Israel's election shows democracy is messy

Winston Churchill once reflected, "Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…(stated in the UK House of Com­mons, 11 Novem­ber 1947)

And so we go to Israel's latest election held a few days ago, in which Benjamin Netanyahu and his party surged in the last few days (or had led along except in the most-desired-outcome category) to win big. One might think that the only election across the entire middle east, an election that was deemed fair, without rigging, and without violence or vendettas, would have been hailed as a triumph. Even an event that all Arab states in the region should strive to imitate.


A 2013 view ranking relative freedom in elections and multiparty democracy among the world's countries. In the Middle East only Israel stands out in the sea of red, though the nation is so small relatively speaking, one can barely make it out. For a larger and interactive map of the world's nations in 2015, go to freedomhouse.org/report

And yet there are many glum faces

To the U.S. administration, and many editorial boards of western news agencies and newspapers, the outcome of this election was a political disaster. Israel's right-leaning Likud party topped the center-left Zionist Union party by an even bigger margin than previously, even though predictions based on exit polling were still assuming a Zionist Union victory. In Israel itself, the glum left of center population expressed feelings of frustration and isolation - were they alone in their "correct assessment" of what was best for Israel? How could that be?

Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party won, not by a slim margin, but by a solid majority - an outcome conceded by the full spectrum of critics and parties of opposition. Photo from http://www.worldjewishcongress.org


Isaac Herzog, leader of the Zionist Union party was considered to be the front runner for much of the election campaign, and was a clear favorite of the U.S. administration. While the administration criticized Netanyahu for speaking by invitation to the U.S. Congress weeks ago, it was not a problem for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to add his prestige to the internal Israeli candidate of choice back in January 2015. Photo from tabletmag.com

Netanyahu's performance in the last few days of the election drew the most criticism. He stated that there would be no Palestinian state in the near future while he was Prime Minister (if elected ...). As reported by Ynet news before the election, "Having previously hinted that he would accept a Palestinian state, Netanyahu reversed course on Monday, citing risks that he linked to the regional spread of Islamist militancy. He said that if he is re-elected, the Palestinians would not get the independent state they seek in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel," he told the Israeli news site NRG. Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

Upon winning the election, Netanyahu and his government sought to clarify his statements, emphasizing that a sustainable two nation solution was still his goal, but the emphasis was on what could last, what could guarantee more than just promises by the Palestinian Authority.

The U.S., Israel's strongest financial backer and ally, has chosen under the current administration to ratchet up its own pressure. Instead of asking its ally to clarify the words, or the meaning of the words, or some diplomatic-speak, it has chosen to take the most brittle meaning to the Prime Minister's words and from that threaten to reassess all manner of support and future advocacy for Israel.


These two leaders do not like each other - it took two full days before U.S. President Obama to make a call of congratulations to Netanyahu for triumphing in the only fair election held for hundreds of miles in all directions, and a process repeated time and time again since its founding in 1948. Photo from www.truthrevolt.org

Teatree's understanding is this - that Netanyahu is a polarizing figure, large numbers of Israelis have no doubt grown tired of his personality and confrontiveness. Israel can ill afford to isolate itself any more from its allies than it already is, whether fairly or not. Isaac Herzog was a pleasant refreshing alternative, and one who had been focused on internal economic bread and butter issues. And those issues are important.

On the other hand, Israel is nearly surrounded by a ring of hostile neighbors, and with Iran in the distance still working on nuclear capability, still considers itself under an existential threat. In that light, U.S. columnist Charles Krauthammer stridently defended Netanyahu's controversial remarks with several points below. The full opinion piece is here.

Krauthammer points out the falsity of "the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister."

"There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected. This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the past 15 years. Every one rejected."

"The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state."

"Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. ... That authoritarian order is gone, overthrown by the Arab Spring. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows."

"... everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability? ... With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland — just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas, which has turned that first Palestinian state into a terrorist fire base."

"Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand."


Israel is tiny, and then there would be a Palestinian state interspersed ... As the saying goes, what could possibly go wrong? Graphic from www.pbs.org

Yemen likely to revert to old kingdoms, with AQAP as the wild card

It is tempting to consider the brief and ill-fated Arab Spring as the starting point for many of the Arab nations current sad, if not tragic, state of affairs. A case in point is Yemen, the region on the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, where long standing desert tribes have ancient civilizations as their history.


