The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Building consensus within America's body politic and national security establishment for a new way forward with Muslims worldwide is a formidable challenge. Many Americans still don't appreciate the complex nuances of Muslim society and remain stubbornly Islamophobic almost seven and half years after 9/11. Equally formidable is earning the goodwill of Muslims worldwide following the Iraq War as well as American atrocities perpetrated upon Islamic detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Hopefully, President Obama's historic election has finally opened a path for constructive conversation about how America can most effectively engage the Muslim world.

The CIA's former point man on Islam, Emile Nakahleh, has vigorously entered this conversation with his new book, A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America's Relations With the Muslim World (Princeton University Press). From 1991 to 2006, Nakahleh served as the director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program in the Directorate of Intelligence at the CIA. He holds a PhD in international relations and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Obama's election changes the balance in Iraq.

Oddly enough, Obama's election gives us more leverage in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's election, which in many ways tips the balance toward withdrawal, allows the government to parry the calls by more anti-American parties to reject any pact. But many Iraqis are unnerved by the notion of a rapid withdrawal.

"Iraqis are very relieved that Obama won, but this happiness or relief is accompanied by worry," said Ali Adeeb, a lawmaker and a senior member of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's Dawa Party. "Because even if Obama calls for early withdrawal, there is still a need to rehabilitate the Iraqi security forces."

During the 1968 election, one of the keystones of Dick Nixon's campaign was his "plan to end the war in Vietnam." Of course he had no real plan, or, if he did it was a poor one, evidenced by the fact that the war dragged on for seven brutal years after that sad election season.

It has been said in some quarters that the "plan" Nixon alluded to, but never spelled out, was a nutty scheme (nutty schemes seem to abound in the halls of power) to have Kissinger convince the Russians that Tricky Dick was just batshit crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if the North Vietnamese would not come to the table and end the war on his terms.

History has shown that Nixon was nuts enough. So was and is, Henry the K, but the Vietnamese, after fighting a collection of Yankees, French, Japanese and Chinese among others, for uncountable hundreds of years weren't impressed with new and improved threats, from new and unimproved enemies.

They had been hardened over the centuries to leave early for work knowing that they might have to bury their dead or rebuild a bridge or two on the way. They would not be cowed by threats of death and destruction; death and destruction was all around them, forever.

by Cody Lyon
(OPINION)
But, with his tremendous speech, Obama, if only for a moment, lifted the nation's psyche, he attempted and many say succeeded in showing all Americans that the dream is still alive and well in this land of freedom, where the bells of democracy occasionally ring with messages of hope, not fear, gloom that has crippled the very essence of who and what we as a people stand for and strive to be.

Mr. Hannity: "We are at war." (p. 219)

Mr. Hannity: "I'm no opponent of open and honest debate, even over questions of foreign policy...I would never claim that an earnest difference of opinion about foreign policy is unpatriotic....But when it comes to debate during wartime, I think one principle is clear: The only responsible argument is one that's made in good faith. The Democrats have violated that principle." (pp. 214-215)

Today on Current TV I heard a headline that some of the virtual currencies in online games are now worth more than the dollar. That CAN'T be true. But apparently a study showed that some virtual currencies carry more weight than the US dollar. Well, I haven't been able to follow up that story, and I am sure it really is more a faux entertainment kind of story than a real one. But it is indicative of how far the dollar has fallen under Bush's "leadership." I work with many foreigners from around the world. They all tell me how weak the dollar is...they are all AMAZED at how weak the dollar is. From Spain, Israel, France, Peru, Russia, Bulgaria, Cyprus and many other nations they all tell me they are amazed at how weak the dollar is. It used to be that nations around the world tied their currency to the dollar as a way of stabilizing their currency. Now some of those nations have abandoned the dollar standard in favor of the Euro. Right now the Euro and the British pound reign supreme. The dollar is becoming a sad, backwards currency.

