISIS knows no bounds.

Salamanca, Spain

Let's make one thing clear right away.  This is not the fault of the hundreds of thousands of refugees trying to escape the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa.  For the most part, they want to get as far away from these attacks as they can.  Don't let veiled racism make you think otherwise.  Not that they should have to, but it should also be noted that leading Muslim organizations have fully denounced the attacks as well.  ISIS has its origins in al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, and currently controls large amounts of territory in both Iraq and Syria.  Both France and the United States (among many others) have been working to dismantle the so-called Islamic State.  Though some very recent successes in this effort have been made, progress is still painfully slow. 

Moscow, Russia

So the question on everyone's mind is, of course, why?  As we have investigated before, terror attacks occur due to a number of reasons.  In this case, it appears the attacks have a lot in common with the attacks of September 11th, 2001.  In short, this is about provocation.  ISIS wants to provoke a massive and hostile response by the French government (and its allies) to draw them into conflict against their "state." The ISIS ideology and worldview is essentially apocalyptic.  They are actively looking to bring about their interpretation of the end times, and this depends upon a foreign "infidel" army invading their land.  Like 9/11 did in Afghanistan (and Iraq), they want to recreate the same sort of hellish insurgency which America found itself involved in for over a decade.  This would obviously be disastrous.  We cannot give in to fear and hatred, condemning ourselves to an infinite cycle of violence and suffering.

Tehran, Iran

The other obvious reason for this attack is to take advantage of the refugee situation in Europe.  Several of the terrorists reportedly carried Syrian passports during the attack, likely in a deliberate attempt to increase the already prevalent fear of migrants entering Europe.  Why else would someone carry a passport during a suicide mission and in the Eurozone country where travel is mostly unrestricted?  They want Europeans to lash out against Muslims and migrants (and France already has a history of anti-Islamic policies).  They want Europe to close its borders to migrants, leaving them homeless, hopeless, resentful, and stranded throughout the continent.  Essentially, the perfect recruits for their operations.  Allowing migrants to enter a country (and be given shelter and employment) doesn't necessarily radicalize them, but keeping them out might.

Shanghai, China

It will be hard, but keeping our collective anger and fear from spiraling out of control is possible.  Lebanon, for example, has experienced more than its share of this type of tragedy.   Earlier this week, a series of car bombs detonated in a crowded market in Lebanon's capital of Beirut.  Lebanon has faced the full force of the terror and instability of Syria's war and ISIS, and yet it has managed to stay largely out of the conflict. This is extremely surprising given Lebanon's very tenuous political system, which is a mix of Sunni, Shia, and Christian groups.  The country has had a history of sectarian violence (and a brutal civil war).  If ever there was a place which could devolve into sectarian conflict, it's Lebanon.  Yet, majority populations from all groups have stated they will not allow their country to be torn asunder by the problems of Syria and ISIS.  Despite years of war in neighboring Syria, Lebanon remains (relatively) stable.  We should learn from their example.

Tel Aviv, Israel

Now this doesn't mean we do nothing.  We can and almost certainly will retaliate.  But there is a world of difference between fighting back and launching a full scale invasion or closing off a nation entirely from migrants.  For instance, France could step up its support for operations against ISIS.  They could also launch airstrikes or special operations missions of their own against critical targets.  But the worst thing we could do at this critical moment is to panic.  To lose our sense of security completely and rush into war would give these people exactly what they are looking for.  To think that a full scale war is the appropriate response, that our collective vengeance, our righteous indignation, and our moral high ground will miraculously translate into the complete and utter capitulation of an apocalyptic death cult like ISIS is exceedingly naive.

Budapest, Hungary

Likewise, closing borders and allowing ourselves to be consumed by rampant xenophobia only fans the flames of this ideological conflict.  America tried these tactics once, and all it did was help create the circumstances we find ourselves in now.  Let us not confuse a rational response with inaction or weakness.  The stronger power knows when to use force and when to show restraint.  Otherwise, we risk playing into ISIS's prophecy, creating the bloody and apocalyptic battle they have been hoping for all along.

Bethlehem, Palestine (West Bank)

In all, these tragedies remind us that the struggle to end radical ideologies is far from over.  Though it has been said a thousand times on this blog, most Muslims despise ISIS.  They fear for their lives just as everyone else (ISIS doesn't spare Muslims from their wrath after all) and those who are fleeing the region do some predominantly out of a desire to escape terror, not bring it along.  Finally, remember that terror attacks are extremely rare (though highly publicized).  You are still more likely to drown in a bathtub than to be harmed by a terrorist attack.  This week, let's show solidarity with all of the victims of ISIS's wanton destruction.  We are all French, and Lebanese, and Iraqi, and Syrian.  Their hollow and inept ideology will someday crumble under the weight of its own brutality.  In the meantime, don't panic.

TL;DR: Now is the true test of our values.  Do we stand by the ideals of liberté, égalité, and fraternité?  Or will we discard these in the name of vengeance and security?

Photos courtesy of NPR News.