Yemen, an arid and mountainous land on the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula. Current population approximately 24.5 million people. It is similar in size to the U.S state of Montana, similar even to the mountains in the west, flatter dry lands to the east. Graphic from yamanat.com

In the past week, Houthi "rebels,"which had established themselves last fall in Sanaa, the country's capital, suddenly besieged the President in his palace demanding he give further concessions regarding power and autonomy for the Houthi people. The President, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, rather than conceding, unexpectedly resigned. It leaves the country without a functioning government for the moment, with the Houthis reluctantly standing guard over the nation's instruments of power. And then, from here, the story gets quite a bit more complicated.


President Hadi, besieged by Houthi rebels, resigned - leaving a power vacuum in his country. Photo from yemenobserver.com

Hadi (Sunni) became president just four years ago in 2011 when the previous President Saleh (Shia-Houthi), who had been in power for 33 years, left office due to protests seeking more democratic participation - part of the brief Arab Spring. Hadi obtained backing from Western powers, including the U.S., who were seeking themselves to prevent the country from descending further into chaos.

The unrest was from two sources: the north Yemen based Houthis - a Shiite tribal alliance - seeking better governance (notwithstanding Saleh's Shia roots), and the other source coming the well known Sunni extremist group - Al qaeda.


Yemen has a religious/ethnic split with the Houthi-Shiite affiliation in the Northwest mountainous region, while Sunni-affiliated tribes are found in the South and East regions, as well as along the coastline.

While the Al qaeda jihadists are relatively new, the Houthi-Sunni divide is long standing (but complicated). In fact, though, the ethnic split falls fairly cleanly along a border where Yemen was recently two separate nations.

We find that 1962 the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was a Communist state in the southern and eastern provinces of the present-day Republic of Yemen. It united with the Yemen Arab Republic (commonly known as "North Yemen") in May 1990, to form the present-day Yemen. (Yes, the demise of the People's Republic occurred in conjunction with the Soviet collapse). In 1994, however, South Yemen declared its secession from the north, and the north occupied south Yemen after a brief civil war. There has been turmoil ever since, corruption and misgovernance, and eventually the Arab Spring protests.


These two countries made up what is currently today's Yemen. They existed from 1962 to 1990 before reuniting. Graphic from commons.wikimedia.org

Spring forward 20 years, however, and now the Sunni-based extremist movement (Al qaeda on the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) has found space to grow and fight. In 2004, the Shia-oriented Houthi youth movement emerged and has since rapidly grown into a militarily capable force. In the fall of 2014, the Houthi's gained control of Sanaa at the invitation of President Hadi in order to cleanse the capital of a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, but the movement never left, and were present with the official Yemeni armed forces. The troubled country now has three defacto power centers - though the western backed government and loyal forces per se is at the moment absent.


Not exactly progress. Now in 2015, instead of two entities, there are three centers of power. Light yellow/green - Houthis; Pink - Western backed Hadi - now resigned; Gray - Al qaeda (AQAP)Graphic from wikimedia.org

These days, Shia groups have the backing of Iran, and other Sunni nations are quite vocal that Iran is continuing to expand its influence across the region. It is an influence that includes the well known Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad's Syrian forces, notable allegiances among Iraq's Shia population, pockets of Shia minorities in a variety of Sunni dominated Arab nations, and now some new potential influence in Yemen. But it is probably too early to think that in Yemen Iran has cleanly moved into yet another region as it has elsewhere.

Supporters of the Shiite Muslim Houthi movement attend Eid al-Adha prayers, in Sanaa October 4, 2014. (File Photo: Reuters)

Where does this country go from here?

The Houthis are an unknown as to their ultimate allegiance and goals. For a group who have found themselves in charge in the absence of a functioning government, it may be they are primarily concerned with their own tribal region. Though the Shiite roots are real, and Iran has been steadfast in promoting its side of the religious schism, observers are unsure how compliant this Yemeni Shiite offshoot will behave.

An alarabiya news agency story reports, "The Houthis (also known as Ansar Allah, or Partisans of God) belong to the Zaydi school of Shiite Islam, named after Imam Zaydi Ibn Ali, who led a revolt in the eighth century against the Umayyad Caliphs.

