"Black Wave" helps explain the Mid East Turmoil

 We westerners have a limited perspective on the part of the world that gets disproportionate attention.  The Mid-East is complicated, but definitely impinges on our lives.  Kim Ghattas is from Lebanon and as an internationally respected reporter splits her time between Lebanon and the United States.  She brings a unique perspective for our understanding.

From my perspective it seems that intolerance is a human failing that we all struggle with.  We enlightened ones feel we are above prejudice, but that is not nearly true.  Most of us are almost arrogant that our way of life (or at least what we aspire to) is the best and all others are lacking.  Us seniors tend to think our youth are missing something.  Some of us on the other hand think our saviors are among the young.  It is not a lot different in the rest of the world.  

English Puritans had power.  The people had been concerned about corrupted power and at first welcomed the new rulers.  Playing cards, women acting on stage, music and dance were not allowed.  Fun was considered unpius and even sinful.  But it wasn't too long before resentment of restrictions led to a new monarchy. 

Looking at the Mid-East western men feel superior as our women have much more freedom.  Men in power have in one sense been protective, but also possessive.  Rape laws were to protect the purity of daughters and wives.  Over the past little over a century many laws were also made to keep women from getting uppity.  Our past is only marginally better than other parts of the world, but it is easy to forget how the status quo has always been sexist.

Events that go back centuries have set the table for modern dynamics, but the author feels that the year 1979 heralded significant changes.  It was the year of the Iranian Revolution, a major attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.  

Large numbers of Iranians were dissatisfied with with what they saw as a dictatorship of the Shah who had used technology and training from the United States and Israel to control citizens.  Khomeini was more than a religious authority, in fact quite a manipulator who used religion to gain power to control a country. and stretch beyond.

The attack on the Grand Mosque was very upsetting to Saudi Arabian authorities as it housed the holiest location for the Muslim faith.  It was soon taken back from the intruders, but the fear had set in.  Iran felt they should have more control over the holy site.  

The Russians were stepping in after a Communist leader lost power.  The Afghans resented another foreign power.  Muslims everywhere took to join the resistance, including Osama bin Laden.  The United States under President Ronald Reagan wanted to support resistance efforts without declaring war.

Prior to 1979 Iran and Saudi Arabia had been friendly, if not actual allies.  

From this point the author explores connections between several Arab and Muslim countries, notably Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon and Palestine,  There are many murders, shootings and chemical attacks along the way.  Religious extremists gain power and start to impose restrictions such as no music and no theater, but most obviously directed at women.  The United States and other western nations made choices that often made things worse.

Women had ups and downs.  They sometimes had the choice to wear or not to wear a head covering and sometimes lost that right.  Some could vote, some could run for office, but many could not.  Driving was fairly normal, except in Saudi Arabia.   A bright moment was in 2018 when women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive.  In that case some of the women who had been agitating for that right were imprisoned, so that the government could take full credit.  Education has been shut down and raised up for women.

My personal view is that it will be women who break down the barriers and increase the democracy in the region which in turn will reduce the violence.  More men are supporting empowering women more.

One "progressive" Arab leader has been Mohammad bin Salman who has done much to "westernize" the culture including for women.  However it seems almost certain that he made the decision to kill Jamal Khashoggi who once had been a friend, but became a most vocal critic. 

A good source of news  for the Arab world is Al Jazeera,  https://www.aljazeera.com/ that also has an extensive global reporting network. It is easy to assume our usual sources understand the situation, but really we labor under false assumptions.

Kim puts historical research in its place by quoting Soren Kierkegaard, "It is perfectly true...that life must be understood backwards  But they forget the other proposition that it must be lived forward".

Bullfrog Wisdom

 I saw Admiral  William H. McRaven with Fareed Zakaria.  He has an interesting history giving him some credibility for this book, "The Wisdom of the Bullfrog" on leadership advice.

Subtitled "Leadership made Simple (but not easy)" might explain although there is a lot of common sense you need to make an effort.

 The term "Bullfrog" comes from his background as a leader with the SEALgroup where he started out as a frogman.  He was a key factor in the assassination of Osama bin Laden which is covered in the book.  Things did not go according to plan, but in fact they planned for that.