America's Constantly Shifting Strategy In The Middle East

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." -Anonymous

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest

Last week, President Obama announced a critical new development in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  After several largely unsuccessful attempts to remove ISIS from power which involved arming "allied" rebel groups and launching airstrikes, U.S. military personnel will be re-entering the region with (some) troops on the ground.  Despite numerous reassurances that this would not happen, the White House has potentially opened the door into a much more direct (and dangerous) combat role.  Special forces soldiers will now be conducting training missions (and probably also covert operations) within Syria (and likely Iraq too).  This is designed to support the allied Kurdish and Arab forces to help them directly confront ISIS forces.  Though the administration has not said these forces will be supporting anti-Assad fighters in Syria, it is likely they will probably end up assisting in the proxy war against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad while they are there.  So is this the start of a new chapter in America's military involvement in the Middle East, or just another bad sequel?

Not That Bad I Hope

In case you haven't been keeping up on events in Syria and Iraq (shame!), here is one of our previous posts to help explain things.  Currently, the United States is actively engaged in a campaign of supporting the (not terrorist) forces fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, as well as the forces fighting the fundamentalist group known as ISIS.  Russia, for its part, is supporting Assad (and pretending to fight ISIS), making this whole situation somewhat reminiscent of the proxy wars of the Cold War.  Assad has slowly been losing ground in the fight against his rivals over the past four years.  However, the American backed forces have also had their share of difficulties.  With recent attempts to train rebel forces falling flat and airstrikes against ISIS being only moderately effective, it seems that the U.S. will now look to Special Forces operations to help tip the balance of the fight.

For All Those Who Don't Know What's Happening In Syria

But wait, didn't Obama's Authorization for the Use of Military Force say we wouldn't get involved in a land war in Asia?  Not quite.  The text of the authorization states that America would not become involved in "enduring offensive ground combat operations."  This would seem to preclude large armored and infantry divisions, but technically allows for small, covert Special Forces units to be deployed.  That being said, the administration did make several promises that American "boots on the ground" would not be used.  Despite the administration's best semantic gymnastics this week, the move to deploy Special Forces to the region is a clear departure from this previous strategy.  Some are criticizing the administration for breaking one of it's most important promises.  But then again, things didn't look nearly as bad as they do now when those promises were first made.

A Politician Changing His Mind??

What is the U.S. hoping to gain from this endeavor?  In addition to more direct oversight of allied training programs, this would allow Special Forces units to directly support allied forces in operations against ISIS.  (Though the administration flatly denies that there will be combat missions, it seems very clear that this would be occurring behind the scenes.) The ultimate goal is to destroy the central governing power of ISIS and allow Sunni tribes (and Kurdish factions) to retake control of these regions.  However, this will likely also be a means for the U.S. to support its allies in the fight against Assad.  This would greatly improve America's bargaining power in negotiating a settlement of the devastating Syrian Civil War.  Negotiations are going on right now in Vienna to attempt to reach a resolution of the fighting, though immediate progress is unlikely.

It's Complicated

So far, this doesn't sound too bad, right?  A bunch of Special Forces units conduct secret missions and in return America gets to help remove ISIS, re-stabilize the region, and (possibly) negotiate the departure of Assad from Syria.  The problem with this arises in a phenomenon called mission creep.  This is the idea that as time goes on, military forces will become more and more involved in a conflict and its mission will start to creep into new areas.  Like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water, this could (in the most extreme scenario) mean an escalation of forces into a sustained ground presence or even the deployment of entire military divisions.  It is unlikely the current administration would allow things to escalate to this level, but other scenarios can place the U.S. in a difficult position here.  For instance, American soldiers could be killed or captured, bringing a new dynamic into an already extremely complicated situation.

How is this strategy different from the Iraq invasion of 2003?   We have already examined the lead up to the Iraq war in a series of earlier posts, so check these out to get the basics of Iraq in 2003.  Though the end goal appears to be similar (removing terrorist havens and having U.S.-friendly groups control the region), the main departure seems to be about strategy.  From the very beginning, this campaign has been geared towards helping the people help themselves rather than assuming that the American military can do it all alone.  This is a much more subtle and behind-the-scenes approach to achieving its objectives, and will likely be more effective in the long run than rolling into Ramadi with tanks and troops.

Not Exactly A Low-Key Operation

The biggest question of all (and one that was hauntingly absent from the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq) is this: what happens if the U.S. wins?  Is ISIS territory in Iraq going to be given back to the Iraqi government to administer (on that note can they even administer it?).  What about ISIS territory in Syria?  Will this be decided in the peace talks over the future of Assad?  Who will pay for the reconstruction of two devastated countries?  Will there even be a reconstruction effort, or will the world quickly forget about Iraq and Syria once the conflict is finally over (leaving in place the same disastrous social, economic, and educational deficiencies which helped give rise to ISIS in the first place)?  War is infinitely complicated, and there are still no clearly defined outcomes from the administration on this plan.  Dropping "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iraq isn't necessarily a bad idea if done correctly.  But if there isn't a clearly defined, measurable, and flexible plan for the post-conflict process, how will this be any different from previous efforts in the region?

