I am writing in response to a recent article appearing in the Democrat and Chronicle that blamed violence and terrorism on inequality, discrimination and poor socioeconomic justice.  My objective in responding to Muhammad Shafiq’s article is to challenge a common and dangerous argument that justifies violence and erroneously places the blame and responsibility of terrorism on poverty and oppression from outside regimes. 

First, let’s examine the Palestinian issue that Shafiq mentioned.  Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the international community has donated approximately $5 billion to the Palestinian Authority (1)Through UNWRA Relief, the United States has contributed more than 60% of this. The World Bank noted that donor disbursement to the Palestinians amount to approximately $1 billion per year or $320 per person per year–one of the highest per capita rates in the history of foreign assistance (2).  So where is all the money?  In 2004, Arafat was listed in Forbes with a wealth of at least $300 Million. (3)  Israel and U.S. Officials estimated his personal holdings to be between $1-$3 billion. (4) Independent Funding for Peace Coalition found overwhelming evidence that European aid has not reached the Palestinian people and that it has been diverted toward terrorism and unscrupulous behavior by Palestinian leadership. (5)   So the question becomes, oppression and poverty at whose hands?

Secondly, if terrorism is the inevitable result of poverty, oppression and injustice, as the author states, then where are the Haitians, Tibetan, Greek Cypriot, Dashmiri Pandit and Sindhi terrorists? 

Arguments such as Shafiq’s ignore the core issue and distract us from acknowledging a dangerous ideology underlying the growing threat of global terrorism.  Any serious examination of modern terrorism would be remiss to dismiss the religious and political agenda at the center of global terrorism.  Can we ignore statements by Radical Islamists who justify terrorist violence against “infidel” powers such as the United States with reference to a fixed Qur’anic worldview that incorporates all efforts to create an ideal Islamic State? Islamist terrorists have articulated their rage in a declared context of “total war.” In so doing, they attempt to elevate the debased nature of their struggle by identifying them with a sacred cause. In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists ascribe to a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Islamic law, the Shari’a. (6)

Westerners and Muslims alike often fail to hear these ideological statements and threats.  Canadian author Irshad Manji observes that Islamic organizations pretend that “Islam is an innocent bystander in today’s terrorism.” (7) Political analyst; Daniel Pipes said it best when he said, “What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.” (8)

It is my hope that as we continue to dialogue on this topic, that our conversations acknowledge the threat and ideology underlying terrorism.  I believe that honesty and truth will prevail over prejudices and injustice. I also believe that our very survival as a free nation hinges on our ability to acknowledge the ideological war that is now being waged.

(1)

The Wall Street Journal , Oct 2002 “Paying for Terrorism”:

http://www.public-integrity.org/articles/publications24.htm.

(2) 

World Bank Paper Urges Major Easing Of Israeli Closure Measures And Stepped-Up Palestinian Reform Efforts News Release No:2004/451/MNA:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/WESTBANKGAZAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20217834~menuPK:294370~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:294365,00.html

Report No: 27094-62, Section  2.2   INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE IN THE 1990s AND TO THE INTIFADA:

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2004/10/22/000160016_20041022100557/Rendered/INDEX/270940GZ.txt 

* note in this report the a higher per capita rate is also given “Between 1994 and 2000, annual donor disbursements averaged some US$ 420 million, or US$150 per capita. Since the outbreak o f the intifada, far from being deterred, donor tenacity has increased: disbursements effectively doubled in 2001 and 2002, averaging just under US $l billion each year, or US$320 per person. This is thought to be the highest sustained rate o f per capita disbursement to any aid recipient anywhere since the Second World War.”
 
