August 16, 2013--Arab Winter

Fridays in August should be times for languor and light spiritedness. Pass by this then if you want to protect your tranquility, but I cannot resist saying a few words about the escalating crises in the Middle East.

With a state of emergency declared in Egypt--after hundreds there were slaughtered by the military in an attempt to take the country back from the democratically-elected leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood--with continued unrest in Bahrain; democracy under threat in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and possibly even Turkey; and an all-out civil war raging in Syria, what ever became of the hope engendered by the Arab Spring that commenced in Tunisia more than two years ago?  The hope that authoritarian leaders from Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would topple one-by-one and liberal democracies would take their places?

Isn't this what Barack Obama early in his presidency in a speech in Cairo saw to be the strategic opportunity in the region? And wasn't it for this that he was awarded a preemptive Nobel Peace Prize?

But now we have this--a tectonic nightmare of old authoritarian regimes overthrown and supplanted by radical leaders, many of whom either have ties to al Qaeda or tolerate their presence. Who foresaw that this would be the last gasp of 19th century colonialism and the dawn of a complicated new day in the Muslim world? 

Actually, many did who knew anything about the history of the Arab lands and the contesting forces active in every country throughout the region.

Does anyone doubt that events in Egypt will lead to a civil war there at least as ugly as the one underway in Syria? With the military government so casual about murdering hundreds of protesters isn't it inevitable that this will not suppress the opponents of military rule but motivate and inspire them to become more aggressive, ultimately take up arms, and prevail?

Is there any doubt that at some point in the not distant future we will see similar situations in Jordan and even Saudi Arabia where corrupt monarchies currently rule?

Then what we will have? A region in full turmoil with access to oil severely restricted. What will then be the consequences for the global economy? 

The ideals espoused by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in historical perspective look naive. 

Not everyone wants a government similar to ours (in fact, a majority of Americans themselves aren't too happy with the state of our own current government), not every country (especially those with arbitrary borders drawn up by the West after the First World War) is culturally set up to embrace democracy. And when they do fight for and achieve the right to vote--with our endorsement--they elect leaders from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

This is just another sad example of unintended consequences, of the danger of getting what one wishes for.

August 1, 2013--Oscar Weiner?

Now they're trying to figure out why he did it. Anthony Weiner.

He had the world in his hands. Sorry, let me put that another way--he was a prominent member (sorry again) of Congress, on TV all the time since he was such a provocative and quotable guest, he weaseled his way into the extended Clinton family by marrying Hillary's number-one assistant and surrogate daughter, Huma Abadin, and he even had a decent change to be elected mayor of New York City. The field of 12 candidates was and is so weak that even someone like Anthony Weiner, in spite of his confessed proclivities, stood out. Again, let me rephrase that--he looked good by comparison.

So, what's the story with him?

Now, after Weiner was forced to acknowledge he was not cured of his propensity to talk dirty on the Internet, the New York Times, in an effort not to let go of such a titillating story, assembled a few therapists and asked them to speculate about why Anthony Weiner can't seem to stop.

Some said he can't stop being bad because he may have a neurological problem. It's either hard-wired in his DNA or he has some sort of abnormality in his brain.

But, most psychologists and experts on sexual behavior offered more interesting possibilities--

Maybe there's trouble in his marriage. He's not getting enough of whatever it is he needs at home. Poor Huma. It's always the wife's fault. She not only has been accused by Michele Bachmann and everyone on Fox News that she and her family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, now it's her fault that hubby can't stop sending around raunchy pictures of himself (actually, only certain parts of himself) because she can't satisfy him.

Other shrinks suggest he may have feelings of inadequacy about his masculinity (hello) that can only be assuaged by women he has never met. Or maybe he is insecure about his body image and so he sends around beefy images of himself to see if anyone on the Internet finds him attractive. So far, it appears, that none have.

Cornell's Dr. Richard Friedman says, "There's a type of narcissism that's based on self-esteem problems, in which the person then defensively covers up by saying, 'Aren't I wonderful? Look at my beautiful organ [not the musical kind]. Isn't it beautiful?"

I say, "Ugh."

Dr. Friedman adds, "It's as if you were being exposed [his word, not mine] to the mental processes of a 9-year-old boy."

Maybe he's a sex addict, some speculate, even though there is no agreement in the field of sexuality that there is such a syndrome. Dr. Scott Haltzman, a psychiatrist and author of books on infidelity claims that behavior such as Weiner's, even in the face of public humiliation, is a "hallmark of addiction."