Syrian Civil War Peace Talks (With A Surprising Lack Of Syrians Present)

Perhaps the American military's grand strategy in the Middle East is doomed from the start.  This strategy works on the underlying assumption that America's dominant military, diplomatic, and economic power can bring others to do what America wants them to do.  This tends to work well for nation-states, but mostly falls apart on a community or personal level (which is far more important in this region.  If the military's end goal is simply to bring stability, then maybe there is a shot at achieving this.  But if the military goes into this with naive and grandiose dreams of creating an America-friendly, Sunni-Shia paradise (as we did in the 2003 invasion), then we shouldn't be surprised when such efforts fail disastrously.  This isn't to say that such a nation is an impossibility, but it requires several decades of educational, economic, social, and political stability and development before such a dream can become viable.  Gone are the days when military victory meant large battles, surrendering armies, and clean power transfers.  The types of conflicts we find ourselves in now involve years of careful work, meticulous planning, and excruciating patience.  Even in the best case scenario, we are in for a long fight.

Ultimately, history (and the America public) will judge the wisdom of the current approach towards fighting America's enemies.  If this strategy is executed intelligently and with an appreciation of the complex and competing interests of local populations in the region, this new chapter in America's military involvement in Iraq could become our Return of the Jedi.  But if this is only a means to a larger military operation to fundamentally alter the Middle East, ending in quagmire and failed states, Iraq War III might turn out more like the Godfather Part III. 

Above: Obama

Tl;DR:  Expect things to get a lot worse in Iraq and Syria before they get better.

Setting The Record Straight On Israel and Palestine

"It's all about religion.  They have always been and will always be at war with each other." --People Who Don't Know Better

It seems like every few months, the Israelis and Palestinians begin fighting again.  For one reason or another people are arrested, others get stabbed, walls are put up, and rocks are thrown.  News articles then quickly follow about the intractability of the current Palestinian-Israel conflict, usually focusing on how both sides are guilty of making things worse (often implying that shared guilt means equal guilt).  Or even worse, we see news stories pretending that Israel is completely justified in all of its actions against the Palestinians, or that Palestine is just the poor victim of completely unreasonable tactics (neither of these are completely true).  And then finally, we see the ever present (and extremely misguided) belief repeated again and again that the current Palestinian-Israel conflict is part of some eternal struggle between Jews and Muslims that always has (and always will) be waged.  It's time to set the record straight.

Israel and Palestine: Like a sad Ouroboros of pain and suffering

To even pretend that all Muslims and all Jews are part of monolithic groups destined to fight one another is extremely simplistic.  Individual Muslims and Jews have lived in peace in many places throughout the world.  In early Muslim societies, Jews (and Christians) were given special treatment as "People of the Book."  For over a thousand years, most Muslim-run places treated Jews relatively well (compared to other groups at least).  Now this wasn't exactly the best way to live, the People of the Book were still treated as second class citizens and were subject to a special tax (called the Jizya).  But this was much better than the treatment most other groups received after being conquered by other groups throughout history (think mass rape, slavery, and executions).  Of course, there were some instances of this too in early Muslim societies, but the same can be said for almost every society before the "Modern" era.

Good advice

It's no surprise that many groups have persecuted Jewish people before (and Muslims too for that matter).  But many are quick to forget that Christianity shares in the persecution of Jews throughout history.  The Christian Crusades, for instance, were particularly brutal towards Jewish populations in the Levant (modern day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan).  There is substantial evidence that Jews and Muslims even fought side by side to defend Jerusalem from the Crusaders!  The United States, prior to the revelation of the horrors of the Second World War, was not exactly known for its hospitality towards Jews either.  However, Americans are quick to forget our own anti-Antisemitism.  Rather than face the reality that nearly all competing religious groups (and nearly all other ideologies) have fought one another throughout history, we pretend that only the Jews and Muslims are guilty of not learning how to coexist.

So why are we seeing continual religious violence in the Levant (especially when so many other religious groups and places have learned to get along)?  Well what we are always seeing on TV in Israel and Palestine only become an issue about one hundred years ago.  Contrary to what many people want to believe, the conflict is only somewhat related to religion.  It's all mixed up in politics, territory, and broken promises.  Here is a (very brief) rundown of the beginnings of the conflict...

This is about the most neutral map I could find...

Late in the 1800s, places like Russia were (once again) persecuting Jewish populations (remember that at this time most Jews lived in Eastern Europe and only about 40,000 lived in the Middle East).  Some influential (and yes, fairly wealthy) Jewish individuals formed what become known as the World Zionist Organization.  This was basically like a lobbying group to the world community which advocated for Jewish people all over the world.  When the First World War broke out, the Ottoman Empire (which controlled the Levant) sided against the British and French (the side America eventually joined).  When the British and French defeated the Ottomans, they carved up the Levant and created a special territory specifically for Palestine.  With pressure from the World Zionist Organization, they designated Palestine as a future homeland for the Jewish people.  It should be noted that the many Arab and Muslim leaders agreed to this at the time.  They stated that, so long as the incoming population did not displace those who already lived in the region, they would be  cooperative to take in Jewish immigrants.

A large population shift in a small amount of time, what can possibly go wrong?

