Originally published at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Transmission blog, June 25, 2009.

On June 24, the Brookings Institution held an interesting event, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran.”

A monograph of the same name will soon be released by the think tank, enumerating the choices U.S. policymakers have over Iran. These are the options that emerged from the briefing:

1. Persuasion. Ken Pollack described it as the policy of “carrots and sticks,” except keeping silent about the sticks. The biggest downside to this approach is that it cannot work without substantial international support.

2. Engagement. This is different from what Obama is calling “engagement.” It is a policy of all carrots and no sticks — kill them with kindness. This is the approach the United States took with China starting with Nixon’s visit in the 1970s. The biggest downside is that the time frame for achieving the U.S. goal (elimination of Iran’s nuclear program) is huge, in the span of years to decades.

3. Invasion. There are countless downsides to this approach, mainly that it would require domestic support, which at this point it simply does not have.

4. Air strikes. Though some hard-liners have favored this option, it also has many downsides. To be successful, it would require superb intelligence. And even if it were successful, it would likely only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few years, it would throw support to Iranian hardliners, it is not repeatable (i.e. the United States would be out of options after this if Iran continues its nuclear program). And, most importantly, this option provides no answer to Iran’s support for terrorist groups.

5. Israeli air strikes. This option has all of the same downsides as U.S. air strikes, but with a lower chance of success due to Israel’s much smaller military.

6. Popular revolution. While the previous options focus mostly on halting Iran’s nuclear program, this option implies that the regime itself, not its behavior, is the real problem. Though this is an attractive option, it is impossible to predict and it is hard to know how best to help a fledgling revolution without discrediting or exposing it. Additionally, to succeed, the regime in power must lose the will and/or capacity to use violence, which at this point is not guaranteed.

7. Insurgency. The idea of promoting an insurgency inside Iran to precipitate regime change also appears attractive at first glance, but to be successful we would need to recruit reliable, highly capable people, which are hard to find. Even then, the chance of success is low.

8. Military coup. As with the popular revolution, this option is impossible to predict. Revolutions are spontaneous. It would also require the United States gathering superb intelligence that could be passed on to the coup organizers.

9. Containment. Allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb and simply limit the political damage it might cause because of it. This policy did work during the Cold War. The question is, though: could the United States deter a nuclear Iran?

Suzanne Maloney, one of the co-authors of the monograph, said that she believes the current protests are far more significant than the student protests of 1999 and 2003.

This is the first open, organized opposition movement since the Islamic Revolution, which is highly significant. She stated that two things have led to the current crisis.

First, Ahmadinejad over the course of his term has alienated much of the elite and ruling clerics. And second, people were simply outraged that their government had become so base and corrupt that it would attempt to rig even such a relatively unimportant election (since the president has little real power).

Bruce Riedel, another co-author, stated that, first of all, the vision of Iran as a regional hegemon has been set back greatly by the current events. He then explained that there are three possible scenarios for the future.

First is the “Fizzle Out Scenario.” This is what Mossad thinks will happen. The protests will slowly start to decline due to police intimidation, and the situation will become somewhat normal again. Yet even here, the regime will be weaker than it was before the current crisis, since there will be lasting internal strife.

Second is the “Tiananmen Square Scenario”: brutal crackdown on the protesters. This is the worst possible outcome for Obama (let alone for the protesters), since it would show that Obama’s approach has failed. In this scenario, the United States would likely move towards the “Containment” option, as both parties would be less likely to negotiate. Israel would also likely advocate speeding up efforts to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.

The third scenario is “Change,” in whatever form it may come. This would validate the Obama approach, but would still leave Israel nervous until Iran ceases aid to terrorist groups.

Riedel also stated that we can live with a nuclear Iran. It would be unpleasant, but it would be doable. According to him, the regime is not crazy. However, if Iran does get the bomb, it will become much bolder in its foreign policy, somewhat like Pakistan. Iran obtaining a nuke would also likely launch an arms race across the entire Middle East.

The event concluded with all six co-authors of the book stating that they believe Ahmadinejad will be the president three years from now. Current events, they said, will not lead to regime change.

Originally published May 29, 2009.

Originally published in FrontPage Magazine and Campus Watch, May 27, 2009. Also highlighted in the Campus Watch Blog.