And it is not helpful to think that these problems derive from being famous. Dr. Carol Bernstein says that, "Very talented people have the same potential issues for self-destructive behavior that everybody does."

Though being well-know may have some advantages: the fact that his problems--whatever their cause--are so publicly known could actually help him to recover. There is evidence that getting caught being naughty and then universally scorned is powerful motivation to seek treatment.

With all due respect to the sexuality experts and psychiatrists, I have a simple explanation for Weiner's behavior--he's just a jerk.

Two more things--

Can't the New York Times find some experts on this tender subject who aren't Jewish?

And, related, as Anthony Weiner thinks about next steps in his life--since becoming NYC's mayor is no longer an option--shouldn't he have his nose fixed and also do something about that name?

Maybe Oscar Meyer?

Still too Jewish.

May 9, 2013--Tea Party in Syria

I suppose, flushed with the delusion of success in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two senatorial amigos, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have been turning up the heat on Barack Obama to get militarily involved in the civil war in Syria.

Even the justification is the same--as with Saddam, it is being trumpeted, Syrian president Basha al-Assad, possess weapons of mass distruction (WMDs) that he is deploying against his own people. They should recall that after we toppled Hussein, we found none and it may be that the evidence in Syria is just as ambiguous--yes, chemical weapons appear to have been employed but maybe not by Assad. It is emerging that it might have been the Syrian rebels who used them on themselves, perhaps to incite war mongers such as McCain and Graham, and to impel President Obama to too casually talk about how their use would be a "game changer" that crossed a "red line." Meaning . . . meaning, I am not sure what. And it sadly appears that Obama himself didn't have a clear plan in mind when he uttered these macho clichés.

McCain and Graham are on Senate committees that provide access to information about what is actually going on in Syria, and it is not a pretty picture. But just from reading a decent newspaper--if they don't have time to do their committee homework (after all it takes up hours and hours to appear on TV every day)--they would see that in addition to the hideous bloodshed, al Qaeda forces are taking more and more control of the fighting, and to arm them would only provide these jihadists with weapons to turn against us and our allies after they inevitably take over. Another lesson from Afghanistan--when we armed the Mujahdeen who were resisting the Russian occupation of their country, after Russia lost (a further lesson) they used those weapons, are now using them, against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The French ambassador to Afghanistan soberly said recently that as soon  as the western presence is further reduced (by 2014) things there will revert to Taliban control and girls and women will once again be forced to wear burkas. No wonder, then, that President Hamid Karzai desires to see the suitcases of CIA-supplied cash continue to be delivered so he and his family can sock away their blood money in Abu Dhabi. The good news for the Karzais--they have been assured by the U.S. government that these bribes will keep on flowing. One less thing for them to have to worry about.

Meanwhile, in McCain-Graham's other favorite Middle Eastern conflict, Iraq, we are seeing evidence of an incipient civil war. In this case, as in many other parts of the region, the roots of the conflict are religious and cultural, with faction pitted against faction.

In Iraq it continues, as it has for many centuries, to be Shiites versus Sunnis. Saddam's regime was run largely by the minority Sunni community through the Baath Party. When he was taken down, in spite of our efforts to see a diverse, democratic government replace his brutal dictatorship (at the time it was called "nation-building"), this policy pipe dream lasted for just a few years because all the while the majority Shia, having taken control, slowly and deliberately squeezed out the remaining Baathists.

So what in response have the displaced and discriminated against Iraqi Sunnis been up to? As we see in Egypt and Syria, they are turning for support to the most extreme Islamist elements who, if left to their own devices, would turn the entire region into a series of Islamic republics.

Let us not be naive about this agenda. Over time we will see the Muslim Brotherhood here; al Qaeda there. Jordan could be next and, who knows, maybe even Saudi Arabia after that, where the ruling dynasty has been paying off Osama bin Laden's Wahhabis in order to keep them from overthrowing the the House of Saud.

But the trajectory in this extremest direction is clear. And unwittingly we have been helpful in encouraging it by the very fact of our involvement After all, how would we feel, what would we do, where would we turn if a powerful outside force invaded and occupied our country? Don't you think that extremist elements in our own country--in the NRA or Tea Party, for example--would attempt to take control of the situation? I suspect the militias and dead-enders would be more effective in grabbing power than our political and economic elites.

If all else fails for McCain and Graham, there's always Benghazi. Who would have thought I'd be missing their third amigo, old Joe Lieberman.