However, as Britain tried to manage the transfer of Jewish populations to Palestine, things began to get out of hand.  The policies of Nazi Germany pushed many Jews to break Britain's quota limits for immigration.  As can be expected when large numbers of people migrate to a small area, people began to fight over the same tracts of land.  This escalated significantly during the Second World War, and the Jewish population (who had been recruited by the British to help in the war effort and to help put down an Arab rebellion during the war) quickly turned against the British after they refused to increase the quota of Jewish immigration in light of the Holocaust.  By 1946, the Jewish population had reached around 650,000.  Once the Nazis were defeated, things became even worse.

Britain was severely weakened after the Second World War (they got bombed pretty hard by the Nazis after all).  England had begun to withdraw from its empire in all corners of the world.  Still upset over British management in Palestine, some Jewish groups began an open insurgency.  The British attempted to negotiate a withdrawal which was amenable to both the Jewish and Arab populations, but no acceptable solution could be found.  The Jews didn't want to be ruled by the Arabs (understandable given previous persecution by others), and the Arabs didn't want to cede large amounts of land to people who had (predominantly) lived elsewhere for centuries.  When the last British troops left Palestine (with no transitional government in place), armed Jewish and Arab groups scrambled to gain territory and install a government.  Neighboring Arab nations like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon all participated as well (with some annexing territory in the process).  Israel quickly proclaimed its independence as a nation, but the Palestinians were not yet organized enough to do the same.

Everyone just wants a piece of Jerusalem

Here we see the primary motivator for this conflict: territory.  In the decades since, several other wars have broken out to try to gain territory.  Religion does play a big part, but only so far as it is related to territory.  Since the holy city of Jerusalem was split in two between Jews and Arabs, each side has a strong motivation to continue fighting.  Several other wars have broken out (either started by Israel or its neighboring nations), but the Palestinians have never gained statehood.  It is this development, probably more than any other, that continues to cause problems today.  The Palestinians do not feel the sense of empowerment and pride from having their own country.  Religion is often used as an excuse for the violence, but without the problems of territory, statehood, and self-government, it is highly unlikely that the conflict would have lasted as long as it has.  Indeed, there are large populations of Muslims and Jews living as Israeli citizens who are not constantly trying to kill each other.

Palestine's shrinking borders

There is certainly an argument to be made that Muslims not directly involved in the conflict can be motivated by religion in the conflict.  Nations like Iran love to stoke the fires of anti-Antisemitism which do exist among some communities.  But overall, most Muslims (the Arab ones at least) are upset at Israel not because of its religion, but because of its policies toward the Palestinians (with which many Arabs sympathize).  Several predominantly Muslim nations (like Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey) have full diplomatic relations with Israel.  The world's most populous Muslims country (Indonesia) has also established upgraded relations with Israel as of 2012.  It's clear that most nations (except maybe Iran) do not really care so much that Israel is a predominantly Jewish nation, they take issue with Israel's policies of building settlements and walling off portions of Jerusalem.  In short, the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict has nearly everything to do with territorial and political problems from the 1940s, and very little to do with religion.

The Separation Line in Jerusalem

It is essentially impossible to determine what exactly kicked off this latest round of violence.  For every incident involving a Palestinian stabbing someone, there was an earlier incident of a Palestinian's house getting seized by Israel.  For every Palestinian killed by Israeli police, there was probably an earlier event where an officer was jumped and beaten by a Palestinian.  You can point to the statements made by Palestinian Authority (the closest thing Palestine has to a government that isn't the extremely violent Hamas of the Gaza Strip) President Mahmoud Abbas that the Oslo Peace Accords of 1992 no longer apply as an incitement of violence.  Or you can point to Israel's refusal to halt the settlement program as tacit support for continued efforts to undermine Palestinian statehood.  The hard truth is that the reason the conflict continues is because Israel continues to build settlements and prevent Palestinian statehood (because it can't control its most vocal and violent supporters who will accept nothing less than full Palestinian capitulation) and because the Palestinians don't do enough to reign in violence among their own ranks (because they can't control their most vocal and violent supporters who will accept nothing less than full Israeli capitulation). 

The Oslo Accords: Who knew this wasn't going to work out?

Are there any prospects for future peace?  Maybe, but it doesn't look good in the short term.  The peace talks which were championed by John Kerry in 2014 have completely fallen apart.  Instead, the Palestinians are making significant progress toward gaining statehood in the United Nations.  Israel is very opposed to this as full statehood would mean clearly delineated territory and sovereignty.  Meanwhile, Israel is continuing to build a separation wall in East Jerusalem to restrict Palestinian movement.  The Palestinians naturally don't like this since Israel can place these anywhere it wants to separate or isolate communities.  When decades of peace talks have failed, can we really be surprised when people once again turn to violence to solve their problems?

Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations

In all, remember that these are people.  People with (often) legitimate grievances who see no other means but violence to achieve their goals.  To reduce this to an intractable and eternal conflict between Jews and Muslims cheapens the real problems of the conflict.  The Palestinian who just had his home demolished doesn't care that it was (likely) done by a Jewish company.  He is mad that his house was destroyed.  The Israeli whose friend was stabbed to death doesn't care that it was (likely) a Muslim who did it, she is just mad that her friend was killed.  As hard as it may seem, there are still ways to solve this problem.  But we won't get anywhere if just give up and pretend that this conflict is about Mecca and Menorahs when it's a whole lot more complicated than that.

