Thomas Friedman, "Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?": Tahrir Square and the Times's Three Blind Mice

Tweet

In February 2011, Thomas Friedman reported to us in a video from Tahrir Square in Cairo:

"This is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen. This is the single most authentic expression of Arab aspiration, hope, frustration, culture, identity, that I ever seen anytime, anywhere. Somebody broke open a fire hydrant here, and the real Egypt in all this energy, passion and hope is just gushing out.

. . . .

All I can tell you is what you see behind me here is the new realism. Whatever policy we make in the Middle East better be based on what's going on back here, which is an authentic expression of hopes and aspirations of Egyptians, and I would say even Arabs, to own their countries."

The "new realism"? Yeah, right.

Well today, Friedman is back with a New York Times op-ed entitled "Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?," which begins:

"Over the last few years we’ve been treated to a number of 'Facebook revolutions,' from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street to the squares of Istanbul, Kiev and Hong Kong, all fueled by social media. But once the smoke cleared, most of these revolutions failed to build any sustainable new political order, in part because as so many voices got amplified, consensus-building became impossible."

"So many voices got amplified," or were Thomas Friedman and his colleagues Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen (the Times's three bind mice), who were also singing paeans to the Arab Spring from Tahrir Square, ignorant of Egypt's poverty, unemployment, economic stagnation, inadequate education system, and oppression of women?

Go back to sleep, Tom, before you hurt yourself.  

Thomas Friedman, "Flying Blind in Iraq and Syria": Do You Remember How Tom "Flew Blind" in Egypt?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Flying Blind in Iraq and Syria," Thomas Friedman writes:

"Indeed, ISIS is telling us what it wants us to know through Twitter and Facebook, and keeping from us anything it doesn’t want us to know. So be wary of what anyone tells you about this war — good, bad or indifferent. Without independent reporting on the ground, we’re in for some surprises. If you don’t go, you don’t know."

Does "independent reporting" on the ground ensure accuracy? Consider for example the rubbish spouted by Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof from Tahrir Square in Cairo during the Arab Spring. There were too many interviews with intellectuals and not enough with the Muslim Brotherhood toughs going head to head with the Egyptian army. From Tahrir Square, Friedman reported to us in a video:

"This is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen. This is the single most authentic expression of Arab aspiration, hope, frustration, culture, identity, that I ever seen anytime, anywhere. Somebody broke open a fire hydrant here, and the real Egypt in all this energy, passion and hope is just gushing out.

. . . .

All I can tell you is what you see behind me here is the new realism. Whatever policy we make in the Middle East better be based on what's going on back here, which is an authentic expression of hopes and aspirations of Egyptians, and I would say even Arabs, to own their countries."

The "new realism"? The US should have based its policy on the events which transpired in Tahrir Square? Yeah, right. Tahrir Square brought Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to power, but when Egyptians grew tired of the Muslim Brotherhood's totalitarianism, General Sisi seized power by way of a coup.

The Arab Spring? Toast.

Go back to sleep, Tom, before you hurt yourself.

Thomas Friedman, "1; 5,000; 500,000": How About 200,000; 2,500,000; 4,250,000?

Do you recall the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and how Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen went to pains to avoid bumping into each other in Cairo's Tahrir Square while extolling the virtues of the Arab Spring and the birth of Egyptian democracy? Well, the Arab Spring has turned into the Arab Ice Age, Egypt is again in flames (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egyptians-mark-anniversary-of-uprising-with-show-of-support-for-army-backed-government/2014/01/25/f67d47ee-85cc-11e3-8742-668814928ae4_story.html?hpid=z3), and Friedman is busy explaining what went wrong.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "1; 5,000; 500,000" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-1-5000-500000.html?ref=thomaslfriedman&_r=0), Tom Terrific tells us:

"In short, what ails the Arab world is something we alone can’t fix: an inability to manage pluralism in a democratic way. We can stop the worst of it as long as we are there (see: Iraq). But only they can make the best of it — and make it self-sustaining. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is a monster. But he can only be removed in a way that won’t bring more chaos if the Syrian opposition can demonstrate on the ground that it not only believes in pluralism, but has the will and ability to enforce it. Otherwise, the Syrian minorities gathered around Assad will not abandon him. Everyone urging President Obama to intervene in Syria needs to keep all this in mind."

