The Back-story: Why is the Word Plague so Scary?

The Biblical book of Exodus chapter eleven records the tenth and final plague leveraged against the land of Egypt by a God bent on delivering His people. The Plague of Death killed the firstborn of all who neglected to mark the surroundings of their doorways with the blood of a freshly killed sacrificial lamb. The famously dreadful plagues of the Torah only further to connect our fears of mass pestilence and disease. The fear is timeless. It is a faceless terror with no organization to wreak vengeance upon; no person to blame. Pandemics have happened across time. In fact, I myself had a great-grandmother die of the Spanish Influenza in 1918, and most of us recall the Bird Flu scares of more recent years. Yet however heinous these other epidemics, the word ‘plague’ conjures up grotesque and putrid images that must certainly dull in comparison to the real experiences of true eyewitnesses. 

The most historically famous instance is the massive spread of the bacteria Yersinia pestis in the 1340s and 50s. One third or more of Europe’s population died (roughly 25% of the world’s total population). The Black Plague, or Black Death, had traveled out of Asia on the backs of rats who took to the new era of open trade and commerce with gusto. The Xenopsylla cheopis [Oriental Rat Flea] was the prime carrier of the plague and simply transferred the infection to humans after biting the infected rats. In many cases, the plague became bubonic, one of several manifestations of the bacteria in question. Lymph nodes under the arms and groin swelled along with a litany of other appalling symptoms that subjected victims to tremendous torment before an ever imminent death. All of this terrible suffering happened in the cradle of our modern, Western civilization. Thus, all of the fear experienced by the survivors of the 14th century plague was passed on as readily as the disease itself. As cultural descendants of these individuals, we now cringe at the word ‘plague’ because it personifies the powerlessness and utter despair we feel when faced with an uncontrollable and unpredictable enemy. But will we ever face such a threat again?

Our modern world is much better equipped to identify and contain naturally occurring diseases. However, in the future there may very well be faces to blame, organizations to seek out, and terrorists to arrest. Could someone weaponize the worst nightmare of the Medieval world and attempt to unleash it on the 21st century? It has happened before, and could easily happen again. Unit 731, biological warfare, and a global society will all be discussed in an upcoming post in an effort to learn from our past experiences with the Plague. 

*For an interesting story of what could happen based on what has happened, see Tim Downs’ novel Plague Maker.

“Mr. Obama, Tear Down this Façade:” Why the Arab Nations Hate the United States, Part 1

The year was 1967.  The world watched as the small nation of Israel went to war with its neighbors.  But in Cold War reality, the world also watched as East fought West.   However, little did everyone know that this proxy war would have so much more at stake than just territory or rights.  The end result shaped the Arab perceptions of the West and specifically the United States.   Fawaz A. Gerges,  a professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics, argues that “the Six Day War had a devastating , negative impact on Arab views regarding the U.S. role.”  Perhaps more telling is Gerges’ later revelation that “as a result [of American support for Israel in the Six Day War], Arab nationalist did not trust the United States to act as a neutral mediator in the quest for peace.”¹

The year is 2012.  Anti-American violence thrives in the Middle East.  And for the first time since February of 1979 in Kabul, Afghanistan (33 years ago), an American ambassador was attacked and murdered while in office.²  Ambassador Chris Stevens died in Libya on September 11.  All the while, Washington has been operating under the auspices that the negative perceptions of the U.S. will be changed primarily by rhetoric.  However, what many people, especially those in the Middle East, have found is that rhetoric is futile if it does match a coherent policy for the region.  For many Arabs, the fact that perceptions have been set since the ‘60s makes it exceptionally difficult to change them without a radical shift in U.S. support of Israel – and it is naïve to assume anything else will serve as the magic bullet.  The situation is not hopeless, only bleak without a clear direction and vision from the top.  If we have learned anything from the history of the Middle East, it is that actions shape perception, not talk.  Clearly.

¹David W. Lesch, ed., The Middle East and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessment, (Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado), 2003.  Gerges’ chapter is on pages 191-210.  The above quotes come from pages 191 and 204.

²Ambassador Arnold L. Raphel was actually the last sitting U.S. ambassador to die in office.  He died in a suspicious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988.  However, Adolph Dubs was the last victim of a direct attack in 1979 as mentioned above.

The US and Iran: Periphery Decay Creates Nuclear Spit-wads

Iran has clearly been a hotbed of issues for thousands of years; however, recent developments have proven that the Supreme Leader has little to no fear of outside interference. The tide has turned in such a way that rouge states have the upper-hand simply because they believe that the only viable options on the table for the UN or the US are empty threats and meaningless sanctions. With other terror threats spreading US militaries thin and wearing on home moral, Iran threatens to spit nuclear paper wads while the teacher is busy in the hall.