Although considered a branch of Shiite Islam, the Zaydis are sometimes referred to as the Sunnis of the Shiites. Why? Because there are substantial differences between the Shiite Twelver imamate doctrine that is dominant in Iran and Zaydism, whereas the doctrinal gap between Zaydism and mainstream Sunni Islam is relatively narrow." (The article in question can be found here.)

While the world watches, diplomats talk their specialized language, and various nations and powers fret and negotiate secretly, the Houthis are nonetheless the ones that must now be approached. And while their connection to the regional power Iran is unclear, their popular slogans are wearily familiar: "Allah is the greatest. Death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews, victory to Islam".


Houthi armed vehicle stands guard at a checkpoint in front of Presidential Palace. Photo from CNN

Then there is still that other movement - the AQAP - in Yemen. AQAP has claimed responsibility for the recent jihadist attacks in France, and the U.S. has long conducted a program of drone strikes against them in Yemen.

In any case, the road to stability in this torn nation is a long one, a path that might not be followed at all, the country may yet return to a prior set of borders - two kingdoms, but this time more fractured and violent than ever.

Still, enough with the text. Since most of us won't make a trip to this corner of the globe, here are a few pictures of its striking scenery ...


Breathtaking views from ancient villages. Think of the care and effort of previous generations to terrace the landscape and build dwellings by hand, though now thereon lies the carelessly discarded plastic and paper litter of modernity. Photo from forums.roro44.com


Sanaa - capital of Yemen. Photo from www.skyscrapercity.com


A rather foreboding headline from the NY Times article containing this landscape, "Is Yemen the next Afghanistan?" Photo from www.nytimes.com


Yemeni's next generation faces an uncertain future. Photo from www.usaid.gov

2014 ends as ISAF combat mission in Afghanistan is completed

In the last Teatree post of 2014, it seems that the official close today of the ISAF combat mission in Afghanistan, is an appropriate ending note to a particularly dark year.

Afghanistan the map in pale yellow. The impoverished country has a population of just over 30 million, and has seen nearly unrelenting violence since the late 1970s. Graphic from www.philstar.com

ISAF stands for International Security Assistance Force. It was created in December 2001 in a conference taking place in Berlin, Germany. From the ISAF website we read, "Afghan opposition leaders attending the conference began the process of reconstructing their country by setting up a new government structure, namely the Afghan Transitional Authority. The concept of a UN-mandated international force to assist the newly established Afghan Transitional Authority was also launched at this occasion to create a secure environment in and around Kabul and support the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

These agreements paved the way for the creation of a three-way partnership between the Afghan Transitional Authority, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and ISAF. On 11 August 2003 NATO assumed leadership of the ISAF operation, ending the six-month national rotations."

Since 2001, the ISAF coalition has grown and dwindled, peaking with about 50 contributing nations and at one time 130,000 combat troops. In the map, one can see the kaleidoscope of national flags - both RC (regional commands) and PRTs which stands for Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Map from moodle2.rockyview.ab.ca

With ISAF dominated by the U.S. in terms of soldiers and funds, the coalition battled Taliban fighters, al-qaeda, Pakistani-based Islamists, and various militants from around the world who were drawn for a variety of reasons. In the 13 years of combat, the U.S. lost 2356, the UK lost 453, Canada lost 138, while all other coalition partners in total lost 538. (Statistics from www.forces.gc.ca, and http://icasualties.org/oef/)


Looking at a graph of ISFA fatalities by month, one might assume the war is winding down ... Graphic from www.debatthuset.com

The death toll among Afghan forces and civilians was, of course, much higher, without minimizing the brutality that the Taliban had brought to the nation before ISAF moved in. The reduction in ISAF casualties reflects the increasing role that frontline Afghan forces have taken on, a force that now consists of over 350,000 personnel.

It always seems as though meticulous records are kept of some combatants, and civilian tracking comes late and vague. In a recent article by The Guardian in the UK, we read, "This year is set to be the deadliest of the war, according to the United Nations, which expects civilian casualties to hit 10,000 for the first time since the agency began keeping records in 2008. It says that most of the deaths and injuries are caused by Taliban attacks."