"[W]hat ails the Arab world is . . . an inability to manage pluralism in a democratic way"? Just the Arab world? Iran, which is Shiite but not Arab, also has a problem managing "pluralism." The Khamenei regime hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, murders Baha'is, oppresses Christians, discriminates against Sunni Muslims, abuses Kurds, and throws opponents of Khamenei into Evin Prison in Tehran, where they are tortured and left to rot. And if Obama and Kerry were to dare raise the issue of these abominations in their discussions with Khamenei, which reflect directly on Tehran's world view and intentions, the ersatz negotiations with Khamenei would be dead in the water that much sooner (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/new-york-times-editorial-irans-charm.html).

Would it be politically incorrect to say, What ails the Muslim world is an inability to manage pluralism in a democratic way? I know, don't go there: All religions profess peace and brotherhood. Yeah, right.

"President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is a monster"? How can this be? Sure, he's responsible for some 200,000 deaths, 2.5 million refugees, and another 4.25 million people displaced from their homes (Syria has a total population of 22.5 million people), but he's also John Kerry's "dear friend," and no less than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Assad on "Face the Nation":

"There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Yes, Bashar has proven that he is every bit as delightful and humane as his father, who was responsible for the 1982 Hama massacre.

"Everyone urging President Obama to intervene in Syria needs to keep all this in mind"? Well, if you have the stomach for it, you might want to have a look at some of the 55,000 photographs smuggled out of Syria by a military police officer, which show the emaciated and bloody victims of the Assad regime (see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544711/Starved-tortured-throttled-The-true-horror-Assads-soldiers-execute-rebel-prisoners-revealed-new-images-released-today.html). These pictures are reminiscent of corpses found after the allies liberated Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and if Obama had been less of a weakling, this genocide could have been prevented without American boots on the ground.

However, both Assad and Khamenei have learned that Obama's red lines are drawn with disappearing ink, and who knows how many more innocent people will die owing to the American president's timorousness, i.e. Obama's Pox Americana.

[See also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/new-york-times-editorial-irans-charm.html]

Thomas Friedman, "The Other Arab Awakening": Evolution, Devolution or Barbarism?

Writing from Dubai, Thomas Friedman regales us with more rubbish.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Other Arab Awakening" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-awakening.html?ref=thomaslfriedman&_r=0), Friedman would distinguish between "the radical revolutions you’ve read about in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Libya" and "the radical evolutions that you’ve not read about, playing out in Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf monarchies." Seeking to enlighten us concerning the "radical evolutions" in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where - surprise, surprise, surprise - he is currently visiting, Friedman concludes:

"I heard many of these stories during group conversations with young Saudis and Emeratis, who I found to be as impressive, connected and high-aspiring to reform their countries as any of their revolutionary cohorts in Egypt. But they want evolution not revolution. They’ve seen the footage from Cairo and Damascus. You can feel their energy — from the grass-roots movement to let women drive to the young Saudi who whispers that he’s so fed up with the puritanical Islam that dominates his country he’s become an atheist, and he is not alone. Saudi atheists? Who knew?

. . . .

Again, this is not about democracy. It’s about leaders feeling the need to earn their legitimacy. But when one leader does it, others feel the pressure to copy. And that leads to more transparency and more accountability. And that, and more Twitter, leads to who knows what."

That "leads to who knows what"? If you want the answer, consider the following excerpt from an April 2013 International Business Times article entitled "Execution Central: Saudi Arabia's Bloody Chop-Chop Square"  (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/453240/20130403/saudi-arabia-chop-square-beheading.htm) by Umberto Bacchi, describing capital punishment in the Desert Kingdom:

"In accordance with a strict interpretation of Islamic law, Saudi's courts implement a series of corporal punishments, of which flogging is the softest.

Right hand amputation applies in cases of theft, whereas cross amputation - right hand and left foot - is prescribed for highway robbery.

'I use a special sharp knife, not a sword. When I cut off a hand I cut it from the joint. If it is a leg the authorities specify where it is to be taken off, so I follow that,' Saudi Arabia's leading executioner Muhammad Saad al-Beshi once told Arab News in a rare interview.