Love finds a way

TL;DR: In Israel and Palestine, religion is mostly used as an excuse to mask the underlying territorial and political issues which started nearly one hundred years ago.

Tragedy In Kunduz: The Myth of International Law

"The conventional army loses if it does not win.  The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."  -Henry Kissinger

The Hospital In Kunduz, Afghanistan

America's military involvement in Afghanistan is now over fourteen years old.  What began as a quick and effective strike to overthrow the brutal regime of the Taliban has since then morphed into a protracted insurgency with no foreseeable end in sight.  America has largely shifted the role of direct combat operations to the Afghan security forces, but this fight has seen several setbacks in recent years.  The Taliban recently gained (and then lost) the town of Kunduz, while reconciliation talks with the Taliban have fallen apart.  While retaking the city, the United States launched an airstrike which destroyed part of a hospital being used by the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders (known as MSF in French) and killed at least twenty-two people.  This terrible tragedy has raised numerous questions (and some serious accusations).  MSF immediately denounced the attack as a war crime.  So is the United States guilty?  Well the answer is a little complicated.

Taliban Territory In Afghanistan

If you are wondering why the United States is still involved in Afghanistan and can't understand why the mission continues over 14 years after it began, it is important to remember that Afghanistan isn't really a country.  At least not in the traditional "Western" sense.  It has (mostly) defined borders and is internationally recognized, but many of the people living within its borders have little concept of the State and certainly don't concern themselves with the politics of a capital city hundreds of miles away.  This remains one of the central problems with governing the country.  Though great strides have been made since the U.S. occupation to improve education and the quality of life in Afghanistan, building up a country does not happen overnight. 

Kabul: More Than Just Dirt Streets And Goat Herders

War is rarely neat and cordial.  The bombing of the Kunduz hospital proves that.  However, the nations of the world (in response to horrific conflicts like the First World War) have all attempted to create a standard set of rules by which everyone should respect when conducting warfare.  The regulation of indiscriminate weapons (poison gas, landmines), prohibition against targeting civilians, and the treatment of surrendered combatants are all the subject of international laws (like the Geneva Convention laws).  War crimes are very specific violations to these laws.

The International Court Of Justice In The Netherlands

The problem with international law is that it doesn't really exist.  One of the most important factors in determining law is its enforceability.  In the United States, the central government enforces laws.  But in the international community, there is no such central authority to enforce laws.  If a law cannot be enforced, is it really a law?  Though institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court can try to prosecute offenders, they tend to require a nearly unanimous effort by all of the world's major powers.  This worked well against the Nazis after the Second World War, but it is tough to prosecute a major world power when they have veto power on the whole process.  This is the problem right now in Syria with Bashar al-Assad launching indiscriminate attacks on his own people (Russia won't allow war crimes proceedings to go through).  Even if a trial was successfully conducted, then what?  Someone like Assad would not willing go to jail, so the problem of removing an offender from power remains.

Not Everyone Gets Away With It Though

So what good are laws of war if they can't be prosecuted?  Well even if a law is not always enforceable, it can often still be followed out of good conscience.  The United States could easily begin a campaign of intentionally bombing all kinds of civilian targets, and wouldn't expect any retaliation (a debate like this is stirring about America's use of drone strikes).  However, the stigma against such actions is usually strong.  America could expect widespread condemnation from its allies and would be hard pressed to find willing partners in continued military operations.  Like the United Nations itself, international law may not be completely effective at fulfilling its main goal, but it is better than having nothing at all.

Not Sure If Fully Legal Yet...

Can the bombing of the Kunduz hospital truly be considered a war crime?  Probably not given the circumstances surrounding the strike.  The Taliban had been using several buildings throughout the hospital complex to launch attacks against the Afghan security forces.  The security forces called in the airstrike to the U.S. military, which conducted the attack.  Everything else is speculation at this point.  However, this is central problem with these restrictions: the Taliban (and similar organizations) do not follow the rules.  By standing on the moral high ground, these forces are disadvantaged strategically.  Insurgent groups know which tactics are off limits and actively try to provoke incidents which violate these rules.  This is often done in order to isolate and alienate the invading force (this worked well in Iraq to help drive away the few allies still working with the United States).

Regardless of the circumstances, the incident in Kunduz is an absolute tragedy.  The Taliban are guilty for using a hospital complex as a fighting outpost, and the United States is guilty for using explosive weapons so close to a civilian site.  The U.S. government has been directed to perform a full investigation of the incident.  This would be used to determine if the strike missed its original target or was a miscommunication between the U.S. and Afghan forces.  Naturally, MSF has called for an independent investigation to be conducted by the international community.  Though an independent third party would be ideal for determining the full truth of the matter, it's unlikely to go forward due to America's dominant standing within the organization.  Whether accidental or intentional, it seems hard to believe that the American military would intentionally blow up a hospital for no reason.  Regardless, Kunduz reminds us all that civilians often suffer the most in the chaos and confusion of war.

