Parts to Wholes: the Socionomic Systems Nexus

ME as Exemplar

Fmr. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker Assessment on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & ME (CSpan) Former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spoke at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library about the politics, history, and current issues in the Middle East. Mr. Crocker was introduced by Fmr. President George H.W. Bush. 

PEACEKEEPING: The Secrets Of Iraq The major obstacle to peace in Iraq is still corruption, and the lack of things we take for granted in the West. The main problem is the absence of what is called "civil society." In short, this means that a majority of the people support clean and efficient government, and energetically back honest politicians, and denigrate dishonest ones. In Iraq, the three major groups (Kurds, Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs) never got along. Moreover, there are also hundred of tribes and clans which wield considerable power. The long time lack of honest courts, meant that many judicial matters (contract, marital, criminal and land disputes) were settled by clan or tribal elders. This is still the case. There is also the tradition of "winner take all." Anyone who achieves a position of power in the government is expected to take care of his clan or tribe, usually to the exclusion of anyone else. While many Iraqis understand the need for a civil society, the majority of officials still play by the traditional rules. As a result, back in the United States, many politicians either don't bother, or don't want to believe, what is actually happening, and has happened, in Iraq. In a way, that makes sense. Now, this is the critical thing that many Americans don't understand, or even know. When Saddam was deposed in 2003, most (well, many) Sunni Arabs believed they would only be out of power temporarily. This sort of thing you can pick up on the Internet (OK, mostly on Arab language message boards, but it's out there). Saddam's followers (the Baath Party) and al Qaeda believed a few years of terror would subdue the Shia, scare away the Americans, and the Sunni Arabs would return to their natural state as the rulers of Iraq. U.S. troops quickly picked up on this Sunni mindset. Because Sunni Arabs were the best educated group, most of the local translators the troops used were Sunni Arabs, and even these guys took it for granted that, eventually, the Sunni Arabs would have to be in charge if the country were to function. The Sunni Arabs believed the Shia were a bunch of ignorant, excitable, inept (and so on) scum who could never run a government. Four years later, the Shia sort-of proved the Sunni Arabs wrong. By 2007, most Sunni Arabs had decided to make peace, not suicide bombs. The basic problem is that the United States is divided into two groups; those who have worked (or fought) in Iraq, or otherwise paid close attention to what's happening on the ground, and those who create their own picture of what's happening, one that fits other needs (personal, political, religious). No amount of wishing will change what is going on over there. The majority of the population hates the Sunni Arabs, who now have four years of terrorist attacks added to their list of sins. The Kurds, although beset by corruption and factionalism, have shown that you can still have peace, security and prosperity if everyone works together. The Arabs to the south see that, but have not been able to work together well enough to make it happen. Will the Arabs be able to overcome their factionalism and hatreds? THAT is the big question. What is lost in all the rhetoric about Iraq is that Iraq is the only real Arab democracy in the Middle East. Egypt is a one party state, a dictatorship masquerading as a dictatorship. Every other Arab state is either a dictatorship or a monarchy. Iraqis know they are in a position to show the way, to an era of better government, and the freedoms and prosperity that flows from that. Iraqis know they have problems with religion, tribalism and corruption. Iraqis know what they are up against. Do you? 

The Promise, and Peril, Ahead for Iraq During his visit to Iraq this week, President Barack Obama commended U.S. forces for their invaluable work there: "From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections -- you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement." But the president also cautioned that "now is not the time to lose focus" for the next 18 months will be a "critical period." He's absolutely right. Iraq has undergone a quiet transformation since Mr. Obama's first visit to the country as a senator in July 2008. We can no longer speak of Iraqi politics at a standstill, or a lack of political accommodation, or an unwillingness of the Iraqi government to take responsibility. The issues facing the president in Iraq, and his military commanders, are fundamentally different from those of 2007 and 2008. On a visit to Iraq last month, we had the opportunity to see the transformation firsthand. Iraq is now a fully sovereign country. Mr. Obama has stated his objectives in Iraq clearly: The U.S. must "make sure that Iraq is stable, that it is not a safe haven for terrorists, that it is a good neighbor and a good ally." This is an attainable goal. Iraq has undergone a profound transformation -- it is no longer a predatory, dictatorial state or a maelstrom of sectarian violence. It no longer threatens its neighbors or stability in the region. Indeed, Iraq has become an attractive political and economic partner for states throughout the Middle East. But Iraqis remain most interested in establishing a strategic partnership with the U.S. and the West. In the long run, this partnership will not be defined by the numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq but by the depth of our economic and political cooperation, diplomatic support, and strategic alliance. As Mr. Obama said in Baghdad, America must be "a stalwart partner" and Iraqis must "know that they have a steady partner with us."

Combat and Community Before the Soviet invasion in 1979, Afghan towns had three parallel authority structures: the tribal elders, the religious clerics and the government representatives. The Soviets decimated the tribes and the indigenous government. That left only the mullahs, and their sudden unchecked prominence helped explain the rise of the Taliban. The terror and the fall of the Taliban reduced clerical authority, too. By 2002, when the coalition forces arrived, village society was fractured, social capital decimated. The resulting disorder has been a perfect nesting ground for the insurgents. The insurgents are not popular in Afghanistan, the way they sometimes were in Iraq. But they have money, and young men in the villages talk about “taking a Taliban day” — that is, accepting a few hundred bucks to plant an I.E.D. Between 2002 and 2005, the coalition and the Afghans were slow to recognize the perils of social fragmentation. The general view was that warlordism and civil war were the biggest threats. Therefore, power should be centralized with the national government. The country should be restored through a strong national government spreading outward. That approach has had some success. The Afghan National Army is the country’s most trusted institution. But it’s also had many shortcomings. The national police force is ineffective. The central government has rarely been able to reweave the social fabric at the village level. Nobody’s been able to establish rule of law or end rampant corruption. So the Afghans and the coalition are adapting. There’s been a shift to supplement central authorities with village authority structures.

• Obama Unveils Plan to Defeat Taliban, al-Qaeda
• Pres. Obama announces new Afghanistan strategy (CSpan)
• Obama Afghanistan Plan Breaks Old Ground
• Behind the Afghan Strategy

Diplomatic Surge: Can Obama's Team Tame the Taliban?  Admiral Mike Mullen is an odd one. He eschews the crisp, classic aura of command; he comes across as a no-drama, common-sense-dispensing country doctor from downstate Illinois (actually, he's the son of prominent show-biz publicists from Los Angeles). But as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen is still the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, and so it was a bit disconcerting to see him taking flak from a group of Afghan farmers and international agricultural experts in Kabul the first week in April. "The military is giving away free wheat seed to Afghan farmers, and that's undermining our efforts," said an expert whose USAID-supported program gave farmers vouchers to buy seeds, which was helping build a secondary market of seed- and farm-supply businesses. Instead of taking umbrage, Mullen took notes. In fact, he seemed close to excited as ideas flew around the table. It was not the normal fare for an admiral, but agriculture - specifically, how to get Afghan farmers to plant something other than opium poppies - is a central issue in this very complicated war. Welcome to the U.S. military in the Age of Obama. Indeed, Mullen's tour of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India was quietly significant in a number of ways. The trip was organized and led by the State Department's indefatigable special representative, Richard Holbrooke, with Mullen happily playing second fiddle (except in the closed-door meetings with Afghan and Pakistani military leaders) - a striking reversal of fortune after the Pentagon dominance of the Bush years. It was a demonstration of the Obama emphasis on diplomacy and economic development, a strategy that tracks with the military's new counterinsurgency tactics - "We've developed the best counterinsurgency capability in the world," Mullen said several times - that focus on protecting the public and building civil order. And so, in addition to the usual round of private meetings with government officials, Holbrooke convened a breathtaking parade of farmers, Afghan tribal leaders, women legislators, rule-of-law advocates, journalists, the local diplomatic corps, religious leaders; and then a similar roundelay in Pakistan. Mullen seemed amazed and somewhat nonplussed by Holbrooke, who is the David Petraeus of diplomats, a constant source of energy and creativity - and occasionally controversy, since he is not, shall we say, a country-doctor sort of guy. Zardari's helplessness reflected one reality - the Pakistani army holds the real power in the country - but it also fed the parallel reality of an infantile political class, constantly squabbling, incapable of acting effectively even in a dire crisis. Holbrooke and Mullen saw it firsthand when a shouting match broke out before dinner at the U.S. embassy between a prominent Zardari aide and a leading member of the lawyers' group that had successfully forced the reinstatement of Pakistan's Chief Justice. "They're both moderate, secular leaders," one of those present commented later. "They should be focused on the desperate threat facing their nation instead of fighting each other."