American Center for Democracy, New York City: “Where does the Money Go? A Study of the Palestinian” Authority by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: 

http://www.public-integrity.org/articles/money.doc

(3)

Forbes: Kings Queens and Deposits Yasir Arafat:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/24/cz_royalslide_6.html

(4)

CBS News: Arafat’s Billions: One Man’s Quest to Track Down Unaccounted-For Public Funds, Nov. 9. 2003:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml

Arab New: Arafat Aides Resume Talks with Israel, Fight over His Fortune:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=53769&d=1&m=11&y=2004

(5)

PR Web: New Report Analyses European Aid to Palestinian- Finds Evidence of Foul Play:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb151832.htm

Funding for Peace Coalition Report: “Managing European Taxpayers’ Money: Supporting The Palestinian Arabs – A Study In Transparency”:

http://eufunding.org/FPC2004Report.pdf 

EU Funding.org The Palestinian Leadership’s Hidden Budget:

http://www.eufunding.org/accountability/Nielson11.html

Palestinian Authority funds go to militants:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3243071.stm

(6)

In Paragraph 4 I mention the religious and political agenda at the center of global terrorism: There are many sources that can be given to back up this claim but here are a few:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY — NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER: Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/al-queda%20evolve.htm

MERIA: Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, Volume 5, No. 4 – December 2001: the islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle by David Zeidan.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a2.htm

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Third public hearing)

Statement of Steven Emerson to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003 Overview: The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

National Committee on American Foreign Policy: The Middle East: Islamic Law and Peace.  Summary of the January 10, 2002, Roundtable on Militant Islamic Fundamentalism in the 21^st Century, April 30, 2002: http://www.ncafp.org/projects/MiddleEast/rd02islam.htm

The Institute of World Politics: “Islam: A threat or a challenge to the Christian West” November 1, 2004, By Alberto M. Piedra: http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.142/news_detail.asp

(7)

Time Magazine Sunday, July 17, 2005 “When Denial Can Kill” by Irshad Manji

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083918,00.html

(8)

New York Sun July 26, 2005 “What Do the Terrorists Want? [A Caliphate]”  by Daniel Pipes http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2798

Recently conflict intensified in Lebanon after the Lebanese government moved to shut down Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and remove the chief of security at Beirut’s airport for sympathizing with Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah. Lebanon has been locked in political stalemate between the ruling coalition and Hezbollah-led opposition for the past sixteen months and has not had a president since November, when Emile Lahoud stepped down.

As violence escalates an Arab League delegation was welcomed into Lebanon today with the stated purpose of mediation.  As we grapple to understand the interplay of political forces including Syrian and Iranian influence in the Middle East, it is important to examine the plight of Lebanon and consider its ramifications in our day.

Prior to the 1975 civil war, Lebanon was the most developed Arab state—a major center for trade, finance and tourism; a thriving democracy that valued and practiced freedom of speech, religion and political diversity. Lebanon was termed the “Switzerland of the East” and offered an example of freedom and democracy in the region.  In 1926 the constitution of the first Lebanese  Republic (inspired by the Third French Republic) was created and in 1943, Lebanon gained their independence from the French mandate, becoming a democratic sovereign nation.

Soon after independence, Lebanon’s multicultural society found itself in the midst of the East-West conflict.  This tension was exacerbated in 1948 when Israel declared statehood and large numbers of Palestianians fled Israel and settled in southern Lebanon. When the PLO wore out its welcome in Jordan in the early 1970s, Yasser Arafat moved his military infrastructure and the PLO headquarters to Southern Lebanon.  He then began carrying out raids on Israel from inside of Lebanon. The Christian-dominated Lebanese government tried to curb the actions of the PLO and as the internal conflict between Lebanese Christians and Muslims grew, the PLO joined forces with Lebanonese Muslims.  By 1975 this internal conflict sparked a civil war.

In 1976, the Arab League endorsed the Syrian invasion of Lebanon under the guise of an Arab Deterrence Force.  The Force was sent into Lebanon with the stated purpose of halting the war between the Palestinian organizations and the militant Muslim factions on one hand, and the Lebanese army and allied grassroots organizations on the other. The Arab Deterrence Force was comprised of troops from various Arab states with the majority being from Syria. Almost immediately upon entry, Syria began carrying out massacres, political assassinations, shelling residential areas, bombing embassies, and imposing censorship on the media.  The non-Syrian members of the Arab Deterrence Force departed Lebanon shortly after its “peace keeping mission”, thus strengthening Syria’s control of Lebanon. 