Tom Landry, former Dallas Cowboys coach is quoted "Setting a goal is not the main thing.  Ir is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan."  The Osama bin Laden plan got off to a bad start with one helicopter crashing near the site.  Disasters had been anticipated and worked around.

The Admiral's first point is that honor is a key to leadership.  Trust is necessary and is based on character. 

On one hand you need to be confident.  You were entrusted with a command, so you must command.  On the other hand humbleness is important.  He quotes Pope Francis; "A shepherd should smell like sheep."

He returns to the notion that character is critical.  It is too easy for some to bend the rules to achieve some goal, such as increased profits or a promotion.  An example he offers is Enron, a company run by very smart people, but used unethical means to gain greater profits.  Sooner or later such behavior will have to be accounted for.  

Periodic inspections can make a difference.  It is normal to get complacent and an inspection can reveal small problems that can lead to big problems.

A last point he made was to find someone you can trust.  In his background that person was often thought of as a swim buddy, someone who would support and protect you.  No one person can withstand all the trials the world can throw at you. 

There are a lot of books on improving our lot in life.  They each have a different perspective, but with a lot of overlapping good advice.  We can all use a little reinforcement.  Check out some other books I have read;  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/12/an-antidote-to-chaos-series-of-rules.html

A Promised Land

How does one get to be president of the United States, a position considered to be more powerful than just about anything else?  As in all cases Obama's road required many lucky breaks and the ability to take advantage of them.

He admits a strong desire for power, power to do things he feels need to be done.  He wrestles with the notion that it might be ego or unmet psychological needs.  Although Michelle supported him, she really fought against his political ambitions.  He was conscious that his decisions imposed sacrifices on others. 

As is evident in this book, he has a way with words.  Often his speeches seek to understand the root source of any issue.  He realizes that most important issues are complicated.  Almost everyone feels free to criticize presidential decisions complaining that the obvious choice was ignored.  Obama is well aware of all the choices, but also knows the practical restrictions.

How does one get power?  He was a man of learning and discipline.  He more often said the right thing at the right time.  The times were changing and events ever bending.  His first election was an education.  He had been told the first thing to do was get the necessary petition prepared.  He was skeptical, but it turned out to be the key.  Several of his opponents messed up their petitions including one who backtracked her promise not to run against him.  Once elected as an Illinois state senator he found himself on the minority side and unable to initiate legislation.

Most voters are something like Monday morning quarterbacks and we imagine that those in power have not really understood our great idea.  Not true in the case of Obama.  The decision making process is gone over for many issues.  The constraining factors include Congressional control by Republicans, filibuster rule, Democrats with different agendas, corporate support for business interests, media striving  for ratings and spreading misleading information.

He had made health care a high priority and was fortunate to make his first moves early.  He lost his margin in the Senate.  Palin had accused the plan of having a death panel, so instead of including a humane palliative service it was cut.  The mandate was attacked and also cut.  Here in Ontario several years ago it was mandated that everyone had to have insurance to drive a car and that made sense.  Although some people offer less risk they still have a risk. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill caught everyone off guard.  After assessing several options his decisions first drew attacks until it was finally brought under control and he was praised for his action.

He wanted immigration reform, but found his hands tied.  Racism and fear of cheap competition assured that members of both parties would vote against serious reform.  Obama was aware that many immigrants had come without intent or even awareness and had contributed to America's success.  Dreamers were given some protection, but are still under assault.

Iraq and Afghanistan were inherited, even though he voted against the Iraq invasion.  He describes Afghanistan as full of corruption, but felt no real viable options.  Lots of criticisms from politicians and military leaders. 

Israel is an American ally with solid electoral support that is obviously occupying Palestinian land.  Evangelicals with their apocalyptic vision are majorly responsible.   Like others Obama sees the need for compromise, but made little if any progress.

The Arab Spring got hopes up and a lot of discussion.  A lot of political maneuvering that led to a new autocratic rule in Egypt, a civil war in Syria, rise of ISIS and perhaps a fragile democracy in Tunisia.

Donald Trump should have been a footnote, but he inserted himself.  He brought up the issue of Obama's birth certificate, ignoring known facts.  Despite knowing better, the media kept the idea alive fanning racism and forcing Obama's effort to deal with it instead of working for the benefit of Americans.  At the White House Correspondent's dinner, Obama made some biting remarks about Trump while he was there.  Some have speculated that the humiliation inflicted on Trump is what spurred him to not only use his resources to run for president, but also to undo any legislation credited to Obama.