The article continues, "As Afghan forces assume sovereignty, the country is without a cabinet, three months after Ghani’s inauguration, and economic growth is near zero due to the reduction of the international military and aid juggernauts. The United States spent more than $100m on reconstruction in Afghanistan, on top of the $1tn war effort."

New infrastructure - concrete tubes (for sewer and water) are being finished by hand, in front of newly built buildings. Photo from www.militarytimes.com


Newly elected Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, faces immense challenges on top of fighting an insurgency that seems as potent as ever. Government corruption, warlords, education, health services and a viable economy top the domestic list. Photo from the Washington Times

What is next?

A residual support mission of some 13,000 military personnel (11,000 from the U.S.) will remain to support the Afghan military effort. Prognostications regarding the future of this country vary. One reads that the Taliban are merely waiting until the ISAF forces go home, and the fight resumes in 2015. The question really becomes one regarding the abilities of the Afghan forces themselves to maintain order and security ...

Afghan forces - will they follow the disastrous national Iraqi army meltdown, or stand up like the regional Kurd peshmerga? Photo from hereandnow.wbur.org

If there is one unexpected new ray of hope, it comes out of the tragedy that occurred in Pakistan less than two weeks ago. The massacre of school children in Peshawar has at least temporarily galvanized the government there against the lawless tribal regions along the Afghan-Pakistani border. If these two governments could truly build an effective alliance, safe havens for militants would be drastically reduced.


Can Pakistan establish control in the orange zone shown here? (though the lawless regions extend southwest all along the Afghan border) That may be key to Afghanistan's own chances for success. Photo from www.frontiersupport.org

The Afghan elite who make up the nation's parliament. Is there enough seriousness represented here to search for the good of all segments of society? Photo from www.zimbio.com

Teatree hopes so, but Teatree is not reassured.

Egypt's conflict highlights Western dogma and Islamist challenge

First, let's agree that the recent spate of bloodshed in Egypt is troubling, to be condemned, bad, and truly a growing challenge that will have to be reconciled in that country's political future. The latest count is now over 800 fatalities from protests and street fighting. The majority of the casualties are supporters of the ousted President Morsi, mainly within the ranks of members of the Muslim Brotherhood or its conservative Salafist ally. However there also losses among anti-Morsi supporters (most notably Coptic Christians) as well as the police and military.

Click on image for full picture
Photos of the clashes are everywhere in the world's media, so here's another unfortunately familiar dreary picture to get us oriented, from www.spiegel.de

The US has apparently retreated, once again, to diplomatic bromides and half measures - for example highlighting the cancellation of a planned joint military exercise with Egypt's authorities, yet quietly continuing its foreign aid to the military rulers. The European Union is "urgently" scheduling a review of its aid to Egypt, and the reasoning given is where the heart of this blogpost begins. An EU spokesperson describes the Western premise as this, "In cooperation with its international and regional partners, the EU will remain firmly engaged in efforts to promote an end to violence, resumption of political dialogue and return to a democratic process..."

Let's look at those three points: an end to violence, resumption of political dialogue, return to a democratic process. Does this fit Egypt? Peace is not merely the absence of violence, but a holistic concept where justice and tolerance are embedded. Political dialogue takes place where all parties submit to the concept of give and take. A democratic process is more than technical elections every so often, a procedure that plenty of authoritarian rulers have become experts at, without the heart of the governing concept.

Click on image for full picture
from the German news magazine der speigel, "So far, calls by US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns (left, shown in discussion with acting president Adly Mansour) for an agreement between current leaders and Morsi supporters have gone unheeded."

A basic question

Teatree wonders whether Islamists by definition can truly be democratic. If their end goal is the rule of Sharia law, is there opportunity to step back, give and take? Or will they use the tools of the democratic process as mere stepping stones to imposing their brand of theocracy.

If one remembers correctly, the Muslim Brotherhood has given the world al-Qaeda, while the "purer" versions of Islam have given not only the West, but fellow Muslims, a string of statements: embassy bombings, 9-11, bus bombings, suicide bombings, the Taliban and its early act of shelling and destroying old Hindu shrines, and the latest in Mali, the tearing apart of old Muslim shrines. With Islamic extremists, is there realistically an opportunity for dialog, an end to violence, or a commitment to a democratic process?