Eye-gouging and tooth extraction are known to have been imposed on offenders sentenced in accordance with the concept of Qisas, or retribution.

. . . .

Beheadings are imposed mainly for murder or drug offences, but cases of apostasy (renunciation of one's faith), sorcery and witchcraft can also end up in Chop Chop square. Indeed a man named Muri' al-'Asiri was executed last year in the southern town of Najran, as punishment for being a sorcerer.

Lashing is carried out as the main or additional punishment for a wide range of offences, and can be imposed on men, women and juveniles. In 2011 a 13-year-old school girl convicted of assaulting a teacher was sentenced to 90 lashes, carried out in front of her classmates."

Evolution or devolution? How about barbarism at its most vile?

Thomas Friedman, "Defendant No. 34 Has Her Say": A Very Short Memory

Apparently Thomas Friedman's memory is extremely short.

This past Sunday, Friedman asked, "Does America need an Arab Spring?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/friedman-down-with-everything.html). Today, in his New York Times op-ed "Defendant No. 34 Has Her Say" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/defendant-no-23-has-her-say.html), Friedman observes how the "Arab Spring" that he once ballyhooed from Cairo's Tahrir Square has resulted in the ongoing prosecution of democracy workers in Egypt.

Drawing attention to the defendant Nancy Okail, "who leads the Cairo office of the U.S.-based Freedom House," Friedman writes:

"While seven American democracy workers who were slated to be tried with Okail had been allowed to leave the country, she and dozens of her Egyptian colleagues still face prosecution at a trial re-set for June. She is deeply — and rightly — worried that the U.S., now that it has gotten its citizens out by paying a $5 million bail — will forget about the Egyptian democracy workers.

. . . .

It’s sad to see Egypt’s ruling military council — which has done good things to shepherd Egypt’s democratization process — get maneuvered by remnants of the old regime into this xenophobic attack on groups whose only crime was supporting Egyptian efforts to monitor elections and form parties."

The Egyptian military was "maneuvered by remnants of the old regime"? Is Friedman unaware that this prosecution of democracy workers has the support of the Muslim Brotherhood? As reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/u-s-ngo-workers-leave-egypt-after-travel-ban-lifted-in-foreign-funds-case.html):

"Mahmoud Ghozlan, a spokesman for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, called the lifting of the travel ban [on the 15 non-Egyptian NGO workers seeking to flee Egypt and avoid prosecution] 'regrettable.' The case 'shows that America continues to interfere in Egypt’s affairs,' he said."

And, as this Bloomberg article proceeds to observe, even Egypt's youth movement, although doubting the merits of this case, did not hesitate to condemn the decision to free the foreign NGO workers:

"The April 6 movement, one of the youth groups that organized the protests that led to Mubarak’s overthrow, said in a statement that it 'strongly condemns' the 'blatant intervention' in the work of the judiciary and the 'mysterious' decision to revoke the travel ban."

Friedman continues his opinion piece by declaring:

"But now you have a six-way struggle for power in Egypt: the Army, the Islamists, the youths, the liberals, the old regime’s loyalists and the business community.

This is going to take a long time to sort out. America’s job is to let whoever wins know that their relations with us will depend on their commitment to free elections, an independent judiciary, free press, open trade, religious pluralism and the rule of law."

More balderdash. In Egypt's Parliamentary elections, the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more radical Salafis garnered an overwhelming majority of the vote, and it is plain that they are not planning a Western-style democracy for Egypt. As reported by NDTV (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/egypt-crisis-not-against-sharia-law-says-muslim-brotherhood-83659):

"'The Muslim Brotherhood are interested in the government, in the law that protects human dignity, freedom, equal opportunities, that stops corruption, and in favour of development...We are not rallying actively for Sharia Law, but it [sic] the majority wants it, then why not?' said Dr Kamal El Helbawy, Member, Muslim Brotherhood."

Friedman concludes his op-ed by stating:

"Without vibrant civil society groups, there will never be a sustainable democratic transition in Egypt."

A "sustainable democratic transition in Egypt"? In a country in which at least three-quarters of its Muslim population "say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion" (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/)? Sorry, Tom, but you're again talking claptrap.