The book ends with the events leading up to and including the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Secrecy was the key element and Obama admits they did not have certainty, but he was the one who made the final decision.  His luck was better than Jimmy Carter's.

The Benghazi incident was given some background, but the outcome will have to wait for the sequel. Very much looking forward to the sequel and for that matter anything else Obama cares to write.  We can be assured it will be well thought out.

FARSIGHTED

We make dozens of decisions every day, but some decisions are too complex to be resolved without study.   There are many books that advise http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/decisions-are-path-to-success.html  Johnson delves into what he calls "complex decisions," the ones that can change our lives and deserve careful deliberation.

As he recommends stories as a path to understanding Johnson tells us a few examples.  The decision process to kill Osama bin Ladin was very complex and serious.  The Abbotabad  decision benefited from previous mistakes.  We are taken back to a mysterious bit of information that only indicated that an important person might live at a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Although it was early speculated that this might be where bin Ladin was holed up, the danger of being wrong was critical. At each step of the process multiple opinions are sought and teased out with many choices being eliminated.

Loss aversion is a greater fear than greed for gain and needs to be guarded against.  At some point in a complex decision we try to calculate the risks of something not working out as anticipated.

Uncertainties are certain to be found in complex decisions or as Donald Rumsfeld would say, there are unknown unknowns.  One way of dealing with them is to cast a wide net involving other contributors.  As much as practical scenarios can be constructed.  Simulations might also be tried such as the Pentagon rehearsing possible attacks on Abbotabad that modified their plans.

You might recall there was no buildup to the announcement of a successful mission.  They had also taken into account some of the consequences of the assassination.  They had booked an alternative supply route to Afghanistan a year in advance.  They had taken precautions to minimize the martyrdom of bin Ladin.

Charles Darwin was contemplating marriage, but had many concerns about what he would have to give up.  We know that he adopted a version of what has come to be known as the Benjamin Franklin method.  Other than him actually marrying we don't know his conclusion to the decision.  Later he faced another decision when his daughter Annie was threatened with a little understood disease.  Unfortunately the options were not well studied and she died forcing changes in both his and wife's lives.  He became less religious and open about it while he his wife found comfort in her religion.

Returning to Darwin to illustrate other points.  What surprised me the most was that the decision to publish his theory of Evolution took very long.  He wanted the fame that he expected, but not the notoriety that would ensue and not only create intense religious hostility, but upset his wife.  His wife eventually accepted her husband's lack of religiosity, but in the end Darwin was forced to publish his theory as a rival threatened to publish his similar theory first.

Another set of decisions came from reading novels in particular "Middlemarch." George Eliot wrote "Middlemarch that contains decisions with factors that clash with one another.  Towards the end Johnson refers to the life of George Eliot who was born Mary Ann Evans.   Unlike Darwin who tried to decide between marrying or not marrying George Eliot chose a third option which was to live together with her partner outside marriage.  Her decision involved her writing career and her political ideals.  An earlier blog dealt with the importance of using stories to persuade people to make a decision:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/tell-to-win-offers-winning-formula.html

Throughout the many examples in the book, Johnson maintains that diversity of viewpoints is critical, obviously such as including both genders, age range, a variety of ethnic, experiences, etc.  A single viewpoint is often unable to see a full range of choices.  He criticizes gerrymandering as it groups people with a predominant ideological perspective. 

My take on Premier Doug Ford's decision to cut the number of Toronto city councilors.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/07/move-over-donald-trump.html 

Johnson suggests three complex issues that deserve careful analysis before making a decision: long term;  contact with extra terrestrial beings, immortality and artificial intelligence.  For some people the downsides are minor but in reality there are serious consequences to making a wrong  choice.  Scientists are now cautioning us against trying to contact beings from outside our planet as they would likely have superior technology and perhaps unkindly intentions.  Other scientists are concerned about artificial intelligence overcoming humans.  Immortality seems like a natural goal,that no longer seems impossible, but  it has difficult to assess consequences.

Of course for many of us we need a little help in making some decisions.  Sometimes we need a little help or we would like to "nudge" someone off the fence.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/01/can-nudge-help-you-make-better-decisions.html

In the acknowledgements he admits that he starting taking notes almost ten years before publication.  A lot of decisions along the way.  Everyone is compelled to make important decisions--what career path to pursue, who to marry, to find a purpose in life.   

Another blog post with advice on decisions:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/12/an-antidote-to-chaos-series-of-rules.html

THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD

Morgan Spurlock is fascinating and has brought attention to a number of issues that require more attention.  My attention was drawn to the concept of product placement in movies.  Barely acquainted with the notion it seems it was of greater import than I had assumed.  Money is a driver of activity.

This post was almost stopped at one point for some personal knowledge of Morgan, but in the end I decided this was too interesting and perhaps even important and should continue.  In fact I decided to check out two more of his documentaries.  More about the obstacle at the end

Morgan was trying to make the point that commercials pay for much of what we think is free.  He developed the idea of doing a movie and having it paid entirely by sponsors.  Easier said than done.  They approached ad agencies and even placement agencies and received total rejection.  There is a snippet showing one agency that accepted a pitch.  After these initial failures they decided to approach companies directly.  They developed customized pitches for each company demonstrating how they would use their product in the movie.  It took over 500 cold calls before they found their first sponsor  After that it was easier as no body wants to be the first to buy a new concept, but there is always somebody ready to join a bandwagon.

In the movie itself there was a lot of points about how movies are dependent on money.  Lots of movie ideas are killed because not enough money can be raised.  Iron Man2 held a record of over 30 product placements in a movie.

Morgan's crew traveled to one of their co-promoters, Hyatt Regency Hotels in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  He noted there were no ads on taxis, buses or buildings. Talking to Brazilians they were told merchants relied on word of mouth (and good products).

Ralph Nader (who promoted his books when filmed) and Noam Chomsky, among many others made comments and gave some advice.  Donald Trump said a few words about the importance of promoting yourself.  The film showed examples of how some movies did placements.

Schools have been beaten down by budgets and some find themselves looking to advertising to help support some educational efforts.   Demonstrates that tax payers do not value education as much as they claim.  More and more schools are co-operating with commercial interests to have enough money for a wide variety of tools.  Nothing is too sacred.

One of the commercials brought back some memories.  Mane N Tail is a well known horse product and at a trade show I met the inventor who created it at home  The company I worked for at the time Orange aPEEL developed a shampoo that at first was for dogs, but as the owners had horse connections it got tested among horse owners they knew.  It was added to my list of products and I remember going into one small town (Perth) and talking it up when I was interrupted by a manager who said she only sold horse shampoos that she would recommend for people as well.  I gave her a sample.  Phoning her back she was very enthused about it, but said she was closing up shop.  I told her where else in town she could buy it.  Then I lost contact, but another store in that same town reported an increase in sales.  The other store was aiming it at dog owners.  I and my wife got to trying it and loved it.  Unfortunately I no longer have access to it or I would recommend it for you.

While filming they had a goal of being ready for TIFF, but unfortunately they were delayed.  Ended up debuting at Sundance

"Super Size Me" was an earlier effort that attracted a lot of attention.  An experiment under some medical guidance.  He was to eat all meals provided by McDonald's with nothing else.  The movie got into other issues, notably obesity.  Schools were being forced to adopt fast food, but some rebelled.  One good example came from Appleton, Wisconsin where they demonstrated that diet and exercise can have a positive impact on academic studies.  Schools were finding their budgets cut and demands made for subject coverage that limited or even eliminated physical education.

All through Morgan was being measured for his medical response.  It was pointed out that few if any ate all their meals at McDonald's, but many ate several times a week.  Morgan was several times told to stop this experiment as it was having a very detrimental effect on his health.  He stuck it out and had a plan to get back to his normal health.

Eric Schloss, author of Fast Food Nation appeared in bonus features--consumers sucked in by flavor (chemistry/testing), industrial agriculture.  He pointed out that with industrial farms, manure is concentrated .  One of the forces behind fast food is tv which gets a lot of revenue from fast food ads.   In a previous blog I discussed mindless eating and mindful eating:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/09/mindless-eating-cf-mindful-eating.html  A nephew worked at McDonald's and will not eat there.