Another familiar angry picture of Islamists riled up by their religious teachers. This image is from Newsweek's coverage of the non-existent video narrative that was cooked up for unknown purposes by the US government to cover for lax security at its Libyan and Egyptian embassies in 2012.

Some new twists emerge

Yet, while the secular, modern West wrings its hands over the Egyptian violence, support for Egypt's military rulers is coming unexpectedly from one moderate Muslim kingdom - Jordan. Equally surprising, Palestinian President Abbas has also signaled his support for the Egyptian military. Several other Arab countries have voiced support for Egypt's military but these two leaders' positions are worth taking notice.

Click on image for full picture
Palestinian President Abbas sides with Egypt's ruler against the Muslim Brotherhood

Could these leaders be the harbinger of moderate Muslim voices finally rising up to say enough? Is it similar to the more violent 2006 uprising in Iraq where Sunni tribes (with much to resent regarding the new Shiite led Iraqi government), finally said enough to the ultra violent Al-qaeda.

Click on image for full picture
Mohammed Al-Zawahiri, the brother of Al-Qaeda Chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri, has reportedly been arrested in Egypt. Photo from www.news.com.au

Ethnic cleansing occurring quietly in Egypt? Or just "acts" of ethnic cleansing.

Amid heavy coverage and soul searching regarding the Egyptian military response, there has nevertheless been a string of reporting regarding the Muslim Brotherhood turning its anger against Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Christian minority in that country (10% of the nation's total population of around 85 million) has experienced a wave of arson attacks against churches (approximately 50 have been burned or looted in the past several weeks) as well as highly publicized killings of priests and Christian leaders. One Catholic article rather breathtakingly described the situation as an early posture of ethnic cleansing.

St. Mary Church in Fayoum attacked, looted. Caption and photo from http://egyptianstreets.com

But on a more hopeful note. There are also reports that neighborhood watches are forming, resisting the mobs of the Muslim brotherhood. And of moderate Muslims taking the risky stand to protect neighbors and churches in their locale - at least this is the story floating around on the internet accompanying the photo below. (Teatree is becoming a bit suspicious of this photo as no authoritative source can be found.)

Click on image for full picture
An unfamiliar, yet hopeful, necessary, sign. (Unfortunately, the timeline of this photo is a little vague, as well as the specific church. One report says it was St Georges in Sohag - if so, then this picture was taken a while ago, because according to the Washington Post, that church was indeed attacked and burned in just the past few days.)

The confrontation between responsible moderate Muslims and the extremists is probably the battle that must first be enjoined before moving on to the next step of building political democracy and the three "pillars" described earlier by the EU. What is the heart of Islam? Is it jihad against the infidel, or a more moderate set of beliefs that can live in the larger world. Perhaps in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation that has always exercised leadership, there can emerge a home-grown, internal religious stance against extremists, showing tolerance and acceptance of others.

And perhaps it is best the West is "left out" of the forefront of this revolution as its presence morphs the tensions and violence into a geopolitical framework. As with the tense situation in Pakistan, and the disaster in Syria, these confrontations are overwhelmingly Muslim vs Muslim - with Shiite-Sunni reverberations yes - and ultimately a conflict where extremism will take over this world religion if not challenged.

The Syrian civil war spreads, and morphs towards a Sunni-Shia confrontation

The Syrian civil war is heating up and spreading, more countries are finding themselves pulled closer to the conflict.

Click on image for full picture
In spite of many nations hopes this conflict would find a solution in the past two years, negotiations have gone nowhere ...

Regarding the US, as the Wall Street Journal put it a few days ago, "It took two years, 93,000 casualties, the use of chemical weapons, and the growing prospect of victory by strongman Bashar Assad and his Iranian patrons, but President Obama has finally decided to arm the Syrian rebels." The question remains who to arm: moderate rebel groups are the preference, but over time those factions have been diminished compared to the rising influence and military prowess of the extremist rebels (al-Qaeda affiliates), and then with what type and amounts of weaponry. I guess we'll find out.

Is this the look of things to come in Syria?

Now Egypt has shut down official diplomatic contacts with Bashar al-Assad. As a CBS news article yesterday noted, "Egypt's Islamist president announced Saturday that he was cutting off diplomatic relations with Syria and closing Damascus' embassy in Cairo, decisions made amid growing calls from hard-line Sunni clerics in Egypt and elsewhere to launch a "holy war" against Syria's embattled regime.