Georgetown University Professor John Esposito is the media’s favorite go-to man for questions about Islam. As the founding director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, he is also notorious for downplaying radical Islam. Stanford University hosted his latest round of apologetics on May 13.

Esposito, who spoke at Stanford last year, was on campus to promote the film version of his recent book (co-authored with Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies), Who Speaks For Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. He was joined by the film’s executive producer, Muslim convert Michael Wolfe. The 55-minute film claims to present the results of the “largest, most comprehensive study” of Muslim opinion ever done. The crowd’s political leaning were evident in the audible hisses that greeted the cinematic image of former President George W. Bush.

A question and answer session with Esposito and Wolfe followed the screening. Don Emmerson, director of the Southeast Asia Forum at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford and an affiliated scholar with the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, was the first to offer up a challenge. Emmerson pointed out a question posed in the film, “Do you believe a woman should be allowed to work in any job she is qualified for?” is answered affirmatively by large majorities of Muslim men and women, but that the film never clarifies for what exactly the respondents believe women to be qualified. Thus, Emmerson concluded, “No quality control is evident in either the film or, if I may say so, in the book.” Esposito had no response.

Emmerson went on to question the film’s claim that “[the term] ‘jihad‘ always has positive connotations for Muslims.” “I can attest,” he said firmly, “that this is simply not true.” Emmerson continued, “In Indonesia…Muslims try to avoid the word ‘jihadi‘ because they know that it means somebody who engages in violence, and they don’t want to be identified [with that].” Esposito responded with classic academic hair-splitting, claiming that, “If you really listen to what [the woman] is saying when she refers to jihad, she refers to a specific set of data on jihad. And that’s referring to a particular poll that was done and the data that comes out of that poll.”

In answering the next question, Esposito repeated his decade-old claim that radical Islam poses little to no national security threat to the United States. Citing the allegedly “small” number of post-9/11 arrests that resulted in terrorism charges, Esposito, with palpable disdain, told the audience, “I run into Americans all the time who ask me, ‘How many embedded cells do you think there are?’” (In fact, the 9/11 Commission cited inadequate FBI investigation of these very cells as a contributor to the September 11, 2001 attacks.)

Esposito downplayed radicalism in American mosques, recounting a lecture where an audience member brought up the statistic of 80 percent and attributing the figure to a “Muslim basher.” A number of counterterrorism experts and Islam scholars have cited the 80 percent figure, but in doing so, they are usually referring to the number of American mosques whose leadership is influenced by Saudi-funded Wahhabi extremism. As an alleged expert, one would expect Esposito to be aware of this fact, even if it is rather inconvenient.

Shifting his focus to Europe, Esposito cited a recent, unnamed Gallup study on European Muslims to make the outlandish claim that, “the vast majority of Muslim Europeans, are far more open to their society and far more pluralistic in their hopes and their aspirations than indigenous, liberal, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.” Assuming Esposito was referring to the May 7, 2009 study by Gallup and the U.K.-based Coexist Foundation, his conclusions were way off the mark. The study merely demonstrates that general European populations tend to perceive “ambiguous allegiances” among Muslims based on the elevated importance of the latter’s “religious identities,” a suspicion that is hardly without basis. But for Esposito, it comes down to picking and choosing facts that best fit his narrative.

The most memorable exchange of the night occurred between Esposito and a man who identified himself as an Arab Muslim living in the U.S. The latter raised serious problems with the interpretation of the data presented in the film, as when he demolished the film’s laughable conclusion that women in Muslim countries wear the hijab (head scarf) because they have an “amazing idea of the distinction between its internal and external meanings.”The majority of Muslim women wear the hijab, the questioner said, because of cultural and religious pressure, and he feared that the documentary would, as he put it:

Decrease pressure on movements for women’s rights, reforming Islam, and democracy, [because] the image we get from this movie is that there is a utopia in the Islamic world that we don’t know about. But the reality is that there is no utopia.

Esposito dodged the question by responding that one must distinguish between religious and secular Muslim women. “It’s about what women want,” he asserted. “Interviewing secular women who speak good English doesn’t mean they reflect what Muslim women want.” But, apparently, Esposito’s conclusions do?