Thomas Friedman, "There Be Dragons": Today There Be Fools

In his latest New York Times op-ed gem entitled "There Be Dragons" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/opinion/friedman-there-be-dragons.html?ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman begins by observing that in days of old, mapmakers would warn of of dragons in uncharted regions. Well, today, given that most of the world has been explored, mapmakers are no longer warning of dragons, but only warning of fools on the New York Times op-ed page.

Remarkably, it is just beginning to dawn on Friedman that there never really was an Arab Spring. Tom writes:

"After the onset of the Arab awakenings, it was reasonable to be, at worst, agnostic and, at best, hopeful about the prospect of these countries making the difficult transition from autocracy to democracy. But recently, looking honestly at the region, one has to conclude that the prospects for stable transitions to democracy anytime soon are dimming. It is too early to give up hope, but it is not too early to start worrying."

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I have always stated that it was never reasonable to expect any semblance of Western-style democracy resulting from the Arab Spring. I also said that democracy had little or nothing to do with the revolts in the Muslim Middle East.

February 2012: the flag of al-Qaeda is flying over Benghazi, Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more radical Salafis have won the elections in Egypt, and make no mistake about it -- the Muslim Brotherhood also stands to take charge when the monstrous Assad regime in Syria is toppled.

Friedman would blame the Egyptian army for preventing 43 American NGO workers from leaving that country, and claims that the actions of the Egyptian army were meant "to undermine the democrats demanding that the Army step aside." The problem here is that the Egyptian army also has the backing of the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood, as it thumbs its nose at the United States.

Since 1979, Egypt has received some $70 billion in civilian and military aid from the US, but notwithstanding the recent arrests of Americans, the Obama administration is unwilling to cut this funding.

Perhaps today's mapmakers should also warn of fools in Washington.

Egypt: Stripping Away the "Democratic" Veil

Think back to January and February of this year, when demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square brought down Hosni Mubarak.

Remember how the three op-ed musketeers of The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen, converged upon the scene with a horde of other foreign journalists, all seeking out English speaking professionals with higher educations ready to extol the virtues of the Arab Spring. Needless to say, the primitive sorts with the rotten teeth from the Muslim Brotherhood, who formed the shock troops in the street battles with Mubarak loyalists, never appeared behind Western journalists' microphones.

Fast forward some ten months: The first results of Egypt's staggered election process are now in, and lo and behold, Muslim Brotherhood candidates have captured some 43% of the vote, while radical Salafi Muslim candidates, who remarkably make the Muslim Brotherhood appear moderate, took some 30% of the vote. In short, Islamist candidates took almost three-quarters of all ballots cast. While pondering the runaway success of the Islamist candidates, take into consideration that Egypt's Christian Copts, who want nothing to do with radical Islam, comprise approximately 9% of the population, which makes the success of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis that much more of a landslide.

A shocker? Some Western journalists, disappointed by the election results, note that only the Muslim Brotherhood was prepared for the vote with a longstanding political organization at the ready. However, this excuse fails to explain the success of the Salafis.

For readers of this blog, the results of Egypt's election process should come as no surprise. Compare the 75% of voters who supported the Islamist parties with the some 75% of Egyptians, who, according to a December 2010 Pew Research Center poll (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), adhere to strict Islamic tenets:

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

In fact, the results of Egypt's elections were preordained. "Arab Spring"? My derrière!

Sir Richard Dearlove, "Violent Islamism Has Failed": Were It Only So

I would like to address, albeit belatedly, the remarkable November 4th contributor op-ed written by Sir Richard Dearlove for The New York Times, entitled "Violent Islamism Has Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/violent-islamism-has-failed.html?_r=1). As observed at the conclusion of the op-ed in italics, "Richard Dearlove was head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) from 1999 to 2004, and is now the master of Pembroke College, Cambridge."

I personally don't know Sir Richard Dearlove, but I have heard only wonderful things about him. In addition, his opinion piece was extremely informative and highly influential.

However, I respectfully disagree with Sir Richard Dearlove that "violent Islamism has failed." Although al-Qaeda's fortunes have waned in no small part due to the "targeted killings" (otherwise known as "unlawful assassinations" when radicals from Hamas and Islamic Jihad are killed by Israel from above) being aggressively undertaken in recent years under the auspices of the Obama administration, and whereas I also believe that we are in a transient period when the Islamic world is consumed with internal, as opposed to external, events, allow me to be politically incorrect and state that violent Islamism has not failed, inasmuch as Islam is endemically violent.