Mohammed Morsi told thousands of supporters at a rally in Cairo that his government was also withdrawing the Egyptian charge d'affaires from Damascus. He called on Lebanon's Hezbollah to leave Syria, where the Iranian-backed Shiite militant group has been fighting alongside troops loyal to embattled President Bashar Assad against the mostly Sunni rebels. "Hezbollah must leave Syria. This is serious talk: There is no business or place for Hezbollah in Syria," said Morsi, Egypt's first freely elected president."

Egypt's leader Morsi is being called a co-conspirator with the US and Israel, of all things, by Syria. He has openly called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect rebel held areas.

As mentioned in the CBS quote, Sunni clerics started issuing calls for jihad last week against Assad and his new supporter, Hezbollah. And with those calls, the division between the two main Islamic streams of doctrine are becoming more apparent and strident.

Sunni Muslims are by far the largest of the two groupings. The division stems from a dispute after the death of the Prophet Mohammed over who would next guide the Muslim faith. Iran's Shia revolution in 1979 increased the tensions between the two groups as well, leading to a quiet but serious rivalry between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.

Just to be clear - there are plenty of terrorist/extremists groups in both camps. The Sunni perspective has the clear lead with al-Qaeda (and all its affiliates across North Africa), the Taliban, Chechnyan groups, and Hamas. The Shia have their own, on the other hand, in the form of Hezbollah.

Headgear and clothing. Sunnis wear kerchiefs ...

Shiites prefer turbans ...

And in both divisions, the closer or purer (or more extreme) perspectives of Islam become in regard to women, they "get" to dress like this.

The latest outrage from Sunni extremist attacks on women occurred in the past two days in Quetta, Pakistan, where a bomb on a bus killed 14 female students and injured 22, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militants attacked a hospital treating survivors, where they killed another 11 people. Educated women are apparently a huge threat and offense to these extremists. But control of women's activities and clothing extend throughout the faith - honor killings, voting restrictions, and even limits driving are in evidence everywhere.

At the moment, we have Shia Iran supporting Shia Assad, with the help of Shia Hezbollah. The Sunni Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar have been quietly but actively supporting the Sunni-dominated Syrian rebels - in which the more extremist forms are in the ascendancy.

Iraq is becoming fragile as Sunni extremists are blowing up Shia civilians with increasing intensity, Sunni Jordan and Turkey are trying to maintain low profiles, and now we have the most populous Arab nation - Egypt - headed by a reasonably militant group itself, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, putting pressure on Assad.

US President George W. Bush's war in Iraq has been loudly and repeatedly condemned on a number of metrics. The deaths in that nation from 2003 to 2011 (from US invasion to withdrawal)have pretty well been pegged at 120-160 thousand. Yet in just over two years, Syria's conflict is approaching 100,000 deaths by all accounts, and chemical weapons have been clearly used.

And this war is still on the front end of a rising trajectory ...

Hezbollah commits troops, Assad position firms

The Syrian civil war spread this past week with the public introduction of several thousand hardened Hezbollah fighters into the city of Qusayr in western Syria. The fighting in this city - which is by all reports a strategic junction for both sides - has left the infrastructure in ruins, the population cowered or scattered, and has sown the seeds for wider involvement.

Click on image for full picture
Qusayr, Syria

Click on image for full picture
The city is important to the Syrian rebels as it is a weapons route into Syria from their Lebanese supporters. At the same time, the city's location is important to President Assad's forces, as it sits on the way from the capital Damascus to his Alewite tribal stronghold in Western Syria, as well as to Syria's two Mediterranean ports.

Click on image for full picture
Syria's strongman, Bashar al-Assad, is a member of the Alewite tribe, an offshoot of the larger Shiite religious schism. His ethnic group provides core loyalty within the armed forces.

Describing the daily blow-by-blows of the path of this conflict seems pointless (and dark), however, the position of Syrian President Assad had apparently weakened so much in the past month that Hezbollah (with the blessing of its Iranian sugar daddy) felt it necessary to intervene directly and openly.

Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, openly vows victory in Syria...