Above: The Main Casualties Of War

On a final note, President Obama announced this week that almost 10,000 American forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.  Though the original plan was to draw down the military presence to around 1,000 by the end of next year, the recent setbacks of the Afghan security forces have shown that the country is not yet ready to maintain its own security.  It should be no surprise by now that this blog rarely advocates for a military option when others will do, but in this case it appears to be the appropriate action.  If Iraq is any indicator, the premature exit of a stabilizing military force can often cause problems down the road.  There will come a time when the American military is no longer needed in the country.  Unfortunately, it isn't now.

In all, these are the types of problems armies have to deal with all the time now.  Fighters don't meet in a neutral battlefield and shake hands.  Instead, they hide out in hospitals and force the stronger power to make these tough decisions.  This doesn't excuse the attack on the hospital complex, but it should help provide some important context for this tragedy. 

TL;DR: War is hell.

The Jewish High Holidays: New Year, Old Problems

This week's post comes to us from friend and colleague Matthew Spencer-Kociol.  Matthew is a graduate of the University of Utah in Middle East Studies and lives in Salt Lake City with his family. 

It's a celebration!

One big difference between Jewish Holidays and most other religious holidays (with the exception of Islam’s Ramadan) is that Jewish holidays can take days or even weeks to celebrate. This can seem overwhelming to non-Jews who are used to having one big holiday that, if they’re lucky, falls on a weekend. The last few weeks have seen a large number of these holidays, so let's take this time to learn a little more about them!
 

Many of the Jewish holidays occur back-to-back in the fall, and they’re called the High Holidays. The High Holidays should simply be a time of rejoicing and celebration for the Jewish people, but in Israel, they are not immune to the violence that is seemingly endemic to the region.

The first of these holidays is called Rosh Hashanah: or Head of the Year, and is the Jewish new year based on the Lunar Calendar in Jewish practice.  This holiday is celebrated with a wide variety of customs, and is the beginning of the High Holidays. Synagogue attendance is highly popular for the Jewish new year, but you have to buy your tickets in advance. Now you might be wondering about this, but while Christian and Catholic Churches raise money through Bazaars or weekly Tithings (handling money is not allowed on the Jewish Sabbath), Synagogues raise funds by selling tickets for major religious events and through annual memberships, both of which may be sliding scale. The blowing of the Shofar is a way of ushering in the New year, and often involves the ram’s horn, though the horn of other Kosher animals are often used such as the Cow. Yemeni Ram horns are highly prized for their size and sound.


 

If done properly the Shofar is both beautiful and haunting at the same time, and is evocative in a very biblical sense.  This is a great time to mention the Shemitah- there has been a conspiracy theory going around that Jewish New Years are often associated with biblical end times prophecy. Out in Utah, many of the Mormon faith stocked up on emergency supplies, expecting an impending economic disaster. Besides the Shofar, the prayer of Tashlich is most commonly performed on Rosh Hashanah. Tashlich prayer is the casting away of sins from the previous year. This is done in a rather creative manner. First, Jews will go find a running body of fresh water, like a river. Second, they will say the Tashlich prayer and contemplate on their sins or regrets. These sins are often “cast” into the river in the form of bread crumbs so the sins could be metaphorically consumed by fish (but in all likelihood, a goose might be eating your sins too!)

Food is a unique experience during Rosh Hashanah as well. Round foods are eaten, such as round braided Challah bread filled with delicious raisins to celebrate the roundness of the year ending and beginning. Bagels are great too, as they are also round. To celebrate the sweetness of a new year, sweet treats are often eaten, and the most popular of which is apples and honey.

Above, a large and round raisin Challah for Rosh Hashanah (courtesy of the author!)

Following Rosh Hashanah, a holiday known for its feasting, is the antonymous Yom Kippur. This is the day of atonement, a day when Jews fast. A common tradition is to donate food to the poor in the amount equivalent of what they had not eaten that day due to their fasting.  Some Orthodox Jews in Israel will often perform a ritual called Kapparot.  This involves a chicken being used to hold sins that they want to atone for and that is promptly slaughtered.  The freshly slaughtered bird is then donated to a needy family for food. However, this is a controversial practice. While some Jews consider this to be a merely a ritual slaughter and encourage it as a great way to celebrate the holiday, other Jews consider the practice to be not kosher, as the bird may be distressed by the ritual.  Lastly some Jews even consider the practice heretical and compare the ritual slaughter to animal sacrifice, which is forbidden in Judaism. 

The controversial practice of Kapparot (Courtesy wikimedia)

Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year, and extremely religious Jews in Israel will try to visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque’s holy grounds.  This is because they see the Mosque’s foundation as having significant value to Jewish history sinceit was once a part of the old Temple of King Solomon. In Israel, there isn’t am established precedent of the separation of Church and state as we have in America.  Jews aren’t entitled to visit the Mosque to pray, because that can upset the fragile religious harmony in Jerusalem.  Israeli Security normally try their best to keep Jews from praying at the Aqsa Mosque. However, Jewish religious activity near this holy Muslim site can spark riots, and this is often the time that Palestinian Youth will stage angry protests and throw stones at religious Jews or at Israeli police, as has been recently reported in the news.