The views presented in the film, as well as Esposito’s answers, reflect an interpretation of Islam and Muslims that does not jive with reality. Esposito’s obfuscation when faced with tough questions, his dismissal of the threat of Islamic terrorism, and his refusal to take seriously points of view different from his own reveals an anti-intellectualism that is detrimental to the field of Middle East studies. If Esposito and his ilk are “speaking for Islam,” the world’s Muslims are in trouble.

Originally published May 15, 2009. This article won the Review’s “Best Features Article” award for volume XLII.

“RESEARCH LIFE NOT DEATH”
“LENNY FOR DEAN”
“OFF ROTC”

Thus read the pins on the shirt of one Lenny Siegel, erstwhile leader of the “April 3rd Movement” (A3M), the group of students that nearly tore Stanford apart in the late 1960’s and early 70’s. Siegel, a member of Stanford’s class of 1970 who was expelled for his radical activities before graduating, was on campus the weekend of May 1 leading A3M’s 40-year reunion. The final part of the reunion program was a “historical walking tour of campus,” which this writer participated in and observed.

The tour generally consisted of Siegel leading the group of roughly 50 people between the various sites on campus where his group engaged in illegal, often violent, activities. The group wound its way from Old Union (“Our favorite place for sit-ins”) to Stern Hall and then back to the Clock Tower. During the tour, several former A3M members decided to confess some of their past crimes, which ranged from stealing sensitive university financial records to assaulting ROTC cadets and destroying property. Siegel himself admitted to many of these activities, recounting the story of how he broke all of the Bookstore windows after being fired from his job there. One greying man chimed in by recalling fondly, “The Lou Henry Hoover building was the best building to break windows in. Two stories of solid glass.”

The high point in the event came early on, as Siegel led the group—chanting “Please-a, please-a, no Condoleezza!” all the way–to the President’s Office in the Main Quad. The intent was to make known his group’s demand (together with Stanford Says No to War) that Condoleezza Rice be investigated for war crimes and, if found guilty, prosecuted. The fact that Siegel nailed the demand to the office door (as he nailed a similar demand to the door of the Board of Trustees office in 1969) earned him press coverage from the local ABC and CBS affiliates as well as several publications. Also present during the ceremony was one representative of the Raging Grannies—a group surpassed in obnoxiousness only by the likes of Code Pink—and several of the cliche orange-jumpsuited, hooded Guantanamo “prisoners.”

Following the nailing was an impromptu speech by A3M alumna and current president of the far-left National Lawyer’s Guild Marjorie Cohn. With impassioned rhetoric, Cohn accused the former Secretary of State of being complicit in the torture of prisoners and of creating a “false connection between WMDs and Saddam Hussein” that led to an “illegal war of aggression.” Cohn continued by claiming that if any war crimes were committed, everyone in the Bush administration is liable for them, all the way up to and including the Commander-in-Chief. Though she called for an investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of many in the administration, the outcome of such an investigation was by no means in doubt in her mind; she concluded her diatribe by exclaiming, “We will not stop until they are punished!”

Returning to the tour, Siegel then took the group to the most politically charged spot on campus: Hoover Tower. Siegel explained that, during his time at Stanford, he preferred to target the university administration itself rather than the Hoover Institution, though he “understood” why some of his colleagues focused (and continue to focus) more on Hoover. One member of the group then held up the May 1 issue of this publication, ridiculing its front-page headline (“Campaign Contributions Study Indicates No Partisan Bias at Hoover”) as if it could not possibly be true. Had this individual actually taken the time to read the article, he might have found it more believable. This knee-jerk far-left attitude was apparent throughout the group, however, embodied in comments such as “You know that because of global warming the Earth’s population will be 1.5 billion 100 years from now” and complaints that several anti-Condi news pieces were in fact “sugar-coating” the issues and giving the former secretary too much credit.

Moving right along, the tour’s next stop was Encina Hall, site of the well-known “Encina sit-in,” in which Siegel and his “activists” took over the building for a day in 1969. The highlight of this stop was Siegel’s proudly describing how he discovered that the bricks in campus sidewalks at the time could be pried out of the ground by hand, broken in half on the curb, and then thrown at police officers. “That’s why they changed the sidewalks,” he said, laughing.