... so now the coffins and burials back in Lebanon of Hezbollah fighters killed in Syrian fighting will add fuel to the fires

Summary -

* Injection of thousands of Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon into the Syrian civil war. In retaliation, rockets are already being fired back into Lebanon, and the pot is being stirred by Sunni groups in Lebanon that support the Syrian rebels.

* Assad's position, bolstered by the open support of Hezbollah, has been strengthened at least temporarily, as Syrian rebels have begun reinforcing their own force levels in the Qusayr fight. At the same time, there are increasing reports of Assad's more than incidental use of chemical weapons. Over a month ago, use of chemical weapons was a red line that would prompt a "recalculation" of the US position. Apparently, isolated usage was tested by Assad, no one chose to officially take note, so his usage may be growing. Along with up-tempo Russian weapon shipments, these three factors have added to Assad's current uptick in advantage. ("Syria: French journalists catalogue extensive use of chemical weapons" May 27, UK Telegraph)

Click on image for full picture
This map provided by the BBC shows the extent of control by Syrian anti-Assad forces, and those of President Assad.

* Meanwhile, Sunni extremist groups in Iraq are roiling that country. The UN reports that over 1000 mainly civilians died in May alone from car bombs, etc. There are reports that al Qaeda in Iraq and in Syria have strengthened their own connections and may be trying to carve out their own new territory in power vacuums brought about by the Syrian conflict.

Click on image for full picture
Cleanup of a car bomb in Iraq. Fears are growing that government efforts to contain the most recent surge in sectarian violence are not sufficient

* As mentioned, Russia is declaring further shipments of advanced weaponry to Syria's Assad, even as the EU has ended its arms embargo to Syria, opening the possibility of more weapons headed to the Syrian rebels (already being armed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States).

Click on image for full picture
Weapons flow from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States into Turkey from where they are smuggled south into Syria. Iran supplies aid directly to Syria's Assad, crossing Iraqi airspace. The US wants Iraq to stop Iranian flights over the country, but Iraq's Shiite government does not consider it a high priority.

* Let's not forget Turkey. Last week, according to a Washington Times report, "Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said ... that Hezbollah, or “Party of God” in Arabic, should change its name to “Party of Satan,” blaming the terrorist organization for killing thousands of civilians in Syria. ... Bozdag made the remarks on Sunday at an international symposium in Ankara, titled “Problems of the Islamic World and Solutions,” Today’s Zaman reports." So much for the carefully measured words of diplomacy (while on the Syrian street, "Hezbshaytaan" is becoming part of the mainstream Arab Sunni lexicon - notes Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence blog). 

The conflict is spreading, not being contained. And Israel is watching closely.

The US posture on terror ...

This past week, US President Obama outlined his policies for the world's lone superpower approach to tackling "the war on terror." While this blog normally avoids coverage of US politics and events (enough obsessive coverage available everywhere), this issue has worldwide implications for many countries already struggling to deal with terrorism (and its rather common strain of extremist Islamic purity).

US President Obama speaking May 23 on his administration's policies towards terrorism and warfare balanced by American ideals.

The speech by the president (available here as "his remarks as prepared for delivery") covered the past 15-20 years - pre-9/11, the first decade since that event, and now his attempt to begin shifting the nation's posture. In Teatree's estimation, here are his main points regarding applying US force around the world in the fight against terror:

* "Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. ... From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. ... on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade."

US troops in Afghanistan

* Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts. Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.

* "... America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend."

* "Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates."

al Qaeda in Yemen remains the most active cell of the terror group - the nation of the US fatal drone strike against an American citizen - self styled Sheikh Awlaki.

* "Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based."

* "Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. ... Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon."

The strange case of Major Nidal Hasan - this administration seems to go to some lengths to minimize his Islamic extremist views and allegiance. Even today, "the U.S. Defense Department confirms Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood massacre suspect, is still drawing his pay while those injured have been denied combat pay. Hasan, a military psychiatrist suspected of going on a shooting rampage at the Texas base that left 13 dead and 32 injured in 2009, has been paid $278,000 since the shooting," KXAS-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth, reported Tuesday.

* "Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11."

* "First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces. In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

* "It is ... not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. ... It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones."

Click on image for full picture
Drone strikes by the numbers during the past two administrations

* "Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. ... by the end of 2014 (after the US reduces its forces in Afghanistan), we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes. Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces."

* "when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team ..."