The single largest issue in play is the erosion of ‘Western’ supremacy. Whatever your opinion of American foreign policy, a century of dominance kept Iranian tension inside its borders (though with some local exceptions). While the US never actually had direct control of Iran, the model of periphery decay applies much the same as it does with many great imperial powers of the past. Ancient Rome began its downward slide many decades before its final ‘fall.’ A good example of this is their control of what is now much of Great Britain. When Rome was strong, they could afford to bulk up military assets on the island and wage a long-term pseudo cold-war. As tension at home in the form of infighting, poverty, and often poor leadership shifted the policy of strength and offence to one of preservation, local peoples rose to drive out the weak Roman forces along with many of their cultural attributes in an effort to restore what they felt had been overshadowed or taken from them for so many years by a foreign power. Later, the same islands saw the decline of the British Empire with the gradual independence of colonies into the mid-20th century. As Imperial power weakened, local nationals could vie for freedom (or slowly rip the decaying limbs of the empire apart, depending on your perspective).

As American power weakens – or is even perceived to have weakened abroad, there will be more nations like Iran. While the belief of American exceptionalism may still be true for some of us, President Ahmadinejad and others are no longer intimidated by the world police force that had belonged to the United States for so many years.

We Three Kings: 50 Years of Egyptian Revolution

Rarely is the ancient history of a society more engrained in the common knowledge of the world than its modern one, but this is obviously true of Egypt. If you are one of the millions of people who heard about the turmoil in the streets along the Nile and scratched your head, you are not alone. Until recently, almost no American could tell you the background of the Egyptian government and only a few more could identify its long-term leader, President Mubarak. Perhaps the 2011 Egyptian Revolution is not isolated frustration with an authoritarian state, but a continuation of a failed hope began in the 1952 Revolution that racked the same ancient streets 59 years ago.
While a constitution insuring some liberty and balance of power was installed in 1923, Egyptian governments continued to fall short of expectations and this dissatisfaction created the perfect storm for revolution in the early 1950s. When revolution finally happened, civilian governments proved unstable and a group of 9 men known as the Free Officers took charge. They ferreted out communists and extremists including the Muslim Brotherhood. (In fact, the Brotherhood has been illegal since 1954). On June 18, 1953 General Mohamed Naguib became the first president. His tenure was short-lived and ended in confusion. By 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser officially became the second president of Egypt. The nation grew stronger and more westernized under Nasser, and this included Western styles of entitlement programs that stabilized some of the unrest. They also moved towards modernization with the building of modern infrastructure such as the Aswan High Dam as well. The apparent social advances appear to have temporarily pacified the general population but failed to address true progress and created a false hope and reliance on the state. When the government failed to deliver to the same degree, the unrest began to ripen once again.
When Nasser died in September of 1970, his VP Anwar el-Sadat took control and was officially elected in on October 15, 1970. The administration continued to focus on a secular state, angering the many religious fundamental groups despite a war with Israel that ended in a peace treaty. On October 6, 1981, Islamic extremists assassinated Sadat during a military parade. 11 others were killed including four American military liaisons. The soon-to-be fourth president, Hosni Mubarak was injured but the then vice president was elected president later on that same month. He had been vice president since 1975 and faced many of the same problems that had been tied to Sadat.
Here’s the bottom line: Since 1956, the people of Egypt have seen only three presidents – all of whom served as vice presidents for their predecessors (in comparison, the US has had 11 different leaders beginning with Eisenhower’s 1956 successful re-election bid and there have been six shifts in political party). Consequently, the three Egyptian leaders carried on the ideals of their mentors/groomers essentially creating a monolithic persona for over half a century. This pseudo monarchy seemed to work well enough when the programs of Socialized Islam provided security and peace but failed when held up to the international standard of freedom in wake of the overthrow of the Tunisian President. So, when choosing sides, ask yourself if you would be happy with the Dwight Eisenhower administration in 2011 America. Love him or hate him, Ike would have needed to adapt to fit the modern world and that is exactly what the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations indeed are failing to do. Adopted in 1971, Egypt’s current constitution extols the power of the people: “The dignity of every individual is natural reflection of the dignity of his nation, for each individual is a cornerstone in the edifice of the homeland. This homeland derives its strength and prestige from the value of each individual, his activity and dignity.” Hopefully, the country that produced the Pyramids can once again realize the value of the human cornerstone before it is too late.