Holbrooke of South Asia  His face tense and unsmiling, a young man from a village in Pakistan's western tribal areas tells his story, mixing English, Pashto and Urdu. He is the only male in his clan to get an education, but can't find a job, and blames a corrupt national government. Americans are bombing his neighbors, he says, tempting him to join the Islamist militants in his area. Across the room, another Pakistani turns toward his hosts at the U.S. Embassy and says, "You are hated." The comments are addressed to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and the new American special representative for the region, Richard Holbrooke. Seated alongside the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, Mr. Holbrooke asks a dozen or so men in the room about the presence of the Taliban in their villages. "We are all Taliban," comes a response. The others nod in accord. All are or were "religious students," or Taliban in Pashto. But the expression of solidarity with the various Pakistani and Afghan insurgents who go by the name is lost on no one. Mr. Holbrooke, who leads the diplomatic charge, acknowledges the hardest work will be here. His airplane reading is Dennis Kux's history of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship titled, "The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies." "Pakistan is at the center of our strategic concerns," he tells me Tuesday night, flying from Islamabad to India's capital, Delhi. "If Afghanistan had the best government on earth, a drug-free culture and no corruption it would still be unstable if the situation in Pakistan remained as today. That is an undisputable fact, and that is the core of the dilemma that the Western nations, the NATO alliance, face today." Take the dilemma a logical step further, I suggest. The terrorists who threaten America are in Pakistan, but the U.S. fights the Afghan Taliban, who don't. "That's a fair point," says Mr. Holbrooke, "but the reason for fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is clear: The Taliban are the frontrunners for al Qaeda. If they succeed in Afghanistan, without any shadow of a doubt, al Qaeda would move back into Afghanistan, set up a larger presence, recruit more people and pursue its objectives against the United States even more aggressively." Public support for the expanded U.S. Afghan mission hinges on making this case stick. 

INTELLIGENCE: The Enemies Within For several years now, the United States, Afghanistan, India and many Pakistanis, have been pressuring the Pakistani government to reform the ISI (Inter Service Intelligence agency). This organization has long been a power unto itself, with its own agenda and many members who support Islamic radicalism. Last year, the government sought to disband the political wing of the ISI. This section was believed be largely responsible for Pakistani support of Islamic, or simply Pakistani, terrorist operations in Afghanistan and India, as well as support for Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan itself. The political wing has also served as a domestic spying operation whenever the military was running the country (which is more than half the time.) Pakistan is currently run by a civilian government that came into power last Summer. ISI has long supported Islamic terrorists, and now Pakistan appears determined to root out "Taliban spies" in the ISI. The problem is that these Islamic radicals have been operating openly in the ISI for three decades, and were put there by the government in the late 1970s, when it was decided that Islamic conservatism was the solution for Pakistan's problems (corruption and religious/ethnic conflicts.) These guys are not just "Taliban spies," but Pakistani intelligence professionals that believe in Islamic radicalism.

• Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say
• INTELLIGENCE: Who Can A terrorist Trust?

