Keywords
or Terms: ‘Baddest Cowboy’ in the White House; Ted Cruz; Donald Trump; Lindsey
Graham; Hostility; Hate; Retribution; Blanketing Statement; Data Mining; Civil
Liberties; Immigration Laws; Islamic Jihadist; Extremism; Muslim Emigration; Middle
Eastern Allies; Quran; Islamic Nations; Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria and Indonesia; International and Domestic Violence;
State of Israel; State of Pakistan; Eight
Amendment of US Constitution; and, United Nations Convention Against Torture
(UNCAT) signatory
2016 Republican Presidential aspirants described their goal
for America as a return to a “World of Wars”. After the Islamic Jihadists
attack in Paris and San Bernardino, the fear that has been the essence of these
two attacks probably served as a pedestal for two of the Republican aspirants
to prescribe, just in the mode of what both attacks were meant to accomplish by
their perpetrator: hostility, hate and retribution. Senator Ted Cruz would bomb
ISIS out and former Reality Show host, Donald Trump, has no problem with killing
immediate family members of suspected terrorists. As if the Republican aspirants
were seeking to outdo each other at the party’s fifth presidential debate, each
talking over each other, presented a bravado that made many wondered if
Republicans truly learned anything from the alleged shortcomings of the last
Republican White House. While one or two of them were actually reflective, Rand
Paul and Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham came out with a tirade, saying he misses
George W. Bush, an allusion and unlatching admiration of the last Republican Administration
of alleged ill-repute.
The basic security issues facing the nation are not the mining
of citizen’s meta data in an effort to counter terrorism, reforming immigration
laws in light of wave of illegal immigration and quelling citizens fear in
light of increasing possibility of another homeland attacks; rather, it is how
to better balance citizens’ liberties with the security agencies’ right to know,
and countering or stopping another Islamic Jihadist or sympathizers’ attack;
making a transition from a nation with discountenanced or unenforced
immigration laws to one with acknowledged and enforced immigration laws,
without violating the civil rights of the huge undocumented immigrants among us;
and, enlisting unflinching support from Middle-Eastern Allies who understand to
an extent, the nature of extremism of Islamic Jihadist groups bent on
destroying America, without being perceived as disrespectful of the Islamic Faith,
or making blanketing statements that categorize all Muslims, in and out of
America, as terrorists.
The bravado exhibited by Cruz and Trump at the fifth
Republican Party debate is fraught with danger. At this juncture, it is safe to
say, Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations are not living in a world of
tranquility with the rising extremism among the ranks of their religion. To a
great extent if not to their credit, religious leadership in many of these
Islamic nations (Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan and Indonesia) and their
governments are probably in comparative disillusion and tumults about rising
extremisms in their religion. The audacity of the multiplicities of international
and domestic violence from Islamic Jihadists, who appear to have hijacked the
religion and continue to inflict mayhem and or broadcast hatred to the West,
are as worrisome to men and women of Islamic faith as they are to Americans. A
few of them are even completely perplexed and taken aback by the claim of these
extreme groups regarding the teachings of Quran, with some of them issuing out
apologetic official statements regarding their complete dissociations from
terrorism and the new order of interpretation of the provisions of Quran.
At an Individual or microcosm level, the execrated Islamic
Jihadist groups’ attacks across the globe, are not only petrifying to many within
the religion just as it has been for the West; but appears to have backfired
with huge publicity issues with countries and leadership in Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia, Turkey, and other moderate majority Muslim
states, casting the Islamic Religion as very violent and hostile to civility; a
far cry from what many in the religion consider as a peaceful religion. What
these countries and religious leadership probably see as their portion with
rising extremism of Islamic Jihadists, and probably admonish and characterize
with the words: “We are ashamed, fed up, mystified, confused and disillusioned
with the repeated violence of extreme groups among us and we do not have an
immediate solution to the canker-worm that appears to have engulfed our religion”;
however, with all deference, remember not all apples on a tree are bad.
Of course, the call for exemption of Muslims’ emigration into
America and the profound disparagement of people of the religion and the
current promise to annihilate Muslims and their families by Donald Trump and
Ted Cruz, play readily into the narrative that Americans and the West do not
respect the Islamic faith and those who practice it. Not only will the perceived religious bigotry
of the two 2016 Republican aspirants mirror the nature of extremism associated
with terrorists, they are truly reminiscent of a presidential aspirant fanning
fear and hatred of a segment of our society; and, this is truly telling about
six weeks to the first caucus or primary voting in the State of Iowa. Worst
still, this new comments from probably the two front-runner in the Republican
Party of 2016 presidential nomination exercise are likely to serve as ideological
baggage that turns some supporters away, while gaining some credibility and or
credence with like-minded voters who see the world from the prism fashioned
out by Donald and Ted at the fifth Republican Party debate.
