America's Response to the Arab Spring

Anyone who thought the Arab Spring would bring peace, tranquility and pluralist democracy to the Arab world was, at best, misinformed.  For decades, many Arab states had been ruled by autocratic if not dictatorial regimes whose origins can be traced to an earlier period dominated by ideologies of nationalism, Communism, and secularism.  Domestic opposition to these regimes had coalesced around Islamic organizations and Islamists had long been targeted for repression.  Even in autocratic regimes built upon tribal, dynastic and Islamic principles such as Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, opposition increasingly tended to be led by Islamic movements.  While secularists devoted to liberal democratic principles also often found themselves in opposition and subject to repression in Arab autocracies, they tended not to be the strongest opposition.

Hence, the Arab Spring has unleashed an Islamic reawakening in the Arab world.  Despite a misplaced belief by some that “free” elections in Arab states would result in the triumph of secularists devoted to liberal or pluralist democracy, electoral victories have gone to Islamist parties.  This has been most visible in the two countries that led the uprisings, Tunisia and Egypt.  In Tunisia, the Nahda party is in control of the government.  It is a moderate Islamist party, at least when compared to the more extreme Salafists.  In Egypt, the Moslem Brotherhood triumphed at the polls.  The Moslem Brotherhood has a long history as an extreme fundamentalist Islamic organization strongly opposed to the dissemination of Western values, secular regimes, and Israel.  Time will tell whether its political leadership, reflected in Egypt’s President Morsi, will adopt more pragmatic moderation now that it is actually in power.  In any case, these new regimes reflect the re-emergence of Islam as the dominant political ideology, and not merely religion, in the Arab world after decades of secularist rule in much of the region.

The United States has sought to move with caution during the Arab Spring.  While American policy has long advocated democracy, it has also not surprisingly favored support for pro-Western regimes regardless of their political stripe.  Hence, the United States long supported Egypt’s Mubarak, a secular military dictator who repressed Islamic fundamentalists and others but maintained peace with Israel.  The United States has also long supported the traditional regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Arab emirates despite their autocratic structures given their pro-Western foreign policies.

The United States did not foment the Arab Spring.  With its eruption, in Tunisia, then Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and now Syria, the United States has sought to find a balance between, on the one hand, supporting Arab efforts to cast aside dictatorial regimes in favor of open elections and political movements with considerable popular support, and, on the other hand, maintaining friendly relations with autocratic Arab regimes that remain pro-Western.  Where the more traditional Arab regimes have succeeded in maintaining stability and not succumbing to the Arab Spring, the United States has moved carefully in continuing to lend its support while gently nudging their autocratic leaders to make concessions toward opposition groups in order to avoid instability.  These include Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Jordan.  But where autocrats have been successfully challenged in the streets, such as in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, the United States has sought to develop friendly relations with the newly emergent Islamist forces.

It is easy to criticize the Obama Administration for purportedly not showing stronger leadership during this incredible period of flux in the Arab world but such criticism is misplaced.  Some American political leaders were highly critical of Obama for not standing behind Mubarak, clearly a pro-American dictator, as his regime began to crumble.  But even his own military comrades saw the writing on the wall as popular opposition grew and grew and ultimately the military moved against him if only to preserve its position of power.  Surely had Obama remained steadfast in support of Mubarak and against the popular revolution, America would not have succeeded in “saving” Mubarak and it would have found itself in an untenable position vis-à-vis Egypt. In Tunisia, the first country to overthrow its dictator, there was little support for the crumbling regime.  The United States wisely showed support for the overthrow of the dictator.  In Yemen, the United States appears to have sought to provide its good offices to assist the long serving leader in stepping down, in hopes that the succeeding regime would remain pro-American.

If some have been critical of Obama for not standing behind America’s Arab allies, others have been critical of him for not moving faster to support forces aligned against the old regimes.  This was most evident with respect to Libya, during the battle against Gaddafi, but is also evident more recently with respect to the civil war in Syria.  John McCain, the Republican candidate for President in 2008, was sharply critical of Obama for not leading the fight against Libya’s Gaddafi.  Obama wisely chose not to take the lead but, rather, provide important support in a more subdued way, looking toward American European allies to step forward.  As a result, Gaddafi was defeated and American influence with the Libyan government appears strong.  McCain has also criticized Obama for not getting involved in the Syrian civil war against Assad.  Obama has wisely not bowed to these criticisms.  He has moved cautiously vis-à-vis Syria, seeking to build a coalition to pressure the Assad regime and quietly provide arms to the opposition.

It is clear that a cautious, measured, balanced policy of the kind Obama is pursuing is required to cope with the Arab Spring and spinoff events.  It reflects wise public policy as well as the sentiments of most Americans.