In Pakistan, A Government Official-Turned-Protester(NPR) Many thousands of people took part in the campaign to restore Pakistan's chief justice after he was ousted by the country's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, more than two years ago.But one man in particular stood out amid that noisy throng of black-suited lawyers, civil activists and party cadres, who are now celebrating the judge's return to the bench. Roedad Khan does not fit the stereotype of the fiery-eyed frontline protester, who took to Pakistan's streets for week after week, braving tear gas and baton-wielding police at the risk of arrest and injury. He is a courtly, urbane and soft-spoken man who lives in an airy villa in the capital, Islamabad, surrounded by elegant furniture, oriental rugs and the biographies of history's leaders. He is also 85 years old. Khan used to be one of Pakistan's most senior government officials, serving in high office under civil leaders and military dictators. For most of his career, he was a civil servant, although he came out of retirement for a stint as a federal minister. He has, over the years, been on personal terms with six of Pakistan's presidents.

• In the War Against Militants, U.S. and Pakistan Remain at Odds

INTELLIGENCE: A Grain Of Sand Reveals All There are recent revelations about the Syrian site, which was bombed by Israel in September, 2007, and why the Israelis knew it was a nuclear research facility under construction. It all began when an Iranian general, and former deputy defense minister (Ali Reza Asghari) defected in February of 2007. He said that Iran was financing a North Korean effort to help Syria develop nuclear weapons. The site had already been noted by American intelligence, but they were unsure of what it was. It seems that the Syrians had taken extraordinary security measures. No cell phones were allowed on the site, and all messages to and from the workers there were delivered in written form, by courier. In August, 2007, the Israelis sent in a twelve man commando team, by helicopter, to the site. Photographs, and soil samples, were taken. This confirmed that nuclear research was taking place at the site. The bombing mission followed the next month. American and Israeli intelligence concluded that Iran had spent over a billion dollars (much of it to North Korea) to finance the operation. Some intelligence officials doubt this, but Syria hasn't got much cash, and North Korea does not do freebies. Iran has the money and the motivation. After the bombing, the Syrians promptly removed the structures, both the ones that were bombed and those left intact. Syria has since rebuilt the area with what appears to be a missile control and launching center. After the bombing, and accusations of nuclear weapons research, UN inspectors found that there were traces of uranium and graphite, indicating that there was indeed a nuclear research activity, at the very least, going on. The Syrians apparently did not realize that it was difficult, nearly impossible, to clear away the microscopic evidence that nuclear research was going on there. North Korean technicians were involved with whatever was going on there, although Syria denied any nuclear work was taking place. Denying that North Koreans were around was more difficult, as North Koreans have been seen entering and leaving this area for months. North Korea is believed to be still selling weapons, and possibly nuclear technology, to Syrian mentor Iran. Moreover, the minute nuclear and graphite material can be traced back to where it came from, which in this case was North Korea.

An Arab-Made Misery International donors pledged almost $4.5 billion in aid for Gaza earlier this month. It has been very painful for me to witness over the past few years the deteriorating humanitarian situation in that narrow strip where I lived as a child in the 1950s. The media tend to attribute Gaza's decline solely to Israeli military and economic actions against Hamas. But such a myopic analysis ignores the problem's root cause: 60 years of Arab policy aimed at cementing the Palestinian people's status as stateless refugees in order to use their suffering as a weapon against Israel. It was in those years that the Arab League started its Palestinian refugee policy. Arab countries implemented special laws designed to make it impossible to integrate the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Arab war against Israel. Even descendants of Palestinian refugees who are born in another Arab country and live there their entire lives can never gain that country's passport. Even if they marry a citizen of an Arab country, they cannot become citizens of their spouse's country. They must remain "Palestinian" even though they may have never set foot in the West Bank or Gaza. This policy of forcing a Palestinian identity on these people for eternity and condemning them to a miserable life in a refugee camp was designed to perpetuate and exacerbate the Palestinian refugee crisis. So was the Arab policy of overpopulating Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, whose main political support comes from Arab countries, encourages high birth rates by rewarding families with many children. Yasser Arafat said the Palestinian woman's womb was his best weapon. Now it is Hamas, an Islamist terror organization supported by Iran, which is using and abusing Palestinians for this purpose. While Hamas leaders hid in the well-stocked bunkers and tunnels they prepared before they provoked Israel into attacking them, Palestinian civilians were exposed and caught in the deadly crossfire between Hamas and Israeli soldiers. As a result of 60 years of this Arab policy, Gaza has become a prison camp for 1.5 million Palestinians. Both Israel and Egypt are fearful of terrorist infiltration from Gaza -- all the more so since Hamas took over -- and have always maintained tight controls over their borders with Gaza. The Palestinians continue to endure hardships because Gaza continues to serve as the launching pad for terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Those attacks come in the form of Hamas missiles that indiscriminately target Israeli kindergartens, homes and businesses.

• What's In Store For Egypt-Israel Relations?(NPR)
• Even After Exile, Palestinian Musician Vows to Play On

LEADERSHIP: Arabs Who Hate Israel Less Saudi Arabia, and most Arab nations, are coming around to viewing Israel as an ally and tolerable neighbor. The Saudi royal family has always been very practical, and willing to take risks. One of their current risky behaviors is pointing out, to their fellow Arabs, how destructive internal conflicts are for the Arab world. Then there is the admission that the obsession with Israel has brought the Arabs more harm than good. Increasingly, Arabs are advocating an old practice in the region, "if you can't beat them, join them." What's driving this move towards Israel's welcoming arms (pun intended), is growing fear of Iran, and disgust at the self-destructive and incompetent politics of the Palestinians. For sixty years, the Arab world had been united in their support of the Palestinian (a nationality created in the 1960s) efforts to destroy Israel, and replace it with a Palestinian state. Most Arab leaders no longer believe that the Palestinians are capable of negotiating a deal with the Israelis, or even running their own state, should they get one. The big obstacle is the sixty years of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic propaganda Arab states have been spewing. This stuff is still coming, although several Arab states have quietly reduced the volume and vehemence. Arab states have been more vigorously leaning on the Palestinians to make peace, knowing that this would quickly lower the toxicity level of Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. But Hamas has stopped progress in peace negotiations, and made that worse by using Iranian help to do it. The more reasonable Palestinian faction, Fatah, is hopelessly corrupt, and politically inept as well. The Arab states are as frustrated as the Israelis are with the "Palestinian situation." In fact, many Arabs are coming to see the "Israeli problem" as actually the "Palestinian problem." The Israelis are willing to deal, but the Palestinians either aren't, or can't, or won't.

• ISRAEL: The Impossible Dream

The tantalising prospect of reconciliation AFTER nigh on three decades of abuse-filled estrangement, two spouses mull a reconciliation. Bitter memories of insults and humiliation linger. Mutual acquaintances, fearing more broken crockery, offer to mediate. The initial exchanges have been held at high volume. But at least the sulky silence has been broken. These are likely to be modest steps, to begin with. The administration’s review of America’s Iran policy, almost complete, has impressed on those involved how far America’s rivalry with Iran has permeated policymaking across the region. For instance, America’s hostility to groups such as Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hizbullah in Lebanon is coloured by a perception that they are Iran’s proxies. It is notable, too, that Mr Obama’s desire to improve relations with Russia is fuelled partly by his hope that the Russians will press Iran harder to give up its nuclear ambitions. American experts on Iran also have a big say in policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan, whose occupation has furnished Iran’s leaders with unanticipated chances to advance their claims to be a regional power. Indeed, it is on Iran’s borders that efforts at detente may start. Signals count for much. According to an Iraqi government official, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has reduced its meddling in Iraq since Mr Obama’s inauguration. Now Afghanistan, the subject of much presidential attention, offers an opportunity for more overt co-operation.

• What's the Harm in Obama's Approach to Iran?