The so-called Arab Spring has not rendered Egypt any less violent or more prepared to accept democracy. The Christian Copts in that country continue to be murdered and persecuted, and women continue to be abused. As explained by Robert Fisk in an article in The Independent entitled "The lie behind mass 'suicides' of Egypt's young women" (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-lie-behind-mass-suicides-of-egypts-young-women-2074229.html), Egypt may claim that "honor killings" do not occur within its borders, but the truth is otherwise:

"Officially, Egypt has no 'honour' killings. Young women may commit suicide, yes, but they are never murdered. This is the government line – and of course, it is a lie. The files in Azza Suleiman's Centre for Egyptian Women's Legal Assistance office – and in those of other NGOs in Cairo – tell the truth. In May of 2007, a farmer in southern Egypt decapitated his daughter after discovering she had a boyfriend. In March of 2008, a man identified only as 'Mursi' electrocuted and beat to death his 17-year-old daughter because she had received a phone call from her boyfriend. 'Mursi', a farmer from Kafr el-Sheikh in the Nile Delta, admitted he 'beat her with a large stick' before finishing her off with electric shocks; the murder was only discovered when the body turned up at the local hospital."

Then, too, there are the statistics concerning Egyptian values released by the Pew Research Center (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), which also deserve scrutiny:

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

Is it any different elsewhere in the Islamic world? Not in Pakistan, where according to the Pew Research Center (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1683/pakistan-opinion-less-concern-extremists-america-image-poor-india-threat-support-harsh-laws):

• 85% favor segregation of men and women in the marketplace.
• 82% favor stoning adulterers.
• 82% favor whippings/cutting off hands for theft/robbery.
• 76% favor the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

Obama would have us know that his intervention in Libya, which led to the capture and killing of Qaddafi, marks a significant foreign affairs success. Yet, as I have noted in prior blog entries (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/obama-libya-is-recipe-for-success.html), the flag of al-Qaeda is now flying in Benghazi, and violent tribal clashes continue.

Inasmuch as Obama and the rest of the world remained silent as Ahmadinejad and his thugs from the Revolutionary Guard suppressed dissent in Tehran in 2009, Iran is able to look beyond its borders, and now threatens to send warships off America's East Coast (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10356471/iran-says-could-deploy-navy-near-u-s-coast-report/) and to sink US naval vessels in the Persian Gulf (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/ap-iran-to-target-us-carriers-if-attacked-070911/). Mere braggadocio? The readiness of Tehran to plot the murder of the Saudi ambassador on US soil should cause skeptics second thoughts. Also, the recent explosion, which killed Gen. Hasan Tehrani Moghaddam during the testing of an intercontinental missile, should also give pause to anyone claiming that violent Islamism has failed. Meanwhile, within Iran, the nightmarish persecution and torture of Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, women and homosexuals continues.

Sure, I would be delighted to have someone persuade me that Islam is much maligned and non-violent. However, the brutal executions of Daniel Pearl and Theo van Gogh, which reflect general Islamic intent and intolerance, and which were glibly dismissed by Western politicians and journalists, convince me otherwise. Violent Islamism has not failed, but rather has temporarily turned inwards, and regrettably we have yet to hear the last of it.

New York Times Editorial, "NATO's Teachable Moment": "What Would It Be Like to Have to Fight a Real Enemy?"

In an editorial entitled "NATO's Teachable Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html?hp), The New York Times lavishes praise upon Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama for intervening in Libya:

"The Western allies, especially the British and French forces backed up by the United States, can be justly proud. So can Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and President Obama, who ignored the naysayers who claimed that Libya was a quagmire and the battle not worth fighting."

"Backed up by the United States"? Indeed, this was another instance where Obama was "leading from behind," and Obama does not deserve the same credit accorded Cameron and Sarkozy, who entered the fray without knowing whether Obama would assist them. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels could not have overcome Qaddafi's forces without low-flying US AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which pounded Qaddafi's ground troops and supply convoys into submission.

The Times editorial concludes with a question:

"In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointedly told European NATO allies that they risked becoming militarily irrelevant unless they stepped up investment in their forces and equipment. His successor, Leon Panetta, needs to drive that message home.