The American electorate does not want further significant American military involvement in the Middle East or elsewhere.  Americans came to see the Iraq War as a huge mistake.  The United States was misled by its President into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and became immersed in a civil war pitting Sunnis against Shia with Kurds as still another party.  While supporters of the Iraq War claim that it resulted in a democratic state, that remains unclear.  The sectarian groups are still fighting fiercely amongst themselves both in political and military terms.  The emergence of a democratic regime, even a functioning pluralist political system, remains questionable.  Furthermore, as a result of the Iraq War, the current Shia dominated Baghdad regime is far friendlier to neighboring Shia Iran than suits American interests.  The continuing war in Afghanistan is trying the patience of most Americans.  While that war had widespread American support at the outset, it has become the longest war in American history, the Afghanistan regime seems incapable of assuming effective military control over the country (much as the South Vietnamese regime could not do during the Vietnam War) and most Americans are now eagerly awaiting America’s exit in 2014.  Polls suggest that Americans do not want to become militarily involved in Syria’s civil war.

As shown by the early results of the Arab uprisings, the regimes that have come to power may turn out to be far less friendly toward the United States and its allies than the regimes that were overthrown.  Hence, while continuing American support for the dictators would have been a mistake given their tenuous holds on power, unabashed support for the popular uprisings and the Islamist leaders and parties who have come to power might have been and may be a mistake as well.  The new Egyptian regime is dominated by the Moslem Brotherhood, which, as noted, has historically been a very anti-Western organization that has denounced Egypt’s treaty with Israel as well as the dissemination of Western values in the Islamic world.  The opposition to Syria’s Assad family is led by the majority Sunnis.  Their political orientation remains unclear as a unified opposition has yet to emerge.  While the United States should not keep its distance from this Sunni opposition, as America wants to exercise influence over the probable victors in the civil war, it needs to proceed with caution.  It is far too early to know where a new regime in Damascus will stand vis-à-vis the West, Russia, China, Israel and its neighbors.  Furthermore, American support for a particular group or organization in the Arab world often backfires as others paint those groups as too pro-Western or weak on fighting for the Palestinians.  Effective diplomacy requires subtlety, something many Republican politicians seem not to understand.  The Obama Administration has seemingly been successful thus far in cultivating good relations with the new regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Yemen despite the latest terrorist attack in Libya and mass demonstrations elsewhere.

Critics of Obama have also focused on his treatment of Israel and its current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  Republicans have long claimed that Obama has been an apologist toward the Arab world and Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president in 2012, has irresponsibly charged that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.  Netanyahu, seemingly trying to take advantage of the American presidential elections to put pressure on Obama, recently claimed that Obama’s refusal to draw a bright red line in the sand beyond which Iran may not move without suffering military retaliation deprives the United States of any moral authority to restrain Israel in its actions toward Iran.

These charges are simply untrue. President Obama must walk a careful line in furthering American interests in the Middle East.  He has repeatedly pledged America’s steadfast support toward Israel.  At the same time, America has always had interests in the Arab world, both in the oil-rich kingdoms surrounding the Persian Gulf, and amongst the Arabs from the Fertile Crescent to North Africa, including Egypt.  Obama has sought to proceed in a cautious way to maintain support for Israel, nudge both the Palestinians and Israelis toward a resumption of peace negotiations, remain supportive of Arab regimes that, while not democratic, are pro-Western, and develop links with the new Arab regimes that have emerged from elections as a result of the Arab Spring.  This has been a juggling act of sorts and is quite a challenge.  It is easy for Obama’s critics to accuse him of not acting firmly enough in one or more of these areas but an effective foreign policy requires that America pursue its interests in all of these areas simultaneously.  Obama is doing so despite incredible obstacles.

The most recent crisis has involved demonstrations against American embassies and consulates in the Arab world following the airing of an inflammatory video on YouTube mocking Prophet Muhammad and a terrorist attack and killing of America’s ambassador to Libya on 9/11. Instead of supporting President Obama in a bipartisan manner during this period of unrest, Mitt Romney engaged in partisan politics, condemning a press release issued by the American Embassy in Egypt before any violence or breach of the Embassy’s wall had occurred that was intended to discourage violence by condemning the hate-filled YouTube video as an assault against religious tolerance.  Romney was heavily criticized even by many of his own party leaders for his misguided behavior.

Surely, America needs to proceed with strength but caution in response to the current unrest over the incendiary video and the terrorist attack in Libya.  Working with a friendly Libyan government, the United States must aggressively hunt down the terrorists who killed our Ambassador in Libya.  But as for the street demonstrations now occurring throughout many Arab and Moslem countries against the hateful video, the United States must proceed prudently. 