America Seeks Bonds to Islam, Obama Insists President Obama formally began his outreach to the Muslim world on Monday when he spoke before Turkey’s Parliament, telling legislators that the United States “is not and will never be at war with Islam.”  “America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot and will not just be based upon opposition to terrorism,” he said. “We seek broader engagement based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Showing more self-confidence each day on his maiden overseas trip as president, Mr. Obama, in addressing a majority Muslim country for the first time, appeared to have prepared carefully for one particular line in his wide-ranging speech. “The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans,” he said. “Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. “I know,” he said, “because I am one of them.” And then he paused. Throughout his speech, he had moved swiftly from passage to passage, but this time, he waited for the interpreter to catch up. After about five seconds, the applause came. The line was a bold one for Mr. Obama, who has been falsely described as a Muslim. The claim persists on some right-wing Web sites, which may try to interpret his remarks as proof of that view. But Mr. Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, is calculating that the benefits of demonstrating to the Muslim world that Americans are not antagonistic toward it outweigh the potential political fallout back home. His calculus may also reflect an increased belief that he has enough political capital that he can spend some of it in pursuit of strengthening ties between Muslim nations and the West.

• Obama Impresses Many on Both Sides of Turkey’s Secular and Religious Divide
• Pres. Obama Begins Visit to Turkey, Speaks to Nat'l Assembly (Cspan) This is startling for it’s depth, local knowledge, directness and tough love and “mature and adult” reaching out for constructive joint efforts.

The Winnable War I came to Afghanistan skeptical of American efforts to transform this country. Afghanistan is one of the poorest, least-educated and most-corrupt nations on earth. It is an infinitely complex and fractured society. Every element of my skepticism was reinforced during a six-day tour of the country. Yet the people who work here make an overwhelming case that Afghanistan can become a functional, terror-fighting society and that it is worth sending our sons and daughters into danger to achieve this. In the first place, the Afghan people want what we want. They are, as Lord Byron put it, one of the few people in the region without an inferiority complex. They think they did us a big favor by destroying the Soviet Union and we repaid them with abandonment. They think we owe them all this. That makes relations between Afghans and foreigners relatively straightforward. Most military leaders here prefer working with the Afghans to the Iraqis. Second, we’re already well through the screwing-up phase of our operation. At first, the Western nations underestimated the insurgency. They tried to centralize power in Kabul. They tried to fight a hodgepodge, multilateral war.Third, we’ve got our priorities right. Armies love killing bad guys. Aid agencies love building schools. But the most important part of any aid effort is governance and law and order. It’s reforming the police, improving the courts, training local civil servants and building prisons. Fourth, the quality of Afghan leadership is improving. This is a relative thing. President Hamid Karzai is detested by much of the U.S. military. Some provincial governors are drug dealers on the side. But as the U.N.’s Kai Eide told the Security Council, “The Afghan government is today better and more competent than ever before.” Reformers now lead the most important ministries and competent governors run key provinces.  Fifth, the U.S. is finally taking this war seriously. Up until now, insurgents have had free rein in vast areas of southern Afghanistan. The infusion of 17,000 more U.S. troops will change that. The Obama administration also promises a civilian surge to balance the military push. Sixth, Pakistan is finally on the agenda. For the past few years, the U.S. has let Pakistan get away with murder. The insurgents train, organize and get support from there. “It’s very hard to deal with a cross-border insurgency on only one side of the border,” says Mr. Alexander of the U.N. The Obama strategic review recognizes this. Finally, it is simply wrong to say that Afghanistan is a hopeless 14th-century basket case. This country had decent institutions before the Communist takeover. It hasn’t fallen into chaos, the way Iraq did, because it has a culture of communal discussion and a respect for village elders. The Afghans have embraced the democratic process with enthusiasm. I finish this trip still skeptical but also infected by the optimism of the truly impressive people who are working here. And one other thing: After the trauma in Iraq, it would have been easy for the U.S. to withdraw into exhaustion and realism. Instead, President Obama is doubling down on the very principles that some dismiss as neocon fantasy: the idea that this nation has the capacity to use military and civilian power to promote democracy, nurture civil society and rebuild failed states.