This year has been a particularly violent year at the Aqsa Mosque, and it is no small possibility that the coinciding of Yom Kippur with Eid Al-Adha could have caused increased tensions between the two religious communities in Jerusalem. Sadly, unlike in recent years, there has not been a strong campaign by Jewish And Muslim Leaders to promote tolerance during the two holidays. While it may seem to go without saying, the recent protests at Aqsa have far less to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself, and more to do with religious tension during this time of the year.  

Palestinian Protesters barricade themselves inside the Aqsa Mosque (Courtesy VOA news) The High Holidays in Israel are a time often marked by clashes between Palestinian protesters and police.

Sukkot is also known as the Festival of Booths, or the Feast of the Tabernacles. This holiday is a harvest festival but does have a biblical tie-in. It lasts for eight days and represents the temporary structures that Moses and his followers had built to camp in while wandering the desert.

Essentially, on Sukkot, Jews will build a temporary structure with a loosely thatched roof, three walls, and no floor foundation. In this temporary living structure, many Jews will eat their meals during the week long holiday. Some will even sleep in it, making for quite the outdoor experience! The Sukkah, as the structure itself is called, is supposed to remind you of being outside, and is supposed to expose you to the elements to some degree. This serves as a reminder to Jews of our relationship with the land and the wider world.

There’s a saying that if you are in a Sukkot, the roof must be built in such a way that while it may shade you from the sun, if it rains, you will get rain drops in your soup! So that said, while the walls are made of of thin wooden fencing or canvas material, the roof is often made of locally found branches.

The temporary structure Jews make and use on Sukkot (wikimedia)

As Rosh Hashanah is a holiday marked by the blowing of the Shofar, Sukkot is distinguished by the four spices, including the Lulav and Etrog. The Etrog is basically an exotic, but not very juicy lemon, and the Lulav is a leafy palm frong. Those two and the other two species of plants (Myrtle and Willow leaves) are all held together in a bundle. In the ritual of waving the four spices, a prayer is uttered while the four spices are shaken in all four cardinal directions- North, South, East and West.

The Lulav and Etrog are the main parts of the Four Species used during Sukkot. (courtesy BJSD)

For those who cannot build a Sukkah in their yard, Synagogues and Jewish organizations on college campuses will often host a Sukkah structure in their vicinity for all to enjoy. While most Jewish holidays accept non-Jewish people to attend and enjoy holiday events, Sukkot is most well known for being used as an interfaith activity. On Sukkot, many Jews will invite people of other faiths to come and share a meal in the booth. All are welcome to a Sukkot meal!

An interfaith meal and gathering in the Jewish Sukkah (courtesy Texas Interfaith Center)

While Sukkot may be a time to promote inclusiveness of people regardless of faith, this year Sukkot seems to be particularly marked by increased violence in Israel. There has been several shootings and stabbings resulting in several deaths in Israel and the West Bank during the holiday of Sukkot. There could be many reasons why this holiday season in Israel is marked with violence. Could it be the uptick of Israeli settlers visiting holy sites that a cause tensions with Muslim Palestinians? Or could it also be related to Mahmoud Abbas’s recent statement that the Palestinian Authority is no longer bound by the Oslo Agreement, thus giving a sort of unspoken green light to increases in violent protests and terrorist activities in the Palestinian Territories? The straight answer is most likely a combination of both, but whether Abbas’ recent statements are a reaction to recent violence in Israel/Palestine, or whether it is vice versa, could be as hard to resolve as a chicken-or-the-egg argument. 

(Courtesy The Guardian: Abbas gave a speech at the U.N. Claiming he plans on giving up on Oslo.)

The last holiday comes after Sukkot and it's Simchat Torah. This holiday represents the beginning and end of the Torah. The year on the Jewish calendar is divided into weeks with Torah Portions. Basically the Torah is divided into about 54 Torah readings from beginning to end in correlation to the Hebrew Lunar calendar. For example, during the first week of the year, the Torah Portion is the very beginning of Genesis, or the part where God created the world in seven days. Then the portions go in chronological order until we reach Simchat Torah where Jews study the last part of the Torah.
 
And those are the high holidays, and then some! After that, we take a rest from all those Jewish activities, and we don’t do anything wild and crazy until Hanukkah, which is a fun one, and way less formal too!

With Great Hajj Comes Great Responsibility

“Among the lessons I learned on Hajj was that I needed to be mindful and keep the inner connection with God at all times and that self-improvement is definitely a never-ending struggle.” -- Kristiane Backer, From MTV to Mecca: How Islam Inspired My Life

A Very Crowded Hajj Prayer

As one of the five pillars of Islam (primary obligations to be preformed by all Muslims), the pilgrimage (Hajj) to the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia is an extremely important event.  This year, nearly two million Muslims descended upon the holy city for their pilgrimage.  The event is often used as a celebration of life and as a reminder of Islam's emphasis on global unity.  However, this event has been marred in recent decades by a series of controversies and tragedies.  Last week, a stamped broke out in which 717 people were trampled.  This event, and a crane collapse earlier this month which killed 107, have once again placed the spotlight on Saudi Arabia's management of the Hajj.  Naturally, Iran (Saudi's regional rival) has also used these incidents as an opportunity to embarrass and shame Saudi Arabia.  So what is the Hajj and why is it so important?  This week we will investigate the meaning of the pilgrimage and uncover some of the scandals surrounding it.