"Where in the World is Osama bin Laden"  concept originates as his wife becomes pregnant and is concerned about safety.  Osama bin Laden was portrayed as a great menace and was used as a tool to demonstrate fear.  He interviewed Muslims in different countries (Morocco, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan).  Many commented on how foreign money sent is wasted through corruption  

He was realistic in his coverage.  Americans had supported dictators around the world.  Americans had displaced an elected Iranian Prime Minister and replaced with a dictator.  After the Iranian Revolution that replaced the Shah, Americans befriended Sadam Hussain, dictator of Iraq.  It was also pointed that much of the American financial aid was sidelined by corruption.   Read an earlier blog on that issue:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/thieves-of-state.html

In his travels he found Saudi Arabians and Israeli Orthodox Jews the most difficult to reason with. Morgan did agree that the problem wasn't just Osama Bin Laden as he would be replaced with others who felt the same antagonism against America.  Unfortunately when the movie came out there were few Americans willing to consider the humanity of the "other," especially Muslims.  This is perhaps another example of IMDB ratings being affected by political concerns.

Morgan Spurlock confessed in 2017 to being  a sex predator including being accused of rape, settling a sexual harassment lawsuit and cheating on his two wives.  I don't want to associate myself with Harvey Weinstein, but it wasn't so much a degree of difference as a degree of self awareness.  I am reminded of Jimmy Carter confessing lusting in his heart.  I confess that I read it in the original Playboy format as a young person.  It hurt him with some of his supporters but struck me as being honest.  Jimmy and Morgan recognized a human failing that has caused a lot of harm, much of which is not even consciously appreciated.  The three documentary films I have seen and I suspect many of his others are real mind openers.  Apparently Morgan may be another victim of his own indiscretions.

 Some of my thoughts on sexual consent:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/09/sexual-consent.html

The Ottoman Endgame

The Mid East seems in constant turmoil with much blame given to western powers who drew the wrong lines for their own greedy reasons.  There has always been a lot of blame to pass around.  Sean McMeekin gives a different perspective going back just before the Great War with a focus on the Ottoman Empire.  "The Ottoman Endgame" was recommended by Fareed Zakaria.

At its peak the Ottoman Empire extended to eastern Europe, northern Africa, the Arab lands and included many Jews and Christians.  Jews fled Europe for greater safety in Ottoman areas with over a million Jews there in 1900.  By the dawn of the twentieth century the Ottoman Empire was considered "sick" and ripe for picking off territory.  They did control access to the Black Sea which was key for trade with Russia.  Russia, an antagonist to Turkey over centuries saw an opening.  Italy saw an opportunity in Libya.  Fighting in the Balkans, including Serbia and Bulgaria against the Ottoman Empire preceded World War I.

The Great War was precipitated with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Serbia on June 28, 1914.  The Ottoman Empire could not afford to be involved as it had a severe financial problem.  Germany, Russia, Britain, France all had their motives.

A German dreadnought outran a British ship in the Mediterranean to end up in Istanbul as an inducement to declare war on Russia and to allow him to patrol the Black Sea.  Also an Egyptian leader wanting to liberate from Britain was vacationing in Bosphorous.  Churchill was anxious to attack Turkey, but was blocked by Kitchener who was concerned about Egypt and India, but not before commandeering two Turkish dreadnoughts that had been built by British ship builders.   Russia, although blocked in was reluctant to push Turkey to war as they had their own Muslim subjects and wanted a better deal before taking sides.

Germans wanted Turkey to declare war, but Turkey had financial constraints including paying military staff.  Germany did some calculations and decided to finance the Ottoman Empire including large amounts of gold.  Turkey waited until they received gold before declaring war.

The British, like the Americans a few decades later saw the oppressed Iraqis  hoping for liberation from the Ottomans.  They found it more difficult than anticipated to fire up the Arabs.

The Armenian Genocide that is sometimes acknowledged is more complicated than I casually thought.  The Armenians were Christians in a Muslim country and wanted to be free.  The Russians were sympathetic and were reached out to by Armenians.  The Ottomans decided it was best to deport Armenians away from where the Russians were, but did set up guidelines that were meant to be humane.  Many of the guidelines were forgotten and Armenians suffered being sent to faraway inhospital sites and died from starvation, exhaustion and Turkish hatred and fear.  To further aggravate the situation Russians were successful in overcoming a Muslim Ottoman city with the help of Armenians.  Turks took revenge and directly killed many Armenians.  Historians argue over how many Armenians died, but it was in genocidal proportions.  