The perceived US government alliances with Centrist Middle
Eastern Islamic States remain fragile with the continued derogation of Muslims
and Islamic Faith by potential flag bearer of America’s Republican Party. If
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz continue to build on their extremism on Muslims, either
on Islamic Jihadists across the globe or American Muslims, the current meager
support America is receiving in terms of intelligence gathering in fighting
international terrorism and maintaining global security and stability, have the
tendency to fail and create additional headaches to things on the ground; as
the insensitive derogation, are more likely to provoke serious conflicts in
the relations between America and the Islamic world. The current fear of
domestic and international terrorists is not necessarily Germaine to America,
there are also profound fears among some Islamic States’ governments, and many
of their leadership are continually seeking avenues to counter the machinations
of the terrorist groups and move beyond the adverse public relations created by
Islamic Jihadists’ attacks on cities as Paris and San Bernardino. Believe it or
not, the nemesis for some of the Islamic State governments are so grieving that
a few of them have actually taken it upon themselves to take out a few of these
terrorists within their borders.
While there are reasons to believe that Ted Cruz and Donald
Trump are probably aware of the fear they are arousing among the populace for
their personal political ambition, both have failed to calm the average
American fear of terrorism or built confidence in current initiatives pursued
by US government to stay abreast of both domestic and global terrorism. The
denigration of minorities in America, which began with Donald Trump in the past
seven months and culminated in Ted Cruz’s newly found strategy to garnering
votes for his political ambition, are hardly going to dissuade rather committed
Islamic Jihadists. The ideological promise or bravado to annihilate the Islamic
extremists is hardly a source of succor for those apprehensive of terrorist
group(s). When Donald Trump cancelled his visit to the State of Israel this
week to meet Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, he probably lost an opportune
chance to hear first-person experience in fighting terrorism or religious war
in over half a decade. The Irish Liberation Army would teach Ted Cruz a thing
or two about fighting religious wars. No-one ever wins a religious war; and, no
matter how badly we will like to derail and destroy ISIS, their preconceived
notion that they are fighting a religious war makes fighting them a rather
tough challenge. This is why global terrorism seems like fighting a chameleon
war with a chameleon group of extremists across the globe. It is just a tough
enterprise that requires time and patience!
There are so much to learn from two of the legacies of 9/11
terrorist attacks: 1) allegation that US engaged in torture to obtain
information regarding actual and potential terrorist attacks on the homeland
between 2002 and 2007; 2) the firestorm of unintended consequences of engaging
the State of Pakistan, a loose and fragile nuclear power, in dislodging one of
the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda. The after effect of the first consequence led
to the issue of data mining domestically to get an edge on potential terrorist threats;
an issue civil libertarians frown on, and one which became a football between
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Donald Trump in the fifth debate. For all intense and
purpose, Pakistan became an unwilling partner to the US because of influence of
religious terrorists within her borders, and probably its convoluted position
of being an unwitting sanctuary for terrorist groups; both of which made trust of
the partnership, difficult. This
ultimately has become the consequential effect of partnering to engage global terrorism.
Now, imagine the hypothetical promise from Donald Trump to bomb terrorists’
immediate family and Ted Cruz’s proposed attempt to bomb ISIS out? What are
likely to be outcomes of such engagements or actions by the US government with
respect to domestic and international laws? What are going to happen to the
international treaties that America has been signatory? Most important, these
proposed actions by Republican Presidential aspirants run afoul of the use of
degrading treatments or punishments as contained in the United Nations
Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), a treated US is a signatory.
Apart from violating the eighth amendment of the US Constitution,
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments and specific provisions of US signed
international treaty like UNCAT, the two Republican proposed actions fall under
auspices of national and international criminality; and, spun other national
security concerns. In other words, we are about to elect criminals to run the
office of the US Presidency, if either of these two people end up in the oval
office. This essentially is the nemesis of their construed proposals; and, an
example of one of the allegations against the last Republican Administration. Incidentally,
this is the unfortunate challenge or backlash, the US has been attempting to
reel out since the advent of Obama’s Administration; and consequent to our
choice to be a nation of law and order, which commands international respect as
the only Super Power left standing across the globe. Proposals like Cruz’s and Trumps
have consequences and no reasonable leader, Christian or Non-Christian, Jewish
or Non-Jewish; Muslim or Non-Muslim, Atheist or Non-Atheist, has a chance of
surviving with this kind of mind set once in the office of the US President, no
matter how novel an ambition, or basis of political or legal argument; thither the
security exigency.
It appears from the fifth Republican Presidential Aspirants’
debate that fierce competition, a drive to out-do each other on the rostrum,
reduced the debate to the level of who is able to be the “Baddest Cowboy” in
the White House’s oval office? While Ted’s and Donald’s rhetoric may appear appeasing
to an increasingly frustrated and frightful citizenry about terrorism, they
open up other “whoop lashes”, a couple that could relegate us to the level of
ISIS, Kahane Chai, Irish Republican Army and Basque Fatherland and Liberty.
Fear tends to arouse euphoria; and sometimes, a complete sense of indecency and
shallow introspect from deft and non-creative leaders. The average American
wants their leader to protect them from danger without violating the provisions
of US Constitution; and, probably, all provisions of signed International
Treaties. From the debate, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump appears to be saying they
are not ready to uphold this; this ultimately disqualifies them from becoming
the President of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment