The Greatest Concern with the Protests in the Middle East

Anytime a population breaks free from the oppression of a corrupt government is good.  If you’re an Egyptian, the issue to be concerned with now, even when all of this is over, is how competent of a government the transitional government produces.  Moreover, it would be beneficial to find out which demographic the new government in power truly supports.  For example, if I were a politically active devout Christian, I would expect that the Republican Party would represent my views.  But when one actually looks at the empirical data, this is not the case.  So goes it for Egypt and the rest of the countries experiencing revolt.  Now, the question is not necessarily whether or not a new government will make the revolting population's country better off, but whether or not the new governments will make its citizens who are worse off, better.  Despite the leaps and bounds that have come out of the protests, there is still a growing concern shared by many who are wondering whether or not these protests pose a major threat to the U.S.  And although much of the public's anxiety is due to their concerns about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran, there is another, more influential player in the Middle East that poses the biggest threat.  But the public and the media seem to be ignoring it.

Egypt is the birthplace of the Islamic Brotherhood which justifies the speculation of the role the Brotherhood will play in the new government.  But the Brotherhood has spoken out, assuring that it will have nothing to do with the new government.[1]  But that does not mean that they have relinquished their power in Egypt.  They do not need a say in government processes.  Like their Near-East neighbor, Saudi Arabia, they only need a government willing to provide them with geographical petri dishes.  That is, a place where they can recruit and train volunteers without outside influences.  And there is somewhat of a reason to be concerned about the Brotherhood in Egypt.  Their move to passively defer any influence within the new government, is out of character for a group that successfully assassinated one president and conspired to do the same to Mubarak.

The impact of the uprisings in any of these countries is absolutely dependent upon whether or not extremist groups operate in those respective countries.  Although many in the extremist movement do not want to admit it, the U.S. government will know right away whether or not a newly established government is indifferent toward extremists operating in the country.  And if this is something that can be proven, those governments will eventually be sanctioned by the U.S.  This could possibly leave out the much needed assistance those countries need from the U.S.

The most significant revolution in recent years happened in Iran in 1979.  But the current protests differ from the Iranian revolt.  Whereas both are radical and Islamic, the Iranian movement sought to establish a Muslim theocracy within the country of Iran.  The rhetoric from the new movement, thus far, has yet to shift a focus to the religiosity of the uprisings.  That is, a shift to talk about tightening rules and regulations in order for the population to better adhere to Muslim Law, which is what happened in Iran.  In addition to enacting laws to better reflect the Muslim belief, Iranians were also concerned with the growing presence of Western Culture within their society.  Therefore, the Iranian revolution was guided by the push for the implementation of a theocracy as well as the goal of becoming a nation that is both more sovereign and more Muslim.

But this is not the case with the most recent protests.  Many within these new movements, including those in Iran, are seeking liberation from extreme Muslim rule.  Because of this, there is not much of a reason to expect a regime change as drastic as Iran experienced during its revolution.  This is true because part, if not all, of the causes for the 1979 Iranian revolution centered upon the fact that the West had such an influence over their government officials, economic means and natural resources.  Moreover, it was believed that the infiltration of the U.S.’s ideology of modernity was threatening Iran’s ideology of traditionalism, thus the reasoning behind the Ayatollah inheriting the duty of supreme ruler.

Despite this push against corruption and for liberalism (which may be used as “bait” for the more liberal Muslims), there is a way that it can be seen as a push for Islam.  This is the reasoning behind Iran supporting the protests.  But the Iranian view is not always made clear because many who try to keep up with Iran assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the ruler of Iran, but he is not.

He is a puppet.  He does what Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’I tells him to do.  To understand Iran, ignore Ahmadinejad, he is just a pawn.  It is best to listen to the Ayatollah.  Keeping that in mind, it is not surprising that the Ayatollah supports these protests.  This is true because a movement for Islam could very well unite the entire Middle East, establishing a powerful Muslim nation which could very well become a nation with the potential to hurt the U.S., primarily economically, but also militarily.  If this is the case, Iran would become more of a concern.  But it still would not be the primary concern.

There is no doubt that Iran is a threat.  But its threat can only be realized if they mobilize the protests in a way that maintains the protesters' sentiments while successfully shifting the cause of the movement from “a better life” to “Islam versus Modernity.”  But this can only happen with the cooperation of Saudi Arabia.  If the Saudi’s experience a successful revolution the U.S. is in trouble and there will be some kind of war. 
The Saudi kings make most of their money off of the U.S.  And they do like their money <cue party music>.  Therefore, the key is to keep the Saudi population from revolting - which is quite a moral dilemma, considering the oppressive nature of the Saudi Arabian government.  Saudi Arabia, though, has a very tight grip on their population.  Their intelligence agency virtually has complete control of the country's internet and communications capabilities.  If there were a chance of a revolt, the Saudi government has the capability of foreknowing any protests that could pack significance, ultimately stomping them out before they have any chance of catching on.  BUT!  The reasoning behind the financial dynamic between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Muslim extremism is quite perplexing and might very well lead to the U.S.’s demise.

The U.S. buys the majority of its oil from the Saudis.  This has happened for a while.  It is not new news.  The Saudis take part of the money and allot it to the respective recipients including themselves.  The other part of the allotted money goes toward the evangelization of Wahhabism, a fundamentalist sect of Islam, by paying for the building of schools, mosques, etc….  So, the model, accounting for Saudi support for terrorism, looks like this:

            As the picture and its preceding explanation shows, the U.S. is not only dependent upon the Saudis for their oil, but they are also inadvertently manufacturing the terrorism they are combating.  Although this is a highly simplified model, it still represents the truth that the U.S. knowingly supports regimes that fund terrorism.  If these revolts continue to topple government after government, Iran is not the U.S.'s greatest concern because they face the task of switching the protesters' sentiments from 'liberation' to 'Islam versus modernity.'  The greatest threat is with Saudi Arabia because of its influence on those factors that play such a vital role on the everyday life of the average U.S. citizen.  If Saudi Arabia goes, American prices explode with the influence it once had over the Middle East.

---

[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133870711/Muslim-Brotherhood-Speaks-Out-On-Egypt

Government Transparency Leads to Less Privacy

Ann Coulter: Republican Party will Lose 2012 if Romney Runs

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 14, 2011  08:40 p.m. EST

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox to show her support for Chris Christie in 2012.  He is, Coulter aruges, the only republican that could win the 2012 election, likening him to Reagan.  Moreover, she adds that "...it is amazing that [the republicans] have won any presidential elections at all."  Further, she adds that the Republican Party has yet to introduce a candidate that even comes close to having enough passion to run for the presidency, nor have their been very many that have been 'manly' enough to be elected...meaning a candidate with boldness.  When asked about Romney, she admitted that unless there is a star that rises up in the Republican Party, Romney will get the nomination.  She then added that Romney will ultimately lose to Obama if that is the case.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

Fried Catfish - PodCast: A Brief About the Egyptian Uprising

A brief explanation about the issues that the Egyptian people face, the country and its leader's connection with al-Qaeda, and the possibility of a democratic domino effect happening in the Middle East.

Obama Administrator Supports Covert Domestic Operations

FRIDAY, JAN 15, 2010 08:16 ET

GLENN GREENWALD

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

BY GLENN GREENWALD

Salon/iStockphoto

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. 

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those whoappear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."  Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked.  Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote.  This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees.  Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class.  All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.

* * * * *

Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates.  The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon.  Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such asArmstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts.  In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens.  In response to all of this,Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda.  Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda."  By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves.  His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise.  Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself.  He acknowledges that some "conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples:  the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters).  Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements?  Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous.  Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim.  More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture:  when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes.  That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

* * * * *

Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber toprovide consultation on the President's health care plan.  With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely -- as an "independent" or "objective" authority.  Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed.  This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).

In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned.  Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack "intellectual integrity"; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case.  Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being "just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals."  What is one key difference?  Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views -- he favors health care -- and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he's defending are dismissed as a "fake scandal."

Sunstein himself -- as part of his 2008 paper -- explicitly advocates that the Government should pay what he calls "credible independent experts" to advocate on the Government's behalf, a policy he says would be more effective because people don't trust the Government itself and would only listen to people they believe are "independent."  In so arguing, Sunstein cites the Armstrong Williams scandal not as something that is wrong in itself, but as a potential risk of this tactic (i.e., that it might leak out), and thus suggests that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," but warns that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."  In other words, Sunstein wants the Government to replicate the Armstrong Williams arrangement as a means of more credibly disseminating propaganda -- i.e., pretending that someone is an "independent" expert when they're actually being "prodded" and even paid "behind the scenes" by the Government -- but he wants to be more careful about how the arrangement is described (don't make the control explicit) so that embarrassment can be avoided if it ends up being exposed.  

In this 2008 paper, then, Sunstein advocated, in essence, exactly what the Obama administration has been doing all year with Gruber:  covertly paying people who can be falsely held up as "independent" analysts in order to more credibly promote the Government line.  Most Democrats agreed this was a deceitful and dangerous act when Bush did it, but with Obama and some of his supporters, undisclosed arrangements of this sort seem to be different.  Why?  Because, as Sunstein puts it:  we have "a well-motivated government" doing this so that "social welfare is improved."  Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite detention, military commissions andcovert, unauthorized wars, what was once deemed so pernicious during the Bush years -- coordinated government/media propaganda -- is instantaneously transformed into something Good.

* * * * *

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world.  That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power:  namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption. 

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation?  And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government?  The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources:  namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant.  The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements.  Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is.  In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

UPDATE:  I don't want to make this primarily about the Gruber scandal -- I cited that only as an example of the type of mischief that this mindset produces -- but just to respond quickly to the typical Gruber defenses already appearing in comments:  (1) Gruber's work was only for HHS and had nothing to do with the White House (false); (2) he should have disclosed his payments, but the White House did nothing wrong (false: it repeatedly described him as "independent" and "objective" and constantly cited allied media stories based in Gruber's work); (3) Gruber advocated views he would have advocated anyway in the absence of payment (probably true, but wasn't that also true for life-long conservative Armstrong Williams, life-long social conservative Maggie Gallagher, and the pro-war Pentagon Generals, all of whom mounted the same defense?); and (4) Williams/Gallagher were explicitly paid to advocate particular views while Gruber wasn't (true:  that's exactly the arrangement Sunstein advocates to avoid "embarrassment" in the event of disclosure, and it's absurd to suggest that someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars is unaware of what their paymasters want said; that's why disclosure is so imperative).

The point is that there are severe dangers to the Government covertly using its resources to "infiltrate" discussions and to shape political debates using undisclosed and manipulative means.  It's called "covert propaganda" and it should be opposed regardless of who is in control of it or what its policy aims are.

UPDATE II:  Ironically, this is the same administration that recently announced a new regulation dictating that "bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently."  Without such disclosure, the administration reasoned, the public may not be aware of important hidden incentives (h/t pasquin).  Yet the same administration pays an MIT analyst hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate their most controversial proposed program while they hold him out as "objective," and selects as their Chief Regulator someone who wants government agents to covertly mold political discussions "anonymously or even with false identities."

UPDATE III:  Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions."  I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place."  That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment.  Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.

UPDATE IV:  Paul Krugman has replied to the part of this post which pertains to him and Jonathan Gruber; my response to that is here.

-- Glenn Greenwald