The tour concluded at the Intersection of Death with stories of how members of A3M often spent more time handing out flyers and pamphlets to passing cyclists than they did in class. Siegel said he personally missed three midterms because of exactly this. However, after being pressed by a student on the tour, he was forced to admit that the vast majority of Stanford students at the time did not share his zeal. “Most of the time, most of the students were still students,” he conceded, explaining that some students had their noses buried so deep in their books that they did not even learn about the Encina sit-in until after it had ended. The only times campus was truly galvanized, according to Siegel, were the springs of 1969 and 1970.

Despite this limited timeframe of mobilization and generally low level of student participation, Siegel and his movement did succeed in kicking ROTC off campus and forcing the Stanford Research Institute to officially separate from the university. The return of these radicals to campus was a sober reminder of the detrimental effects these actions continue to have today. Hopefully the current generation of Stanford students will leave a more positive legacy.

Originally published March 13, 2009:

Terrorist attacks continue to be a regular occurrence throughout India, and even seem to be increasing in incidence. This past year saw an astounding 10 major terrorist attacks, a figure equal to the number of attacks in 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined. The last calendar year without a terrorist attack in India was the year 2000.

Since 9/11, there have been at least 30 attacks within Indian territory, in addition to the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul last summer. In total, more than 1,200 people have been killed, nearly all of them civilians. The most remarkable fact about this situation is that, with the exception of the incredibly lethal and complex attack against Mumbai in November of last year, none of these attacks have attracted the attention of the Western media for more than a day or two. The fact that these attacks have become commonplace does not diminish their significance.

The threat of terrorism may have faded in the mind of the average American since September 11, but that is certainly not the case for the more than one billion citizens of the Republic of India.

On December 13, 2001, terrorists from the militant Islamist groups “Lashkar-e-Taiba” and “Jaish-e-Mohammad” gained access to the parking lot of the Indian Parliament building, deliberately crashed their car into that of the Vice President of India, exited their vehicle, and opened fire on every human being in sight. Five policemen, one security guard, one gardener, and all five gunmen were killed. A mere nine months later, 130 people died in a train derailment caused by the Naxalites, a local Maoist terrorist group. In the year following that tragedy, Mumbai—the financial capital of India—would be attacked five times, leaving nearly 70 people dead and scores injured.

Terrorist attacks continue to be a regular occurrence throughout India, and even seem to be increasing in incidence. This past year saw an astounding 10 major terrorist attacks, a figure equal to the number of attacks in 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined. The last calendar year without a terrorist attack in India was the year 2000.

Since 9/11, there have been at least 30 attacks within Indian territory, in addition to the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul last summer. In total, more than 1,200 people have been killed, nearly all of them civilians. The most remarkable fact about this situation is that, with the exception of the incredibly lethal and complex attack against Mumbai in November of last year, none of these attacks have attracted the attention of the Western media for more than a day or two. The fact that these attacks have become commonplace does not diminish their significance.

Interestingly, the media coverage of the recent carnage in Mumbai generally treated that attack as if it were an isolated incident. Though the rampage was indeed unique in its targeting of Westerners and Jews, it was far from the only assault on the city in recent years, as mentioned above. A coordinated bombing of the city’s suburban railway system as recently as 2006 left 209 dead and 714 injured. And though Mumbai has been particularly hard-hit, nearly every major city in India has been targeted at least once.

The most common perpetrator of these acts of terrorism is Lashkar-e-Taiba (The Army of the Righteous), allegedly supported by Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). Lashkar-e-Taiba’s stated goal is to introduce an Islamic state in South Asia. Other groups implicated in the various attacks include the Students Islamic Movement of India, Indian Mujahideen, Naxalites, and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (The Islamic Resistance Movement). Hindu nationalist groups have also been blamed for several smaller attacks over the years.

In addition to these acts targeting civilians, India faces an ongoing insurgency in Kashmir, where thousands of its soldiers have been killed, and which raises the ever-present specter of a potential war with Pakistan. For years, India has accused Pakistan of supporting the organizations that have carried out the attacks described above, and continues to do so, as in the case of the most recent attacks on Mumbai. Fears remain that India’s patience will soon run out, and with it will go the policy of relative restraint it has followed until now.