• Obama's Gutsy Decision on Afghanistan

Turkey in Full AS a Turkish journalist who for years covered the United States, I’ve spent the last few days repeatedly answering the inevitable question from my fellow Turks: “Does Washington see Turkey as a moderate Islamic republic?” That description may sound like a compliment to American ears. But in Turkey, it is an outright insult. Even if the “moderate Islam” conspiracy theorists were off base, it is true that ever since Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2003, Washington has viewed Turkey as a simplistic duality: pious masses led by the Justice and Development Party against the small secular elite and the military. As Americans banked on the government’s electoral majority, they lost touch with the rest of the population. No doubt President Obama was briefed, just as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was before she came here last month, to never speak of “moderate Islam.” And he hasn’t so far. In fact, he has done the opposite. The new American president — whose dark skin and Muslim middle name of Hussein have made him a folk hero here — went out of his way on Monday to acknowledge Turkey’s plurality in all its colors, and telling Europe that in welcoming Turkey it would gain “by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith.” Mr. Obama’s visit to Ankara was a carefully calibrated series of messages and symbolic gestures that spoke to Turkey’s different segments. He met with the government leadership as well as opposition leaders from secular, nationalist and Kurdish parties. He pledged to support “Ataturk’s vision of Turkey as a modern and prosperous democracy," as he wrote in the guestbook at the mausoleum of the founder of secular Turkey. In our eternal identity crisis, we Turks have lately been thinking only in opposites — that you are either secular or religious, Kurd or Turk, European or Middle Eastern. It took a young foreign leader on his first visit here to remind us that we are all of those things, and much more. And Mr. Obama’s brief mention in Parliament that Turkey should undertake further democratic reforms seemed insufficient. Since 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has become more authoritarian, lashing out at his critics, suing journalists and alienating liberal Turks who once supported him. Last Sunday, voters in municipal elections delivered a serious warning: the party’s overall support fell to 39 percent, from 47 percent two years ago. The elections revealed a divided map, four different Turkeys: the liberal coastline, the conservative inland, the ultra-nationalist middle and the Kurdish nationalist southeast. The Justice and Development Party will grow when it embraces all Turkey’s colors and shrink as it denies them. It is wonderful that the president reminded Europeans that Turkey’s place is in Europe. But let’s hope he also reminds Turks that getting there requires more tolerance and reform. This trip will undoubtedly improve America’s popularity in the Muslim world — with Mr. Obama’s scheduled visit to the Blue Mosque here on Tuesday likely resonating far beyond Turkey’s borders. But so far, it has been all about us — our own democracy struggling between Europe and Islam.

Tony Blair on How to Restart the Mideast Peace Process TIME: How much longer do you expect to keep shuttling to the Middle East? Blair: [Laughing] As long as it takes. People keep saying this to me as if I were going to bunk off at any point. I knew this would be extremely difficult. But I don't give up on these things. I also think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of fundamental importance to the whole struggle going on in the Islamic world. That isn't to say that its cause is the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, but its resolution would be a major part to solving it. If this thing could be put on a better and different path, it would change the whole dynamic within Islam. How so? It will empower the moderates. This is the issue far more than Iraq or Afghanistan - it's what allows the extremists to reach across into moderate opinion. Once again, peace talks seem to have stalled. Why? For last six months you've had a hiatus - paralysis in the Israeli government, problems on the Palestinian side, and a transition going on in America. All these things are now clearing. The next couple of months will determine if we can breathe new life back into this process. No doubt we need to. The question is: Can we? What's the answer? The hiatus is over. Now we have to return to basic principles and put this back together again. You've got a new U.S. Administration determined to take this forward, and you've got an Israeli government that at least is going to be empowered to make decisions [because of its majority in Knesset]. For all these reasons we're back in with a shout. But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says that all these talks with Israel have yielded nothing. I think it's very simple. If the moderates on the Palestinian side show they can make progress by engagement [with Israel] they'll be strong. If they engage and can't make progress they'll be weak. It's an absolutely simple equation.