European leaders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: If it was this hard taking on a ragtag army like Qaddafi’s, what would it be like to have to fight a real enemy?"

Indeed, let's not beat around the bush and ask outright whether Europe could contend with Syria, which in past months has been busy murdering and torturing thousands of its citizens. Unlike the conflagration in Libya, which was primarily tribal in nature, the uprising in Syria represents an attempt by the majority Sunni population to wrest control from the ruling Alawite minority, which dominates the upper echelons of Syria's armed forces and security agencies.

There have been embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again leading from behind, regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU have been delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Syria's economic outlook, dismal even before the insurgency, is buckling under the strain: exports, tourism, trade, manufacturing and foreign investment are all failing (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-syria-economy-idUSTRE77S1W420110829), and the likelihood remains that even without Western intervention, Assad will be forced to depart for Iran.

The bottom line, however, remains: Europe is not prepared to contend with Syria's army, which is the repository of the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons, and Obama, who several times sent Senator John Kerry to woo Assad and appointed an ambassador to Damascus without Senate approval, has demonstrated his reluctance to acknowledge his flagrant error in judgment, and is again procrastinating with respect to a future course of action.

Thousands more Syrian civilians will die before Assad is ultimately forced to flee Damascus, but in the mean time, the US and EU, which were reluctant to effect economic and diplomatic sanctions, will do little to assist those seeking to dethrone Assad.

From a humanitarian standpoint, the conduct of Obama and the EU has been disgraceful. On the other hand, it is unclear what will emerge from the chaos in Libya, as evidenced by the rebels refusal to extradite the Lockerbie bomber (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/libyan-rebels-refuse-to-extradite.html), and the post-Assad outlook for Syria is even more abstruse, given the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, will rise from the ashes of Hama, and vie for control of the government, as in Egypt.

Today's news: Iran is inviting the chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council to visit Teheran. Perhaps the omniscient editorial board of The New York Times would care to explain what this should teach NATO.

Arab Spring, my eye!

Libyan Rebels Refuse to Extradite Lockerbie Bomber

As reported by Lebanon's Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Aug-29/Rebels-will-not-hand-over-Lockerbie-bomber.ashx#axzz1WPyOesQt), Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, one of those responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, will never be extradited to the West:

“'We will not give any Libyan citizen to the West,' Mohammad al-Alagi, the NTC [National Transitional Council] justice minister, told reporters in Tripoli. The NTC is the de facto government of Libya’s rebel movement.

'Megrahi has already been judged once and he will not be judged again … We do not hand over Libyan citizens. [Moammar] Gadhafi does.'

Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer, served eight years in a Scottish prison for orchestrating the bombing of the Pan Am passenger plane which blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270 people. He was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds after doctors gave him only months to live."

The Daily Star article states that Megrahi was "whisked away" by security guards last week and his whereabouts are being kept secret.

So much for the Arab Spring and the nascent forces of democracy in Tripoli.

From the lyrics of "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who:

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Won't get fooled again? Sing it to the New York Times's Kristof, Cohen and Friedman. Maybe they'll be smarter next time around.

Thomas Friedman, "All Together Now": Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

In his latest New York Times opus entitled "All Together Now" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-all-together-now.html), Thomas Friedman delineates four "ruling bargains" whose unraveling threatens the world order:

"the European Union is cracking up. The Arab world is cracking up. China’s growth model is under pressure and America’s credit-driven capitalist model has suffered a warning heart attack and needs a total rethink."

Thanks, Tom, for enlightening us with regard to these developments. At least in Friedman's description of the Middle East unrest, we are spared past blather concerning the "Arab Spring" and blithe expectations for democracy. Rather, realism has set hold in Friedman's head, and he now warns, "Hope for the best, prepare for anything."

Okay, so we're in deep dudu. What is Tom's answer to these travails?:

"When the world is experiencing so many wrenching changes at once — with already high unemployment and weak economies — the need for America, the most important pillar of all, to be rock solid is greater than ever. If we don’t get our act together — which will require collective action normally reserved for wartime — we are not going to just be prolonging an American crisis, but feeding a global one."