(http://www.parliament.gov.eg/English/Constitution/AnnouncementDocument/)

The Crisis in Tunisia and its International Significance

The once thriving North African nation of Tunisia continues to languish in near chaos. Former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali remains in self-preserving Saudi exile after his January 14, 2011 resignation and flight. During his longtime administration, he was first elected in 1987, the president made efforts to Westernize the nation and to effectively utilize and market the Tunisian oil fields. The tiny nation had seen an effective relationship with the European Union and especially with the nation of France who was vital in the development of nuclear power plants though they were not to be completed for some time. Now these plans lay in tenuous indecision as cries of unfair elections and long-term corruption ring out against the backdrop of burning train stations. The most recent election of 2009 saw Zine El Abidine Ben Ali apparently win by a landslide. And as Americans it is right to side with the people of Tunisia against a de facto dictator. The danger lies in the power vacuum.
While the interim government fights to regain order and maintain civil peace, the implications are massive for the United States. If a Western friendly nation can be installed and maintained, the fallout may not reach beyond the borders of the tiny nation itself, but clearly another failed nation in northern Africa presents a formerly uncharted safe haven for potential and established terror organizations. One has only to compare the collapse to Tunisia to the rogue nation of Somalia to cause immediate nervousness on the parts of US diplomats and policy makers. Couple this with the nuclear research set to transform into peaceful power stations by 2019 and you create a nation that cannot be allowed to fail. Perhaps the Tunisian nation will look forward from this experience and realign itself with European allies to forge a better future for this historically volatile region rich in cultural tradition and natural resources. In the meantime, the rest of the world, both good and bad, will closely watch their progress.

Mistrust Thrives at the Mideast Table

The background of recent Mideast peace talks in Washington, D.C. is notably long and complicated, but few could trace it to its modern day political origins. You could credit President Carter with taking the first step in formal peace talks with the Camp David Accords in 1978 but this agreement came after decades of tension and warfare and we’ve all seen how well it worked. To find the true origin of the 20th century conflict as we know it, one must look deeper into the aftermath of the First World War. As the Ottoman Empire, based in modern Turkey, crumbled after their ill-fated alliance with Germany, the great Western powers carved up this last vestige of the classic empires of old. Both France and Great Britain hoped to gain large portions of the newly available countries rich in history, and a newly desirable product: oil.
Representatives of both nations met behind closed doors to develop an agreement that divided the Middle East into “spheres of influence.” French representative François Georges-Picot and Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain signed the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 essentially ending all hopes of Arab sovereignty that had been dangled in front of many local fighters in exchange for their aid in WWI. (You may remember the agreement if you paid close attention at the end of the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia). This ‘gave’ Syria and parts of Turkey to the French, and Jordan and Iraq to the British while allowing Allied control of today’s Israel. This set up the later creation of the nation of Israel in 1948, but also significantly marked the lack of concern for Arab interests by Western powers.
The hard fact is that Arab nations and peoples do not trust the West, yet we continue to hold the exclusive reigns of any peace effort bandwagon. We should certainly not give up what we believe to be the noble cause because it is difficult, but America needs to look beyond the typical methods and make an effort to bring new negotiators to the table. The unanswerable problem remains that the nation of Israel was established by mandate of the West thus usurping local Palestinian control. Consequently, Israel can never break free of this ‘buddy’ status with the West. They are hated by many pro-Palestinian groups simply for existing, and regardless of your opinion on this issue, this prejudice makes the peace efforts truly a process that America is hardly helping by continuously reminding everyone of the privileged relationship of Israel. I have no good solution here but merely an observation. If you have 4 children and chose a favorite one publically, you would hardly be the person to sit down and discuss fair justice when they all got in a fight. Palestinians believe that the Americans will always side with Israel and that they are merely being pandered to. They need to believe that their presence and opinions are valued and that we are not merely listening just to say we let them talk.

Presidential Requirements? Because Everyone Keeps Wandering Into That Job, Right?

Two men have proposed requiring new United States presidents to present the Chief Justice a hand-written copy of the US Constitution prior to being sworn in. They state that this would make the president’s pledge to uphold and defend the framework of our government against all enemies more real for them. (Read the article) If nothing else it would be a tangible sign they had read it at least once. But whether manually copying the document is a good idea or not, this shows evidence that people are worried about who leads our country and if there are enough requirements for elected officials.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states the only current requirements imposed on a president of the US: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The 22nd amendment added term limits in 1951 rounding out who cannot be the Commander in Chief.
The bottom line: if anyone can survive the American political process at the national level, raise millions of dollars, speak hundreds of times, and get elected, we deserve what we get. Some are angry at our current president and some fear the Sarah Palin’s of the Conservative movement, but individuals on both sides wanting to restrict the highest and hardest to obtain office in the world more than it is already are straining with these ridiculous gimmicks. If you can give a speech that makes chills run up legs or raise millions through $20 online donations you can certainly read well enough to write something word for word out of a book. Instead, the defense should be the American voter. If you don’t believe someone has read the Constitution, or doubt they will truly support it, let people know and vote against them. The founders of our nation placed a few reasonable restrictions on our leadership but understood that the real decision came from the power of the electorate. On a side note, it wouldn’t do us any harm to give that Constitution a look ourselves once in a while even if we aren’t running for office.