• The Road to Peace After Gaza (KSG) The most balanced discussion between two distinguished ME scholars moderated by Nicholas Burns, retired Dep. Sec. of State and current KSG professor. If you’d like to understand the rat’s nest that is ME Peace with perspectives from both sides this is as good a starting point as there is.

Indonesians Hold Fast to Secular Politics Ismi Safeya is a student at an Islamic school who veils her hair for modesty, prays five times a day and is inspired by the idea of a society based on Muslim principles. But when the 18-year-old casts her vote for the first time in parliamentary elections Thursday, she won't vote for an Islamist party. "The wisest choice is a government not dependent on Islamic law," she said, acknowledging the religious diversity of Indonesia and arguing that rules must be fair for everyone. "Islam actually guides our lives, but it doesn't seem to be shown in the way we vote." Like Safeya, most voters here in the world's largest majority-Muslim country are expected to cast their ballots for secular parties. As political Islam gains strength globally, it has achieved little electoral success in Indonesia. Though polls show Indonesians becoming more religiously observant in their private lives, surveys also suggest this shift will not translate into significant support for Islamist politics in parliamentary elections Thursday or in presidential elections scheduled for July. "More and more young Muslims are interested in basic bread-and-butter issues," said Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono in an interview in his office in Jakarta, the capital. "Parties that advocate for sharia, or Islamic law, do not get much play." One of the reasons is that Islamist parties have won local elections in the past. But instead of building strength for the parties' ideals, experiments with Islamic law have produced a backlash. Meanwhile, mainstream parties have co-opted some positions of their Islamist opponents. Religious positions have seeped into the national consensus, neutralizing them as campaign platforms for the Islamist parties. "The categories are blurred right now," said Andi Mallarangeng, a spokesman for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a member of the secular Democratic Party. "To win, you have to move to the center." The center, he said, fuses moderate Islamic ideals with programs to deliver such economic basics as jobs and food. "Islamic political parties exist and will always have a niche in this electorate," Mallarangeng said. "But they're not going to dominate."

UPDATES:

1)Iran denies Hizbullah operating in Egypt After an Egyptian official said Hizbullah would pay "a heavy price" for what Cairo alleges were attempts to carry out terror attacks inside the country, Iran dismissed the accusations as an "old trick" aimed at influencing the Lebanese parliamentary elections, and accused Israel of involvement.

2) INFORMATION WARFARE: Press Freedom In Iran Iran, like any other police state, has to be creative in finding ways to control troublesome foreign media. Iran has achieved a great deal of control over foreign news organizations by arresting and imprisoning female reporters. The most recent one arrested, Roxana Saberi had been working in the country for six years, reporting stories for NPR and BBC. These two news organizations have been more accommodating to the clerical dictatorship, than most. But there is so much wrong in Iran these days, that even NPR and the BBC will come up with stories that will offend some of the clerics, particularly the more radical ones. Since the radical faction control the secret police and many judges, it's not difficult to arrest and keep in prison, and even convict (usually for being a spy), foreign female journalists. For every foreign journalists you do this to, dozens are suitably terrified. Thus stories the clerics don't like will not be written, or will be toned down.

3)Iran willing to build new relationship with US Iran's president on Wednesday sent the clearest signal yet that the Islamic Republic wants warmer ties with the U.S., just one day after Washington spoke of new strategies to address the country's disputed nuclear program. Taken together, the developments indicate that the longtime adversaries are seeking ways to return to the negotiating table and ease a nearly 30-year-old diplomatic standoff.President Barack Obama's administration has sought to start a dialogue with Iran — a departure from the Bush administration's tough talk.Iran had mostly dismissed the overtures, continuing to take hard-line steps like putting an American journalist on trial on espionage allegations.But in his speech Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad changed his tone, saying that Iran was preparing new proposals aimed at breaking an impasse with the West over its nuclear program."The Iranian nation is a generous nation. It may forget the past and start a new era, but any country speaking on the basis of selfishness will get the same response the Iranian nation gave to Mr. Bush," Ahmadinejad told thousands in the southeastern city of Kerman.