The Arab world is in turmoil and the United States will be making an enormous mistake to believe that it can control events just because it is the United States of America, the world’s predominant if only “super power.”  It does not further American interests to alienate the emerging Islamist governments in the Arab world who may be less friendly to us than their predecessor autocratic rulers.  We must seek to develop positive relations with them but this will not be an easy task.  Egypt is a particular challenge given the profound change from military dictatorship led by a secular, pro-Western leader, to an Islamist regime led by a prominent member of the Moslem Brotherhood.  But the United States needs to proceed with caution, using its influence as best it can and only using threats to withhold financial and military aid, let alone the actual deployment of American military force, sparingly.  These threats have some effectiveness but likely not as much as most Americans think they do.  

At the same time, the United States must make clear its expectations and act appropriately if foreign leaders fail to meet them.  Recently President Obama was asked whether Egypt was still an American ally in light of President Morsi’s tepid response to the breach of the American Embassy by Egyptian demonstrators.  Obama responded that he didn’t think Egypt was an ally although it was not an enemy.  While the United States drew back slightly from that pronouncement the next day in that Egypt is legally designated a major non-NATO ally, Obama’s message to Morsi was clear: that America will seek to accommodate these new Islamist regimes that have emerged at the ballot box but it will not forego America’s own interests or sit idly by while America’s interests, including the safety of its citizens, are undermined.

The ramifications of the Arab Spring are still unfolding.  Those who thought the popular uprisings would result in Western-style liberal or pluralist democracy were mistaken.  It has unleashed pent up popular sentiments deeply affected by and infused with Islam.  These sentiments reflect fundamentalist religious beliefs, historical sectarian divisions between Sunni and Shia and among diverse ethnic communities, frustration over widespread poverty and unemployment, deep animosity toward Israel, and distrust of the West.  There is no deeply embedded pluralist democratic ethos in the Arab world so the development of democratic institutions will take some time.  The rise of new autocratic regimes before democracy takes root is certainly quite possible.

But the United States has weathered previous storms in the Arab world and the greater Middle East.  Egypt under Nasser was not an American ally.  Non-Arab Iran under the Shah was an American ally.  America tilted toward Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War.  The biggest threat decades ago to Western interests came not from Islamists but from radical secular Arab movements, sometimes allied with the Soviet Union.  Alliances come and go.  It often appears that “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” but not quite.

The United States must remain strong and resolute yet flexible and prudent.  In my judgment, that has been Obama’s approach.  Accommodations made by the United States to dynamic situations should not be seen as signs of weakness.  Rather, inflexibility and a belief that America can and will prevail in every situation through its exercise of military and/or economic might are doomed to failure.

These are uncertain times and often the most effective path forward is far from clear at the time decisions must be made.  President Obama has made mistakes.  But, overall, his policies toward the Arab Spring, Israel, the Middle East, and Iran, have been smart, wise, prudent, and in furtherance of America’s interests.

A Struggle in Tunisia After Revolution

Jeffrey Fleishman wrote a very interesting article in the August 31, 2012, Los Angeles Times on the struggle in Tunisia between moderate Islamists and secularists on the one side and Salafis, fundamentalist Islamists, on the other.  I commend it to you.  I have pasted it at the bottom of this blog.  Here is the hyperlink:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tunisia-transition-20120831,0,2582445.story

I commented to Jeffrey on his article as follows:

Jeffrey,

Thank you very much for keeping tabs on developments in Tunisia. ("Militant Islam rises in moderate Tunisia," Los Angeles Times, Aug 31, 2012.) While that country's struggles ignited the Arab Spring, it is a small nation and far more attention tends to be given to Egypt and now Syria.  But in many ways Tunisia has long been the vanguard of developments and "modernization" in the Arab world.

I lived in Tunisia for 14 months from Fall 1967 through the end of 1968 doing research as a graduate student at Princeton University.  I never completed my PhD thesis but I spent considerable time in Tunisia observing and researching the modernization process.  I was a political scientist and part of a group at Princeton studying political stability and authority patterns in a number of countries, most in Western Europe.  I have continued to follow developments in Tunisia as I developed a deep affection for its people, although I left academia long ago to become an attorney.

During my stay in Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba was the country's president.  He was a Western-influenced nationalist from the Sahel who sought to "liberate" the country from many Islamic traditions, including Ramadan.  He succeeded in many ways but not in others.  He repressed Islamists although most felt with a velvet glove rather than with an extremely harsh hand.  But neither he nor Zine el Abidine was able to sufficiently transform the society, in its economy and deep-seated traditions, to overcome the Salafis appeal.

As you chronicle well, this tension remains.  Whether Nahda is able to bridge the divide remains problematic.  The emergence of "political" Islam over the last decade has transformed the landscape throughout the Maghreb and the Middle East.  The secularism of the Arab nationalists of the 1950's, 1960's and thereafter, epitomized by Bourguiba, Nasser and Sadat, the Baathists, the leftist leadership in Algeria, and the opposition parties in Morocco, has faded or at least faces being overwhelmed by a renewed focus on Islam, whether as a moderate force or an extreme ideology.  I certainly hope that accommodations can be reached between the moderate Islamists and more secular groups in Tunisia and elsewhere in the Islamic world that will succeed in keeping the extremist fundamentalists at bay.  But, as you document, continued unemployment and rural poverty will feed unrest and make fundamentalist Islam more appealing to those most affected.

Thank you again for your fine reporting.

Donald

_________________________________________________________________________

latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tunisia-transition-20120831,0,2582445.story

latimes.com

Tunisia democratic activists fear a tilt toward militant Islam

Fundamentalist Islamists in Tunisia try to exert influence on the country as it moves unsteadily toward democracy.

By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times
4:41 PM PDT, August 30, 2012

SIDI BOUZID, Tunisia — Bearded and sweaty, they pressed in, their faces shining in the shadow and light beneath billowing tunics hanging for sale outside a mosque. The sun edged higher. A veiled woman hurried past and a boy stepped closer to listen to men complain about no jobs in fields or factories, no water in thousands of homes.
"I didn't trust the old government and I don't trust the new one. They lie. I trust in another revolution," said Khalid Ahmedi, his disgust sharpening as shopkeepers slipped past him to pray. "The constitution must be based on the Koran and our prophet. I say to the enemies of Tunisia: We are the sons of Osama bin Laden."
In this town where a fruit seller set himself on fire and inspired uprisings that swept the Arab world, men quote scripture to ease the ills around them. Tunisia has been regarded as a model for its relatively smooth shift from generations of autocratic rule toward democracy. But even as the downfall of President Zine el Abidine ben Ali in 2011 revived political discourse, it roused deep-seated strands of puritanical Islam that are challenging civil freedoms.
The moderate Islamist Nahda party dominates a coalition government but is under pressure from Salafis and other fundamentalist Muslim groups to tilt the nation closer to sharia, or Islamic law. A proposed bill would protect "sacred values" and criminalize acts such as images and satire against religion. A draft constitution designates women, who make up about 25% of the constituent assembly and are among the most liberated in the Arab world, as complementary to men in family life.
"The extremists here are like the Ku Klux Klan in America," said Bayrem Kilani, a folk singer whose satirical lyrics have upset both Islamists and Ben Ali loyalists. "We have two ways to go now: the way of modern democracy or the way of medieval theocracy."
Art galleries have been firebombed and ransacked, film directors have been threatened, and a prominent Nahda member was assaulted by an extremist at a recent conference titled "Tolerance in Islam." The fervor echoes the passion of Salafis emerging in Egypt and other nations. But it appears more volatile in Tunisia, even though the population of ultraconservatives is significantly smaller.
What is unfolding here is yet another test of what will shape emerging governments in North Africa and the Middle East. The unresolved struggle between fundamentalist and moderate Islamists is the center of a larger debate with liberals and secularists over religion's influence on public life. It has been agitated by newly free societies that feel both the tug of the traditional and the allure of the contemporary.
"I think there may be a civil war," said Bochra Belhaj Hamida, a lawyer and human rights advocate. "Modern Islamists aren't in a hurry to change society, but the Salafis want to do it as quickly as possible. They're focused on Tunisia because of our advanced civil and women's rights. They want to win here to show the rest of the region."
Much of the puritanical wellspring emanates from rural outposts that for years swelled with hate for Ben Ali while dispatching militants to conflicts in Algeria, Iraq and other countries. Fearing that ultraconservatives will question its Islamic credentials, Nahda has done little to stem extremist tendencies. Secularists suggest Nahda is using Salafis to advance an agenda more radical than the party publicly acknowledges.
Nahda's popularity is slipping amid a high unemployment rate, discontent among youths, labor strikes and battles over religion. Tunisians are expected to vote in a referendum on the new constitution next year and, although the country is vibrant with open debate, there is a sense that the revolution has veered in the wrong direction.
The Islamists are "not strong enough to mention sharia in the constitution," said Motah Elwaar, a leftist. "But if they win the next election, they will change the laws."
The capital, Tunis, resonates with Islamist ethos and cosmopolitan flair as if competing personalities are vying for the future. Despite their disarray and infighting, liberals and secularists are strong in Tunis; a recent march to protect women's rights drew thousands into the main boulevard, modeled after a Paris street and bearing the vestiges of colonial rule.
Beyond the capital's ring road and the Mediterranean coast, where highways narrow and dry valleys widen, fields and olive groves stretch through the dust on the way to Sidi Bouzid. Poverty is rampant and young men, like Mohamed Bouazizi, the fruit seller who set himself on fire in despair and touched off Tunisia's revolution in late 2010, stew in empty hours.
Down the street from Bouazizi's memorial — a statue of a fruit cart — the graffiti of revolt had turned into a sparse poetry of despair: "It's a shame they stole our revolution." Soldiers stood guard at the courthouse, where scores of dissidents are on trial for storming a government building. Young secularists seemed unfocused and unsure of how to make things better.
"There's no freedom of expression. No jobs," said Ali Abidi, a blogger. "The Islamists are sitting on the town. The police can't control them anymore. The Salafis don't like what I write. One of them told me, 'Your end is not going to be pretty.' But we just want our rights."
There was certainty in the voices around the mosque.
"We are Muslims. We trust only God," said Abdel Omri, a husky man with a full beard and skullcap shopping for sandals on the sidewalk. "We only use the government to get our ID cards. It has no bearing on our lives. We don't believe in man's democracy. God gave us democracy in the Koran. God accepts and God forbids. That is all."
Omri said he runs a telecommunications repair company and hires only fellow Salafis.
"I was liberal before," he said. "I didn't know my religion. The former regime made Islam disappear. But now I know my faith. I'm very happy. I converted two Christians to Islam not long ago."
Behind the mosque, in a row of shops, Ussayf Issaoni couldn't see beyond his rage: four children, high rent, water shortages, a hurting business, a failing government. He said the revolution that rose from these streets has forsaken him. New dangers, once held at bay, have moved closer.
"A young bearded Salafi was sitting in front of my store," said Issaoni, who owns a phone accessory shop. "I asked him to leave. A lot of my customers are girls and they might feel intimidated by him. He came back with his friends and they beat me. I was in the hospital for two weeks."
Ben Ali's security forces arrested thousands of Islamists accused of plotting to overthrow his government and export extremism across the Middle East and Europe. Younger militants were inspired by foreign Islamic fighters and by decades during which the government suppressed even moderate Islam and dispatched state-sanctioned preachers to mosques.
The Salafi groups that have emerged after years of being underground include those run by older ultraconservatives who, like their counterparts in Egypt, want a place in the new government. But younger Salafis are more militant and resistant to compromise, regarding secularists and liberals as Zionists and infidels. They speak of spiritual renewal.
"We follow the prophet. We try to change what you believe on the inside," said Mohamed Amim, sitting in a whitewashed mosque on a warm evening with his friends. "Our goal is not to change music and cinema, but to change the spirit."
Nahda and other moderate Islamist organizations have yet to ease the militant passions of a group that, although small, presents a threat to a fledgling government beset with deep economic problems.
"It will be very dangerous if we try to deny the Salafis a political say," said Abdel Cherif, a ranking Nahda member. "Our goal is to make them forget about weapons and conflict. We want them to participate in political life."
jeffrey.fleishman@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

Maureen Dowd Captures Obama's Flaws

While I remain an Obama supporter, I also retain many of the concerns about him I have expressed over the years in my blogs. I must say that Maureen Dowd has captured many of my concerns in her column and then some. Unfortunately, I am skeptical that Obama is at all able to change these profound personality traits and philosophical bents. Despite them, he's been a good President, faced with an intractable opposition and the worst economic times in 75 years, and I will vote for him again without hesitation.

Dreaming of a Superhero

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/dowd-dreaming-of-a-superhero.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NYTimesDowd&seid=auto

As funnel clouds form over Washington, Obama still seems absorbed in his endless odyssey of self-discovery.

Chen Guangcheng to the United States

Looks like the Chinese Government permitted activist Chen Guangcheng to depart China for New York University. I hope that removes this as an issue in the American presidential campaign. I support human rights and our Government's efforts in support of human rights. By the same token, I was troubled that the plight of one activist in one repressive country threatened to become a political issue. In my view the United States cannot be put in the position of being some kind of guarantor of human rights throughout the globe and American politicians and other Americans should be criticized for trying to use the plight of activists around the globe as a domestic political football. That holds true, for me, whether the politician be Republican or Democrat. I'm sure some of you will disagree!❖

On Hush Puppies and Shoe Laces

Now when is the last time you changed shoe laces? Seemed like I used to do it often decades ago but seldom if ever anymore. Because of loafers? Or that shoes wear out sooner and fashions change? Or that, as an adult, I am more careful in handling my shoes? Whatever the reason, I had occasion this evening to want to change shoe laces in an ancient pair of Wolverine Hush Puppies that I haven't worn in a long time. 

Oh how I loved my Hush Puppies. I found the attached article in European Car from May 2011 that talks about the shoes' history with a photo of the very shoes I still have. Started in the late 1950's and died out but revived in the mid-1990's for a spell. Gone again. While I had some in the late 1950's my current pair likely dates from the mid-1990's! 

But this story is more about the laces than the shoes! I had a few pair of laces that I had never used but, not knowing where they were, I bought a pair at Ralph's Super Market the other day for $2.50. I found the laces I bought years ago this evening only to discover that a pair of laces purchased at Fedco (you remember Fedco don't you? Yesteryear's Costco) cost $0.37. The label was still attached. Yikes!! And one of my old pair of laces worked fine for the Hush Puppies. Like new again! Well, almost.❖

http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/epcp_1105_hush_puppies_icon/index.html#ixzz1vIxGZg75

Hush Puppies - Icon

By Colin Ryan

It’s supposed to be cats that have nine lives, not basset hounds. But in the world of iconic footwear, it seems anything is possible. Hush Puppies are among the highlights of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, as the author theorizes on how this once-popular but struggling brand achieved a fresh momentum thanks to a handful of New York City hipsters. 

The Hush Puppies brand is owned by the Wolverine Worldwide company that makes many kinds of work and recreational apparel. In 1994, when sales were in the sort of place not even people wearing worry free Scotchguarded suede shoes would step in, Wolverine was about to pull the plug. But some young Manhattanites started wearing them (no doubt with a sense of irony) around the East Village and Soho, getting them from small independent shops, and scouring vintage clothing stores. This trend caught the eye of a few street-wise designers, who incorporated the shoes into their new styles. 

Suddenly, from shipping 30,000 pairs a year, Hush Puppies were virtually scampering out the door at a rate of 430,000 pairs in 1995, four times that number in 1996 and even more in 1997. Hush Puppies took the prize for best accessory at the 1996 Council of Fashion Designers Awards. 

Not bad for a brand that has been around since 1958, just as society was becoming less buttoned-down and the demand for casual wear grew. The shoe itself came out of Victor Krause’s obsession with pigskin. As part of the family that owned Wolverine, Krause learned about tanning and believed pigskin could be a viable alternative to cowhide. Pigskin becomes soft and more flexible after tanning and is perfect for a comfortable leisure shoe.

As is so often the case with new ideas, Wolverine’s directors were less than enthusiastic, but his being a Krause probably helped. The new style might have been called Lasers, which was one name on the table, but sales manager James Gaylord (really) Muir came up with the canine appellation. 

Funny enough, Muir was near the Appalachians at the time, having dinner with a regional manager from the southeast. Part of the meal was hush puppies. As anyone familiar with Southern cuisine is aware, these are balls of fried corn dough that got their name by being thrown to quiet down barking dogs. As he heard this explanation, he also remembered that barking dogs was a slang term for aching feet. Cue light bulb going off over his head.

After registering the name as a trademark, the company bought the photograph of a basset hound that became the brand’s symbol (for only $50) and introduced its new product at the 1957 National Shoe Fair in Chicago to instant acclaim. By the middle of 1959, the first one million pairs had been sold. Soon they were seen on the feet of celebrities like Perry Como and Warren Beatty. Queen Elizabeth’s other half, Prince Philip, wore a pair on a visit to the United States. 

Those were the wonder years and they lasted long enough for Hush Puppies to become a recognized part of modern culture. However, despite being invited by President Mikhail Gorbachev to be the first American company to make and sell shoes in Russia, their subsequent popularity sank lower than a basset’s ears, until, quite by chance, a new generation embraced them. 

The second wave saw Kevin Spacey and Nicholas Cage wearing Hush Puppies to complement their tuxedos as they accepted their respective Best Supporting Actor and Best Actor statuettes at the 1996 Oscars ceremony. The late Princess Diana once ordered a special HP collection. 

But it isn’t just owners of barking dogs who give thank-you speeches for Hush Puppies. These shoes are responsible for so much more, albeit inadvertently. Back in 1965, the Rolling Stones were doing a gig in Sacramento, California. Keith Richards touched an ungrounded microphone while still holding his electric guitar, something that could easily have been fatal. Richards was knocked unconscious, but medics believe his was life was saved by the crepe soles of his Hush Puppies, a material chosen for comfort and lightness, but had an insulating effect here. A world without Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar and Tumbling Dice would have been all the poorer. Just think, one of the few things in this world capable of killing Keef was thwarted by a pair of cozy shoes.

By the middle of 1959, the first one hundred million pairs had been sold.

The Threat of Military Action toward Iran is the Best Approach

Polls suggest that most Americans are not excited at the prospect of a war with Iran over its development of nuclear weapons.  While some polls show that a majority of Americans favor military action, other polls show that most Americans favor diplomacy and economic sanctions as the first steps to take.  Not surprisingly, poll results depend heavily on the wording of the questions. 

There can be no doubt that few Americans want to see a nuclear armed Iran.  But there are differing views as to whether the United States and others can stop that from happening.  Some feel that sanctions, if broadly applied, could well pressure Iran to not move forward toward developing nuclear weapons.  Others believe that only military action can bring about that outcome.  Still others believe that neither course of action will succeed.  And then there are no doubt a few who believe Iran does not harbor any intention to develop nuclear weapons.

I do not presume to know the answer.  I do believe Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons.  But I do not know whether economic sanctions or military action, short of total war and a military invasion, will suffice to stop Iran’s efforts.  I am skeptical that either will work.  As to sanctions, unless Russia, China, India and other countries join in the sanctions campaign, I believe it will likely not be effective.  And even were these countries to join, states subject to sanctions are often quite able to continue trade despite the existence of sanctions.  However, economic sanctions are worth a try, particularly given the extent now contemplated which presumably would affect the viability of Iran’s central bank.

As to military action short of total war and an invasion, I am also skeptical that this strategy will work.  I am not expert on the locations of Iran’s nuclear facilities but it appears there are multiple locations and that at least some may be underground and heavily fortified.  Then, too, the element of surprise is lacking, something that may have been present when Israel successfully bombed specific nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria years ago.  Any attack on Iran, rather than leading to a popular uprising that some Americans may believe would quickly occur, will, in my judgment, more likely provoke a nationalist reaction leading Iranians of all walks of life and political views to rally around the state.  Any such attack would likely result in a military response, not only against Israel but against American and other Western interests in the area and beyond.  Other Muslim states, even Arab states that might privately favor the elimination of an Iranian nuclear threat, would likely condemn the military action against Iran.  Even were the Iranian program damaged to the point that it could not immediately continue, it is highly likely that such a program would not end but would resume over time.  The ramifications of military action would be huge.

As for total war and an invasion, I do not believe Americans or most others are wanting to put boots on the ground in Iran to stop its nuclear program or replace its regime.  Some Republican candidates for President and other conservatives may be willing to pursue this strategy although their campaign rhetoric might quickly desert them were any elected President.

While I am skeptical that military action short of total war would be effective to either destroy Iran’s nuclear program or to dissuade Iran from continuing that program in the face of devastating damage from such military action, this does not mean that the threat of such an attack might not work to cause Iran to put its nuclear program on hold for an indefinite period of time. 

Some might question how the threat of attack might work if an attack itself would likely not work.  An attack would, as I suggested above, unite most Iranians, lead to a counter-attack, lead to major military activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, call upon Russia and others to decide what action, if any, to take, and likely lead Iran to redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  But the threat of an attack would not have all these outcomes.  It might go unheeded by the Iranians.  But it might cause them to hesitate and drawback, depending upon whether they actually believed that the threat would translate into an actual attack. 

The credibility of such a threat is paramount.  When President Obama states that he doesn’t bluff, he is attempting to create certainty that, if Iran does not stand down in the face of a threat of military action, there will be military action, whether Obama wants it or would ultimately actually utilize it given all the risks and uncertainties surrounding military action.  When Netanyahu states Israel’s impatience he too is seeking to persuade Iran that a military attack is imminent; in his case he may have no doubts about that (although frankly he should).

But when Mitt Romney states that, if Obama wins re-election, Iran will develop nuclear weapons, he undercuts American strategy by weakening the credibility of America’s threat of military action.  This is foolish politicking at its worst.

But Romney’s assertions raise the deeper question: how dangerous would a nuclear Iran be?  Obama has said that containment of a nuclear Iran is not acceptable; he will not countenance a nuclear Iran.  Israel has clearly articulated a similar position.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.  Not only does it make more likely a nuclear “accident,” but it also increases the likelihood that such weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists not constrained in their possible use because they have no nation-state to protect.  In this sense, a nuclear Iran, with its terrorist history and links to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, poses a danger.  As well, were Iran to develop nuclear weapons, the likelihood is that neighboring states, such as Saudi Arabia, would also want such weaponry.

But there are already a number of states that have nuclear weapons, some of whom are not terribly stable; probably more unstable than Iran.  Most notable among the unstable are North Korea and Pakistan.  To date, nuclear weapons have not been used in military conflicts in part because of the implications and consequences of their use, including the so-called “balance of terror” and the reasons associated with nuclear deterrence theory.  Deterrence theory is far from an established “fact.”  See http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/ten-serious-flaws-in-nuclear-deterrence-theory/32886.  And we know how strong the American reaction was to the prospect of nuclear weapons in Cuba.  But, by the same token, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has seemed to work and there is much to be said that countries like Iran and Pakistan, and even North Korea, let alone the United States, Russia, China and Israel, would be and are constrained from using nuclear weapons based upon such fears.