With Syrian influence and PLO opperations, Lebanon quickly became a breeding ground for international terrorist groups and gave birth to one of the most notorious terrorist organizations still active today—The Hezbollah.  The Hezbollah, comprised of young Lebanese Shiites was largly formed with the aid of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers in the 1980’s in an effort to bolster Shiite strength and spread the Islamic Revolution which was emerging in Iran.

The Hezbollah declared its existence in 1985.  In their founding document “An open Letter: The Hizbollah Program” they identified themselves as the “sons of the umma” (Muslim community) – the “party of God”(Hizb Allah) and the “vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran”—where the vanguard “succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which was to play a central role in the world.” 

With Syrian backing and Iranian support, the Hezbollah launched a guerrilla war against Israel in Southern Lebanon. After the continued shelling of northern Israel by these forces, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982.  In their 1982 invasion Israel threw Arafat out and then stuck around to fight Iran’s Shiite proxy force, the Hezbollah. Israel remained in Lebanon fighting alongside the Southern Lebanon Army (SLA) until  May 22, 2000 when, at the orders of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the IDF began to withdraw. 

When the IDF withdrew, the members of the SLA and their families were forced to flee to Israel; the Hezbollah forces chased them over the boarder with threats of torture or death. The withdrawal was so sudden that there were hundreds of abandoned cars on parts of the northern border.  Cars wereleft behind as traffic jams slowed the traffic, forcing members of the SLA to leave their cars and flee to Israel on foot.  During a trip to Israel in April of 2001 I visited the Northern boarder village of Ghajar and one of the Lebanese refuge camps.  As I talked with the Lebanese refugees, many expressed a longing to return home yet feared the worst upon their return.

In the mind of the Arab world, the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 is herald as the first Arab victory against the “Jewish State”; a victory that served to embolden their already growing resolve to “obliterate” the Zionist entity (Israel) and fight US influence in the Middle East.

The Israeli withdrawal was due to both international and domestic pressure.  The expectation was that such a withdrawal would be part of an agreement with Syria and Lebanon, but negotiations with Syria broke down and Syrian President Assad’s refused to continue talks with Israel.  According to UN Resolution 425, the Government of Lebanon was to bear the responsibility for preventing terrorist attacks against Israel from within its borders. In addition, UN Resolution 426 called for the creation of the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Through this international force, the UN would fill the vacuum that was created following the withdrawal of the IDF. The UN agreed to deploy appropriate armed forces to restore effective authority in this region.

After the withdrawal of the IDF and the SLA, the Hezbollah, with the aid of Syria and Iran, strengthened their grip of Lebanon and prepared for additional attacks against Israel by initiating a massive arms build up.  The increased strength of the Hezbollah became evident in July 2006 as they killed eight Israeli soldiers, knapped two more and began lauching attacks further into Israel. By 2006, the Hezbollah and other extremist factions had infiltrated  so much of Lebanese society that even the international community seemed to forget that the Hezbollah was a terriorist group, not a government entity to be negoiated with. As Israel retailiated for the Hezbollah attacks, the international community increasingly called for a cease-fire between the two parties. U.N Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for an “immediate cessation of hostilities”, accused Israel of purposely targeting civilians and criticized Israel for what the U.N. termed the “disproportionate use of force”.  During this conflict, the international community seemed to forget that this attack against Israel was an unprovoked act of aggression by a terrorist organization who had defied all resolutions to disarm. Instead of disarming, the Hezbollah continued to work with Syria and Iran to strengthen their resolve and weapons. One telling report came on August 21^st , 2006 when Turkish authorities released a statement saying that they had intercepted five cargo aircraft and one Syrian aircraft carrying missiles to Hezbollah.

Since the Hezbollah openly defied resolutions calling for their disarmament, the “disproportionate use of force” (that the international community accused Israel of), was rather a necessary strategy by Israel to do what Lebanon and the international community seemed powerless or unwilling to do–to destroy the infrastructure and weapons of the Hezbollah..  If Israel did not uses this opportunity to dismantle the infrastructure and military might of the Hezbollah, they would have to live with the continued and growing security threat along their Northern boarder.