Hmmm, a drone strike roughly equivalent to a police swat team - what's your thought?

The US President talked long on other issues of more domestic concern - surveillance laws and policies, legal framework of drone strikes, authority of Congress regarding war and oversight responsibilities, as well as one of his passionate stances that Guantanamo be closed and re-purposed from indefinitely holding enemy combatants.

Guantanamo prisoners - enemy combatants - continue to trouble the US President more it seems than his drone strikes which he has rationalized as the equivalent of domestic swat teams in action. At one time the numbers held peaked between 558 and 579, as of March 2013, 166 detainees remain - most are not wanted by their home government. Dozens of those earlier released turned up in further conflicts.

What President Obama has attempted to do was provide his narrative to issues of national security, personal liberties, the country's ideals, and the nature of war and our limits. Each president to some degree attempts to provide a cohesive narrative for his policies. Just from World War II on, we've seen narratives through the Korean war, the dismantling of many colonies into independent nations in the early 60s, and the machinations through the decades-long Cold War (with many failures of moral consistency from CIA manipulations of various regimes in Africa to the Vietnam War to influences in South and Central America). President Reagan's robust challenge to the Soviet Union and its ultimate collapse in 1989-1991 was consistent with his strongly-worded narrative. Turmoil in the Balkans and the rise of Islamic extremism culminated during the Clinton years was not matched by any particular narrative (can anyone remember a Clinton doctrine?), but with the attack of 9/11, George W Bush did in fact theme his response as a "war on terror."

US President Reagan with his conservative UK ally, Margaret Thatcher. Reagan unequivocally challenged the Soviet Union, calling it an evil empire, and when six months later, after an incident where the Soviet airforce shot down an unarmed Korean civilian passenger jet near Seoul, the narrative was more firmly set.

Now we have seen the last two narratives. President George W Bush pushed a positive component of his war on terror narrative (that the US was prepared to fight terror especially in the form of Islamic extremism wherever and however necessary) during the Iraq war. This positive message was that people around the world longed for freedom, that the march of humanity was always towards freedom, and in spite of not finding weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people were better off than before, as democracy would work anywhere it was legitimately tried.

President Obama's narrative overall seems to Teatree to be a plausible and sensible one.. At least when it comes to America's armed response, very few will argue against at some point it is time to "stand down." The president lays out the case that it is now - when the conventional military footprint is reduced in Afghanistan next year, drone strikes, intelligence gathering and covert operations will remain wherever threats emerge. The President's narrative says these threats are much more local and regional in scope than harboring international aspirations.

Four musings to the above.

#1 Even plausible sensible narratives will over time either reflect reality well or be exposed as wishful thinking.

#2 When President Obama describes random individual attacks as just that, is he diminishing the overarching presence of Islamic extremism? Certainly his insistence that we always consider the Oklahoma City bombing, or a Wisconsin shooting involving a Sikh temple seems disconnected to his only lightly noting, "Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries ..." Again and again, as we've seen in four incidents in just the past few days (the UK cleaver attack on a British soldier, the suicide bomber in Dagestan, a broader attack in Niger, and the stabbing of a French soldier on home soil) there is this underlying narrative involving Islamic exrtremist motivation.

The latest display of deranged violence in the name of Islamic purity - two individuals running over a British soldier on leave, then hacking at him with knives and meat cleavers.

Click on image for full picture
Even the "lone wolf" or opportunistic view of the UK killing has been quickly challenged by the emergence that one of the suspects, Michael Adebolajo, had been detained in Kenya in 2010 for his connections to Islamic extremists in neighboring Somalia.

#3 When does the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance tip from its current regional crisis to a full blown geopolitical confrontation? Or has it already? Russia on the one side with these three nations, and the western democracies on the other.

Hezbollah defiantly declaring support for Syria's Assad, death to Israel, and being armed by Iran with Russia's tacit approval. Just a regional issue?

#4 How tightly will he cling to his narrative. The Benghazi attack on the US ambassador there is still being debated whether it was an example of the administration attempting to shape the facts to fit the Obama narrative. One only has to ask whatever happened to that individual who was detained for making up the disrespectful Islamic video that was the initial posture of the administration...

Yes, the familiar Muslim rage, a discredited video story - both difficult to place in a coherent narrative.

And so on we go.