I’m not convinced that the consequences of an actual military strike against Iran, including only a chance that it would permanently deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, justify such a policy.  But the threat of military action certainly makes good sense, even recognizing that were America not to follow through there would be some who would consider us a “paper tiger.”  But such a threat, as policy, only makes sense if the threat appears certain to be carried out.  The more certain that the threat will be carried out, the stronger the likelihood that it will achieve the objective.  Anything that detracts from fostering the belief that the threat will be carried out, including comments made by Mitt Romney (and perhaps this blog as well), undercuts the likelihood of its success.☐

It is Time to Leave Afghanistan

In deciding on its foreign policy, the United States should act in its national interest, not simply out of anger, pique or frustration at particular events happening in the world.  With that in mind, I believe that it is time for the United States, and NATO, to depart Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, four American soldiers have now been killed apparently in response to an incident in which NATO soldiers destroyed Korans.  According to NATO, extremist messages had been written in these Korans by captured insurgents at a detention camp and were being used to communicate among the captives.  For that reason these books were included amongst other matter that was burned.  This was a mistake but certainly was not done out of disrespect for Islam or the Koran.

It has spawned an outpouring of anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Demonstrations have been widespread and violent.  Two American soldiers were killed on a base and most recently two American officers were killed within the heavily secured Afghanistan Interior Ministry.  The Taliban has claimed credit for at least the latter killings which were in fact assassinations.  President Obama has apologized to Afghanistan for the destruction of the Korans.  But that has not contributed to any easing of the demonstrations.

At this point, I believe it is time for the United States, and NATO, to withdraw from Afghanistan, rather than doing so slowly over the next two years.  America has become stuck there as the defender of a corrupt and ineffectual regime, the Karzai government, fighting a civil war against the Taliban.  The initial purpose of America's intervention, to destroy the al Qaida force there led by Osama bin Laden that had engineered the tragedy of 9/11, has been achieved.  While some vestiges of al Qaida may remain in Afghanistan and links between the Taliban and al Qaida may persist, Afghanistan surely no longer presents a danger to the United States by providing a safe haven for al Qaida or for any other reasons.  Instead, the U.S. and NATO are again back in the business of nation-building, something we should by now have learned is beyond our ability let alone our need.  And, the Karzai government appears as corrupt and ineffectual as, if not worse than, any ally the United States has had in these kinds of wars, whether in South Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

To be sure, departing Afghanistan now does not come without a price.  There's the usual argument that doing so gives the wrong message to American allies that we cut and run; that we make commitments but then abandon them when the going gets tough.  In this instance such an argument is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.  The United States has been in Afghanistan for years and years.  We have sacrificed our sons and daughters and our finances but for what?  A corrupt regime there that frequently attacks America and ridicules us.  A commitment from America to assist is not a blank check for a permanent presence.

Departing Afghanistan will no doubt ultimately lead to the return of the Taliban to power.  Of course, that may be the case even if NATO remains another two years.  Indeed, media reports suggest that America, and Karzai, are already in negotiations, or trying to begin negotiations, with the Taliban.  America's national interest does not dictate that it remain in Afghanistan to ward off a return to power of the Taliban.  But its return will undermine at least some of the changes that have occurred, most particularly some steps toward the liberation of women.  Females who have stepped forward will likely be crushed by the Taliban and that is an extremely costly consequence of an end to the American presence, but despite such a tragedy it is not enough to justify a continued American military presence.

No doubt a decision by President Obama to move up the departure date of American forces from Afghanistan will lead many Republicans and other critics to claim that he mismanaged that war.  They will claim that, at least in Iraq, at the time of America's departure a government with some semblance of democratic processes and Western leanings was left in power and that little risk existed that Hussein's allies would return to power.  But, not only is it questionable that Iraq evidences a strong move toward democracy or that its government will continue to lean toward the West rather than toward neighboring Shia Iran, Afghanistan is not Iraq and Iraq is not Afghanistan.  To equate the two countries is to make another mistake.  It is about time that America stopped lumping all Muslim countries together.  While there are some regional patterns, each of these countries, be they Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Tunisia, has unique qualities that require the United States to approach each of them with distinct policies.

It is time to let Afghanistan resolve its own internal conflicts.  That will mean a continuing loss of human life as well as continued suffering by the Afghan people.  But America's presence no longer makes sense and no longer seems destined to leave things better off within any reasonable period of time, if ever.  While the American national interest includes spreading the principles of human rights, human dignity, democracy and respect for minorities, it does not dictate that America make war or participate in endless war in the name of those principles, especially when such wars often prove fruitless in the spread of those principles, or in greater national security for the United States.