In 2003 the US lead Coalition came into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, capture and destroy the "confirmed" weapons of mass destruction, including "possible" nuclear capability, and overthrow a brutal tyrant who terrorized his own people, led genocide in his own country and invaded his neighbor.

In 2004 we had thrown out the tyrant, who deserved it anyway, and were now battling the pro-Saddam Iraqi insurgency and the followers of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Al Sadr while trying to establish the legitimate Iraq Government institutions to facilitate the fledgling Democracy.

In 2005 we were battling Al Qaeda in Iraq,

Mr. Hannity: Saddam Hussein was an evil outlaw, a cruel tyrant who deserves death.

My response: News of the evil character of Saddam Hussein has been greatly exaggerated. Hussein did flaunt the UN by refusing weapons inspectors entry into some parts of Iraq between 1987 and 1991 and between 1998 and 2002. He invaded Kuwait in 1990, and a few dishonorable troops in his army butchered scores of innocent people during that invasion. He unquestionably ran a tight ship of the central Mideast country, denying the Iraqi people many freedoms we take for granted and executing thousands of political dissidents. And when some treasonous Kurds and revolutionary Shiites plotted to overthrow Saddam's government in the 1980s, he overreacted by killing 175,000 people, most of whom were innocent.

This last week I think marks when Iraq is finally sinking into genuine civil war. And our troops are caught right in the middle with no loyal allies, no goal, no exit strategy. I'd say there's a 50/50 shot it will calm down again, but if so it will be on Sadr's terms. Like last time. It could also spiral into even worse chaos and the Republicans have no idea what to do. I fear for our troops and I fear for the civillians of Iraq. 50/50 it calms down if Sadr wants it to...50/50 it will get really ugly.

It has been an eventful week. The economy has shown signs of considerable collapse. One of the most stodgy and respected banks, Bear Stearns, collapsed from being worth some $130 a share to being bought out for a mere $2 a share. AND it needed bailing out by the government as well. Inflation and stagnation...what used to be called stagflation. That is what we are seeing. Back when we first saw this horrible combination, at least our Presidents admitted it. Ford's slogan was "WIN: Whip Inflation Now!" It was worthless, but at least it admitted the problem. Bush merely "reassures" us that there is nothing to worry about. He claims there is no recession, no inflation, no problem. "Don't worry, be happy." The mantra that worked so well for his father.

This week it was all about the economy, the war and race. That's a pretty heavy week!

Mr. Hannity: The new appeasers claim that UN (United Nations) authorization is needed for war. (pp. 139-140)

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Wild Wild Left, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust.

Most Americans are eager to turn the page on the Bush years. Yet even as we elect a new president we're still coming to terms with an era that has both tarnished America's reputation and diminished its influence.

Fred Kaplan chronicles the folly of the Bush years in his new book, Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power (John Wiley & Sons).

Kaplan writes that,

"Nearly all of America's blunders in war and peace these past few years stem from a single grand misconception: that the world changed after 9/11, when in fact it didn't.

Certainly, things about the world changed, not least Americans' sudden awareness that they were vulnerable. But the way the world works - the nature of power, warfare, and politics among nations - remained essentially the same."

Mr. Hannity: Although Shah Pahlavi "led an often oppressive regime...our alliance [with him was]...strategically crucial". (p. 89)

My response: Here we observe two related ideas: the law of the balance of power and the principle of the lesser of two evils. Thruout history, nations have tended to collect into various loose federations in order to increase their security against an aggressive nation or to balance out one another's power. Through such politics, nations strove to preserve international harmony and to correct disharmonies and divisions. The principle of the lesser of two evils holds that a state party can side with a second state party which is generating or promoting certain evils for the purpose of mutually counteracting a third state party which is generating or promoting even worse evils.

Cody Lyon
The "Reuters" report says that spokesperson Len D'Eramo said in an emailed statement "if the Iraqi government decides it wants international oil companies to partner with them in developing their resources, Exxon Mobil would be interested in participating."