Ironically the British had been requested to ally themselves with Armenians and Russians for a strategic attack.  Armenians from Egypt were ready in large numbers to help this effort, but the British were stuck in a mindset that led to disaster in Gallipoli and ignored the Russians and Armenian requests, despite advice that in hindsight seemed a better use of their resources.  One of a few dissenters was T. E Lawrence, at the time a mere interpreter.

Mustafa Kemal is considered the founder of modern Turkey.  He developed his credibility serving well in the military including Gallipoli.   He is credited with saying "I did not order you to attack.  I ordered you to die." reportedly before a battle.

The Germans tried to stir up a holy war against Brits and Russians but with little success.  Brits suggested Arabs could take over caliphate.

In the 1917 Russian Revolution one of early events was mutinies among soldiers and sailors.  Lenin reached Petrograd (St Petersburg)  with a German military escort in April and immediately demanded an end to imperialist wars, but there was still political maneuvering.  The Russian navy still wanted to conquer Istanbul.  A ceasefire was declared in Nov 1917 which European armies accepted readily.  A little slower on the Ottoman front as Russians were relatively successful.  This allowed a shift of troops, but more importantly helped retain some land.  Leon Trotsky sat down to negotiate and was fairly clever about it, but both Germans and Ottoman military forces tried to seize with some success lands under Russian control.

At the end of the war, the allies ganged up on the Ottoman Empire with Greece, Italy, France  Russia (under Bolsheviks)  and Britain staking out claims to large amounts of land.  Britain (against the advice of Churchill) occupied Istanbul.  Mustafa Kemal rallied military leaders to resist.

America had entered the war in April 6, 1917, but not against the Ottoman Empire.  They were seen as possible peace brokers, but they backed away from the responsibility.  President Wilson was now an invalid.

The Greeks had an advantage for awhile and conquered a lot of what we know as Turkey today.  However, Kemal made some very smart moves gaining gold and weapons from the Bolsheviks, making an agreement with Italy and neutralizing Britain.  Arnold Toynbee testified that the Greeks had committed atrocities against Muslims.  There ended up being an exchange of Turks from Greece and Greeks from Turkey.  Turkey lost Christians and Jews that had helped elevate their cultural level.  Greeks and Turks have argued against one another ever since.  One bright note was an artistic alliance between Zulfu Livanelli and  Mikis Teodorakis, two great artists who performed together many years later.  

France, Britain and Russia negotiated what became known as the Sykes Picot agreement signed on May 16th, 1916 that split up parts of the anticipated concessions by the Ottoman government after their defeat.  Britain was to control what we know as Palestine and over to Jordan and including part of Iraq.  France was to govern the northern part of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and part of southern Turkey.  Russia was to control Istanbul and Armenia.  On November 2nd, 1917 Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour declared in a statement to Walter Rothchild, a representative of the British Jewish community that Britain would accept an facilitate a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but without prejudice to civil and religious rights of non Jewish communities.  Undoubtedly these commitments and their interpretations have affected modern conflicts.  The author contends that ethnic and religious animosities would still have caused conflict almost no matter what boundaries were established.

Mustafa Kemal abolished the caliphate in 1924 and was denounced many years later by Osama bin Laden for doing so.  He is noted for running roughshod to modernize Turkey.

What can history tell us about today's turmoils?  While finishing this up I heard Fareed Zakaria's guest Robert A Worth and then checked a book review.  There is a lot of anger in the Mid-East.  They all want change, but are not tolerant of different views.  One view is that modernization has progressed technically, but socially the pace has been very slow.  Sean McMeekin proclaims that the hatred has existed for a very long time, but had been controlled under the Ottoman regimes.  Although boundaries may have been redrawn imperfectly they only complicate a difficult situation.

OMAR KHADR CHILD SOLDIER AND CANADIAN LAW

Did you see Omar Khadr's mother and sister's lambasting of Canadians?  I did and it was upsetting.  How ungrateful can one be?  That is the atmosphere Omar grew up with.  His parents were able to take him out of Canadian schools to Afghanistan where his father was well acquainted with Osama bin Laden.