Yet with increasing international pressure, Israel agreed to a cease-fire after 33 days of active conflict and the UN passing of resolution 1701.  This resolution called for a full cessation of hostilities; called on Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon as Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers were deployed throughout Southern Lebanon; stated that no paramilitary forces, including Hezbollah would be allowed south of the Litani River in Lebanon; and once again, UN resolution 1701 called for the full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Tair Accords and of resolution 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon so that there would be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State. 

Soon after the passage of 1701 and the ceasefire, both the UN and UNIFIL contributing nations disclaimed responsibility for disarming the Hezbollah.  They stated that it was not a direct mandate of the UN and was instead the responsibility of the Lebanese government. A senior advisor to the Lebanese Prime Minister, Siniora, also said that the Hezbollah would not be forced to leave the south stating that the“Hezbollah individuals are people who live in the south and they will not leave their homes and villages”. 

Currently Iran and Syria continue to replenish Hezbollah’s arms supply. Hezbollah leader, Sheik Nasrallah, has said that the Hezbollah has the ability to launch between, “1,000 and 3,000 rockets against Israeli daily” and Hezbollah reportedly continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran every year.

In retrospect, we see what that what began as an internal struggle escalated into a civil war and quickly became the battle ground where state-sponsored terrorism cloaked as a “stabilizing force” systematically and decidedly destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanese society, terriorized Lebaneses citizens, created a market for a massive drug operation, and essentially swallowed up a free democratic society.

Today it is easy to forget that Lebanon was once a thriving sovereign democratic nation. Syria has accomplished a remarkable feat in its ability to market itself to the international community as a “stabilizing force” while destroying any semblance of a “thriving democratic Lebanon”. However, most disturbing is the roll that the international community continues to play in aiding and supporting terrorist regimes by legitimizing them rather than holding them accountable for terrorist activity.

As a delegation from the Arab League prepares to enter Lebanon to mediate, let us remember that the demise of a free Lebanon and the current political instability in that nation have far-reaching implications.  Lebanon now serves as a frightening reminder of the destabilizing forces that are gaining power daily in the Middle East. Forces that seek the  “Lebanonization” of all nations in the MiddleEast were Western influence made its mark.

Last week as I watched the testimony of General Petraeus and the subsequent media coverage of the Senate Committee Hearings, I recalled the last sermon given by Martin Luther King before his assassination 40 years ago.  The sermon was entitled “Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution”.  In this sermon, King talked about Rip Van Winkle:

“The most striking thing about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not merely that Rip slept twenty years, but that he slept through a revolution.  While he was peacefully snoring up in the mountain a revolution was taking place that at points would change the course of history- and Rip knew noting about it.  He was asleep. Yes, he slept through a revolution.  And one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands.  They end up sleeping though a revolution.” ¹       

The story of Rip Van Winkle has great relevance in our day; there are lessons to be learned from his story.  Like Mr. Van Winkle, America and most of Western civilization had peacefully slept while what has been called “the last great Revolution of the Modern Era” ² (the Islamic Revolution) was unfolding and gaining strength. Like Rip, we were able to sleep nearly 20 years before the alarm went off on the morning of September 11, 2001, a generation after the Islamic Revolution introduced its new political ideology to the world’s modern political spectrum.   However, unlike Rip, our peaceful sleep was interrupted by the continuing revolution that had now touched “our safe mountain” and the frightening reality to which we awoke seemed more like a nightmare.  On that day in history and during the weeks that followed, a sobering hush fell over our land; there was a tangible sense of “knowing” in the atmosphere of our nation. No one needed to say it; we were all keenly aware that a new day was upon us and that we were now engaged in a battle for the soul of our nation.  For that moment, differences were cast aside.  With all the confusion and unanswered questions, there was one thing that we were certain of–we were certain that throughout the diverse fabric of our nation our allegiance to freedom and democracy was our unifying thread.  So with a determined spirit we grabbed hold of that thread with one hand and grabbed hold of each other with the other.  And then we stood.  We stood with a resolution and unity that seemed unshakable. 

Today, a little more than six years after that fateful day, we need to ask “where are we?”  We have awakened to an Islamic Revolution that is far past its infancy, a revolution that is having a ripple effect throughout modern civilization.  Yet somehow this reality continues to elude us.  We have managed to cling to a Western mindset with a tenacious hold that keeps old paradigms in place. Mindsets, attitudes and mental responses that afforded us the comforts of sleep in the last generation, are now dangerously inadequate to deal with our current situation.

It is certain that we would be wiser and fare better if we, like Mr. Van Winkle, were able to comprehend these “strange events” before we “take our seats at the Inn” and assume the position of the “reverenced patriarch”.  As Americans who enjoy the liberties self-government, let us not forget the accompanying responsibility.  During difficult and confusing times it is much easier to revert back to the security of familiarity, doing what we know best, facing problems in ways that worked in the past.  Yet we do this to only find that the problems are not going away. In fact, they seem to be getting more complicated and difficult.  If we continue to cling to past paradigms, we soon find ourselves frustrated and resorting to infighting and blame shifting.  I am not suggesting that this is intentional or mean spirited.  I am suggesting that this is the result of a population who has not developed a new paradigm to deal with the global reality and have simplified problems in a way that gives us an illusion of control.  

As I observed the reactions to the testimony of General Petraeus, I realized that the increasing partisan divide has reached detrimental levels in our nation.  While partisan politics are a necessary and healthy dynamic in democratic governments, I believe that the heightened partisan tension that we are currently witnessing has served to erode some of societies stabilizing institutions and has left us searching for truth amidst the fog of partisan politics.  These consequences are particularly disturbing in an hour where stability on the home front is critical. 

Under the increased partisan divide, we engage in an internal battle where we begin to see every issue as an opportunity for political gain, an opportunity to criticize and accuse the opposing party as being either ignorant or self-serving.  Under this fog, American citizens suffer as information is tainted, media misconceptions are the norm and unbiased truth is hard to ascertain. Under the fog of partisan politics, we have unconsciously learned to approach information through a lens of suspicion—no longer able to see the testimony of our officials as honest or credible.  Instead, we discount the assessment of authorities like General Petreus and Ambassador Crocker as ignorant, misinformed or an exercise in political manipulation. Critical events such as the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror now become “partisan causes” where each side seems more determined to justify “their side” of action or inaction, rather than explore the reality of the current situation. The effects of the partisan divide?  We focus our attention, energy and resources on factional infighting, while a divided America is anesthetized to the real external threat that we are now ill-equipped to deal with.

 In his article, “The War We Deserve” Alasdair Roberts addresses the phenomena of partisan politics by describing what he calls a “disturbing narrative”:

“There is an uncomplicated tale many Americans like to tell themselves about recent U.S. foreign policy.  As the story has it , the nation was led astray by a powerful clique of political appointees and their fellow travelers in Washington thing thanks , who were determined even before the 9/11 attacks to effect a radical shift in America’s role in the world. The members of this cabal are known as neoconservatives.  They believed the world was a dangerous place, that American power should be applied firmly to protect American interests, and that, for too ling, U.S. policy had consisted of diplomatic excess and mincing half measures.  After 9/11, this group gave us the ill-conceived Global War on Terror and its bloody centerpiece, the war in Iraq” ³  

In this article, Roberts called this mindset an “unrealistic, even deadly, way to fight a global war” saying that it is “easy to blame the violence in Iraq and pitfalls of the war on terror on a small cabal of neocons, a bumbling president, and an overstretched military.  But real fault lies with the American people as well.  Americans now ask more of their government but sacrifice less than every before.” ³ Robert’s is addressing the partisan politics and blame shifting that is symptomatic of a society who has not developed the mindsets needed to adapt to today’s global threat.

The unifying thread of allegiance to freedom and democracy woven throughout the diverse fabric of our nation is our heritage. It is what came to the surface and sustained us in the days following September 11^th. That thread still unites us, yet at times like this the unifying thread is difficult to see.  However, examined more closely, we will see that the partisan tension is not the result of a people who are disinterested in the destiny of our nation. Rather, it is evidences of a passionate population that is desperately trying to do what is best to preserve our nation amidst the challenges of our day. After all, none of us (Democrat or Republican) like conflict, violence, war, death, destruction, discomfort or injustice. 

The core problem, as I see it, is that we are in the midst of a radical global shift and as a nation we are struggling to adapt an appropriate paradigm that will enable us to accurately process the ‘strange events” of our day.  The sobering events of 9/11 thrust us into a day that we were completely unprepared to deal with. To the credit of America, we put our best foot forward and stood together in an unprecedented way. As the emotions of our nation healed, we moved forward with one of our greatest challenges–quickly adapting to the revolution that had matured for over a generation.  Normally paradigms evolve over time, so a national paradigm shift is a difficult feat.  It requires us to let go of ideas, attitudes and thought processes that we have become quite comfortable with and have grown accustom to.  As Americans, we are inherently idealistic and the grave threats that we face today are not easy to look at. We also look at problems with a Western mindset and insist that world events operate according to these constructs.  We believe that inherently people are motivated by the same things that motivate us…freedom, liberty, prosperity, etc. When we look at the global situation we tend to do so with Western thinking that continues to causes the threat of Islamism to elude us.

What are some of the key paradigm shifts that I believe we must make in this hour? First, we must recognize that our old paradigms are no longer adequate to deal with the current situation that we find ourselves in. We must recognize that we are in the midst of Global Islamic Revolution that emerged on the world seen in the 1970’s and seeks to influence every corner of the earth.  The radical ideology of Islamism is anti-Israel, anti-U.S. and anti-Western civilization. This revolution has many international fronts (I will explore this is future articles). While most informed people recognize the growing threat of Radical Islam, many people in the West do not understand the nature and tenacity of this ideology that has allowed it to infiltrate society, largely unchecked (and at times aided)by the international community.  If we are going to effectively understand the global threat of Islamism, we must begin to develop mindsets that understand its ideology, history, and its intent.

Second, we must recognize that we are in a war that threatens Western civilization. If we do not understand that radical Islam is both an ideology and a political force that has declared war on Western civilization, we tend to isolate current assessments of Iraq apart from its global context. We may even buy into the esoteric illusion of peace that ignores the practical realities necessary to secure and sustain it.  If we are going to survive as a nation and adequately respond to this threat, we must begin to adapt a mindset for war.  Not just a physical war, but also an ideological war. We must recognize that this is not a war that we contrived after 9/11, but one which American’s were thrust into on that date. The war on terror is not Bush’s war, but all of ours who value the life and the liberties that democracy has afforded us. 9/11 was the wake up call given to our nation by a network of terrorist who had reached global maturation and had succeeded in setting up networks on our own soil.  It is beyond the scope of this article to address the modern thrust of the Islamism (this will be addressed this in future articles).  However, one must understand that that Islamism is a religious oriented nationalism that emerged in the Third World in the 1970’s.  Adherents to this ideology have declared war on the West and their words have not proved to be idle or vain.  Whether we like it or not, or believe in it our not, we as Americans are engaged in a very real over-arching war with Islamism. If we are going to face this war, we must begin to accept the reality of this war.

Today, like Mr. Van Winkle, we have awakened to an unfamiliar world, a world in the midst of a global revolution. We have been charged with a daunting feat that requires our nation to adjust our mindsets, attitudes and mental reactions. As our nation is undergoing a radical paradigm shift, we would be wise to be devoted students of truth as we acclimate ourselves to the global realities to which we have awaken. “Right in the Middle” was created to inform readers about the critical global realities occurring in the Middle East that affect every one of us. In future articles we will explore the threat of Islamism–Its origin, history and global aspirations. Like Mr. Van Winkle, we must acclimate to current realities.

I began this article by talking about General Petraeus’ assessment of Iraq.  Next week, I will discuss the process “Lebanonization” that General Petraeus mentioned.  I believe that it is important for us to hear what is being said. Is Iran making vain threats, or do they have the ability and intent to make good on these threats? We will examine Lebanon’s fall from a thriving democracy to a breeding ground for terrorism.

1. “Remaining Awake through a Great revolution” http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html

2. The Last Great Revolution: Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, by Robin Wright 2000 Random House, NY

3. Foreign Policy, Washington, DC: “The War We Deserve” by Alasdair Roberts (November/ December 2007 ) www.foreignPolicy.com