"Collective action reserved for wartime"? And is our wartime president mustering our forces in the face of this calamity? Sadly, Obama was forced to cut short his vacation in Martha's Vineyard owing to the approach of Hurricane Irene. No small wonder that Friedman, aware that "Change we can believe in" will not occur during Obama's current term in office, is also beginning to hint at the need for an alternative third party.

Roger Cohen, "When Fear Breaks": An Untraditional Haiku

After long puzzling over Roger Cohen's latest New York Times op-ed, "When Fear Breaks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen10.html?hp), I have come to the conclusion that within this chaotic stream of consciousness there is an untraditional haiku. Poetry is certainly not my thing, but allow me this attempt at translating Cohen:

I'm in Canada,
people are nice and decent,
outside things are tense.

Muslim defiance,
Ineffable potential,
the Arab surprise.

Europe saves euro,
Chinese emergence on stage,
Freedom is a bless.

The New York Times op-ed roster never had much slugging power, but with perennial Republican haters Rich and Collins on permanent and temporary leave, respectively, and no replacements coming up from the minors, their op-ed page is sinking to the bottom of the standings.

Thomas Friedman, "Advice for China": Look to Tunisia

In his latest New York Times tour de force entitled "Advice for China" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05friedman.html?ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman recommends that China heed the Arab Spring, which, according to Tom, is all about human dignity:

"If you want to know what brings about revolutions, it is not G.D.P. rising or falling, says [Russian historian] Aron, 'it is the quest for dignity.' We always exaggerate people’s quest for G.D.P. and undervalue their quest for ideals. 'Dignity before bread' was the slogan of the Tunisian revolution. 'The spark that lights the fuse is always the quest for dignity,' said Aron. 'Today’s technology just makes the fire much more difficult to put out.'”

Very inspiring, Tom, and I, too, seek out the assistance of Russian historians when attempting analysis of events in the Middle East. But let's also have a look at what's really happening in Tunisia. As reported by Reuters yesterday (http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7531GQ20110604):

"Three people were killed and 90 wounded after rival clans clashed over access to jobs in the central Tunisian mining town of Metlaoui, the Interior Ministry said Saturday.

Clan members used homemade bombs, guns and iron bars against each other after a rumor spread in the town that only certain tribes would be offered jobs at the nearby Gafsa phosphate complex. Shops were looted and set on fire."

Indeed, just another example of "dignity before bread." By the way, this was not the first such "dignified" occurrence in Metlaoui since the January uprising, which was largely prompted by joblessness.

Incidentally, I just spoke over a noisy "monitored" line (my hearing has been damaged over the years, and I had trouble understanding everything that was said) with a grumpy senior official from the menacing Ministry of State Security in Beijing, who extended his gratitude to Tom for this gratuitous advice, mentioned something about a terrible haircut (What does my hair have to do with human dignity?), and mumbled "fàng pì" (I have since learned the translation) when hanging up the phone.

Thomas Friedman, "Pay Attention": Egypt Passes from Arab Spring to Middle East Ice Age

Thomas Friedman has me confused. Having long sung paeans to nascent Egyptian democracy and the Arab Spring, Friedman today warns in his New York Times op-ed, "Pay Attention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29friedmanOpEd.html?ref=opinion), that timely Egyptian elections will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, which in turn

"could inject restrictions on women, alcohol, dress, and the relations between mosque and state."

Tom quotes a "reform party leader" as saying:

“We as secular forces prefer to have some time to consolidate our parties. We must thank the army for the role it played. But it was our revolution, not a coup d’état. ... If there are fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood will only get 20 percent.”

Let me get this straight: September elections will not be "fair" because they will come too soon and bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power?

Tom goes on to say:

"[I]t is important that senior U.S. officials engage quietly with the generals and encourage them to take heed of the many Egyptian voices that are raising legitimate concerns about a premature runoff."

In other words, Obama should plead with the Egyptian general staff to delay the vote?

What makes Friedman think that if the so-called "liberal" parties are given time to organize that they will be able to garner a larger number of representatives in the new Egyptian parliament? Perhaps he should pay attention to the statistics released by the Pew Research Center in December 2010 (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/):

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

Could it be that the "Arab Spring" is already behind us and that we are soon to witness a Middle East ice age? One thing is clear: Friedman has been mugged by reality.