Canada helped draft and was one of the first to sign an international agreement against the recruitment and use of child soldiers.  They must have been concerned about what happens in Africa, but when they were really tested they failed.  Although Omar is often pictured as our most concrete symbol of terrorist evil, in reality he is more a poster boy for the evils of child soldiers.

Different versions of what happened confuse the issue, but it seems certain people were killing one another.  I am sure Omar felt an affinity with his comrades and acted like most would in a vicious gang fight, especially when he was also attacked.  Perhaps we wonder why he couldn't rise above it all and see the opportunity to get on the right side.  That is a lot to expect of a 15 year old.  This was part of George Bush's "War on  Terror that in its different theatres has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.  Most of them were not labeled murder.

Canadians take it for granted that we have a legal system that makes us superior to less civilized nations.  Omar Khadr saw very little of what might be considered reasonable legal procedures.  His lawyers have stated that he was tortured in various ways including water boarding and that he was coerced into confession.  

The Harper government is embarrassing us again.  Why are we the only western government not to stick up for our own citizens?  Why are they still trying to curtail his freedom?  It has been said that we don't want to offend the Americans.  Perhaps that is true, but I don't think it is the government they are afraid of offending, but the conservative opposition to the American government.  Maybe even more basic is the evangelical component.

There is really not a lot to decide.  Do we hold 15 year olds responsible for their parents' direction?

Omar has overcome a lot of barriers and is now set to start a new life.  Will we give him a chance/

OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THE QUESTION OF TORTURE

I had intended to write about something else, but with the death of Osama Bin Laden stirring all sorts of reaction I wanted to get my two cents worth in before it becomes yesterday's news.

Like most, I was caught off guard and surprised by some of the details. Three moral questions, at least have arisen that I would like to comment on.

First, does this justify torture? I think some of the people claiming that it does are trying to justify their own behaviour and/or take some of the credit. Their political concerns are mostly shameful.

We all can acknowledge that we have secrets that we don't want everyone or particular people to know. If we are sufficiently threatened we tend to acknowledge the simple ones. I recognize at some point I would tell you whatever you want to know if I thought it might end my suffering. Some people are tougher than others, some secrets are more critical than others and some would simply lie. In many cases they just don't know. The effectiveness of torturing is not the main reason why torturing was originally banned.

Two reasons to ban torture are still relevant. One is to discourage our enemies from torturing "our" side. It is argued our enemies are uncivilized and will torture anyway That may be so, but our example does have some impact, however small. The other reason is our image--are we the sort of people who torture.

Getting information can be very vital to our survival, but is torture the only or best way? There are some intelligent people that think that other methods can be more effective. I hope I am never in a position where it matters, but I will respect an honest judgment. What I don't respect is a ritual of torturing as the only solution.

The President, Barrack Obama has been criticized for not wanting to publish the photo of the dead Osama bin Laden. A photo would help assure me that he is no longer a threat, but I am reasonably certain that is the case. Bearing in mind the reaction to some Danish cartoons I can foresee the danger of inflaming some people. What is more important? I would say let things calm down before bringing up the subject again.

The third moral question is how do we treat Pakistan who many assert had to be actively hiding him. I don't doubt there are more people in Pakistan who sympathized with Osama Bin Laden than you find in most other parts of the world. It does seem almost impossible that some authorities would be unaware of his presence. We will never know all the intricate details, but I suspect the Pakistanis did help.

They are in a very tricky position. There is definitely strong anti-American feelings and they cannot be seen to co-operate too closely with their American allies. In very significant ways they are more victimized by terrorists than we are in North America. It is not in our interest to make the Pakistan government look bad to their people. It is not in our interests to further inflame their feelings. As Obama said this is not a time to "spike" it in their face. Most people can understand the American desire to revenge the death of so many Americans who also fear Osama would be plotting as he apparently was to kill more of us.

UPDATE:  Apparently the Americans used a vaccination program as a cover for pinpointing information on the location of Osama Bin Laden.  This has resulted in vaccination program employees being killed and others intimidated setting back their program.

I offer these opinions, but do not want to dwell on them.

An update on torture:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/torture.html