As we mentioned before, the pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the five primary duties of Muslims throughout the world.  These "Five Pillars" are the declaration of faith, daily prayer, charitable giving, fasting during the month of Ramadan, and the pilgrimage to Mecca.  It should be noted that the pilgrimage (along with fasting and charitable giving) are only obligatory for those who are physically and financially able.  Muslims who are too poor to buy a plane ticket or unable to physically withstand the rigors of travel are exempt.  The Hajj is one of the great unifying experiences of Islam.  Muslims from all corners of the world gather together in one place for worship and contemplation. The Hajj often becomes a transformative experience for Muslims.  Malcolm X, former leader of the Nation of Islam (which did not believe that African Americans would ever be treated equally if fully integrated into society), converted to Islam and performed the Hajj in 1964.  He often said that seeing Muslims of all ethnicities and backgrounds helped turn him away from violence and towards the idea that all races could live in peace (albeit as Muslims).  The entire journey is to be performed from the 8th to the 12th day of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah.  In order for the Hajj to fulfill the obligation completely, it must be performed during this time.  Muslims can perform a "lesser Hajj" at any time throughout the year, but that experience is typically not as revered.

Contrary to popular belief, the Hajj is not just showing up in Mecca and walking in a circle a bunch of times.  There are actually a number of specific actions which must be taken on specific days in order for the Hajj to be considered valid (this makes crowd control much harder).  The entire process lasts for five days and includes visits to the plains of Arafat for prayer and meditation, the ritualistic "stoning of the devil" at Mina, a drink from the well of Zamzam, and several trips back to Mecca to circle the Kaaba.  The pilgrims also shave their heads, have an animal sacrificed in their name to represent the story of Abraham and Isaac (the meat is used to feed the poor), and wear a special all white gown (known as the Ihram).  The Ihram, in particular, is meant to show equality of all pilgrims regardless of social or economic status.  In all, the experience is intended to bring the pilgrim closer to God and highlight the unity of all Muslims throughout the world.

The Many Steps Of The Hajj

So where does Saudi Arabia fit into all of this?  Saudi Arabia has been administering the Hajj since the Kingdom was founded in 1932.  As the "Custodian of the Two Holy Places," Saudi Arabia enjoys both the prestige of this title and the responsibility of managing the millions of pilgrims who travel every year.  Whenever large numbers of people converge in one location, safety is always a major concern.  As more pilgrims have been journeying to Mecca in recent decades, Saudi Arabia's safety and security teams have been having a hard time keeping up.  In 1990, another stampede killed nearly 1,500 people, while similar incidents have occurred in 1994, 1998, 2004, and 2006 (usually during the "stoning the devil" step of the Hajj).  Fires, concerns about disease, and political unrest have also caused significant headaches for the Saudis.  One particularly bad incident occurred in 1987 when a group of Shia militants stormed the Grand Mosque and began taking hostages (page 55 on that link).  In the ensuing firefight, nearly 400 people were killed.  For its part, Saudi Arabia has stepped up its security measures and made numerous safety related changes to minimize these incidents.  Still, many are beginning to think that the Hajj itself is simply too overcrowded to safely maintain.

Throwing Rocks At The Satan Pillar!

This brings us to another Saudi controversy surrounding the Hajj: its perceived exploitation.  Though Saudi Arabia will spend nearly one billion dollars on the Hajj this year, the Kingdom takes in roughly 8.5 billion per year in Hajj fees and related tourism expenses.  A foreign pilgrim will usually spend anywhere from $4,000 to $5,000 during the trip.  This causes severe restrictions for poor Muslims (though Saudi Arabia does provide a small number of scholarships for those who cannot pay).  Saudi Arabia also places restrictions on who is permitted to attend (with wealthy and influential people often receiving preferential treatment).  In addition to the Hajj itself, Mecca has also come under scrutiny for its increasing commercialization in recent years.  What was once a humble city of Mosques and local businesses is increasingly becoming a luxury destination filled with high rise hotels, five star dining, and a massive 2,000 foot tall clock tower just outside the Grand Mosque.  The recent crane collapse earlier this month was part of yet another large construction project in the city.  This has led to many expressing frustration with the Saudis, accusing them of ignoring the humbling and unifying purpose of the Hajj.  

Mecca's Fancy New Skyline And Clock Tower

Controversy aside, the Hajj is often seen as the defining moment of a Muslim's life.  People return with a new appreciation for humanity and there is even evidence to suggest that communities hold fewer radical views when there are more Hajj participants.  Still, the tragedies of the Hajj in recent decades ought to be a motivating force for change in Saudi Arabia.  It is often a belief that the closer a Muslim is to mecca when they die, the better their afterlife will be.  But this is likely of little consolation to the hundreds of families devastated by this tragedy.