The point to take away from all of this is that India needs help in protecting and stabilizing itself, and the United States and other Western nations can do much more than they are currently doing to assist in this challenge. India, as the world’s largest democracy and a consistent victim of Islamist onslaughts, is the greatest potential ally of the United States in the Global War on Terrorism (which still exists, despite the Obama administration’s shunning of this term). Though the reach of groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba may be local at the moment, their aim is global, as revealed by LeT’s targeting of Westerners in its latest attack on Mumbai. America and India are fighting the same enemy, and the relationship between the two countries should be adjusted to reflect that reality. Though significant positive gains have been made over the past several years, these efforts need to continue and, indeed, accelerate, if India is ever to banish the scourge of terrorism from its territory and fulfill its vast potential as the world’s largest democracy.

Sidebar:

Timeline of terrorist attacks in India since 2001:
October 1, 2001: Attack on Kashmir legislative assembly, 38 dead
December 13, 2001: Indian Parliament attack, 12 dead
January 22, 2002: Attack on American cultural center in Kolkata, 5 dead
September 10, 2002: Rafiganj rail disaster, 130 dead
September 25, 2002: Akshardham Temple attack, 33 dead
December 6, 2002: Bus bombing in Mumbai, 2 dead
March 13, 2003: Train bombing in Mumbai, 10 dead
July 28, 2003: Bus bombing in Mumbai, 4 dead
August 25, 2003: Twin car bombings in Mumbai, 52 dead
July 5, 2005: Attack on site of demolished Babri Mosque, 6 dead
July 28, 2005: Train bombing in Jaunpur, 13 dead
October 29, 2005: Bombing of markets in Delhi, 62 dead
March 7, 2006: Bombings in Varanasi, 28 dead
July 11, 2006: Seven train bombings in Mumbai, 209 dead
September 8, 2006: Bombings in Malegaon, 37 dead
February 18, 2007: Bombing of Samjhauta Express, 68 dead
May 18, 2007: Bombing of Mecca Mosque, 16 dead
August 25, 2007: Bombings in Hyderabad, 42 dead
November 23, 2007: Coordinated bombings in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 18 dead
May 13, 2008: Bombings in Jaipur, 80 dead
July 25, 2008: Bombings in Bangalore, 2 dead
July 26, 2008: Bombings in Ahmedabad, 56 dead
September 13, 2008: Bombings in Delhi, 30 dead
September 27, 2008: Blast in Delhi, 3 dead
September 29, 2008: Bombings in Malegaon and Modasa, 8 dead
October 1, 2008: Bombings in Agartala, 4 dead
October 21, 2008: Blast in Imphal, 17 dead
October 30, 2008: Blasts in Assam, 81 dead
November 26-29, 2008: Coordinated attacks in Mumbai, 173 dead
January 1, 2009: Bombings in Guwahati, 6 dead

Originally published March 13, 2009 (front page):

“The problem with Islam is the way the text has been interpreted for the past 900 years,” he asserted. Unlike Jesus, for example, Muhammad was a ruler of a state and is believed to be the ideal human being. These two factors make reform and reinterpretation much more difficult in Islam than in Christianity. Many Muslims also believe, according to Sen. Santorum, that they “need to get back to the 700s,” since that is when they were winning wars, conquering territory, and expanding rapidly. These Muslims believe that the reason for their failure is that they have strayed from Islam. The senator went on to explain that since the Islamic Caliphate’s defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683—which marked the end of Muslim incursions into Europe—Muslims have been “fuming,” with little ability to exact revenge. The vast inflows of oil money into the region changed all that, however, and made defeating the West not a dream but a very real possibility.

Former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum came to Stanford on March 2, at the invitation of The Stanford Review and Stanford College Republicans, to speak on “The Gathering Storm in the Age of Obama: Challenges and Opportunities.” The senator’s talk focused primarily on the ongoing conflict between the United States and its allies on one side and radicalized Islam on the other. Sen. Santorum began by criticizing the country’s current single-mindedness vis-a-vis the economy, asking, “What would a nuclear bomb on the continent do to this economy?” The economy is important, the senator readily admitted, but he argued that “we are at a very critical time in our country’s history,” and, put simply, we are taking our eye off the ball.

Unlike many commentators, such as Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer, who warn of the threat that radical Islam as a whole poses to the developed world, Sen. Santorum focused primarily on the threat from what he termed the “mullahcracy” of Iran. “I am concerned about Iran because of their eschatology,” he explained. The senator then related the entire history of Shi`a Islam, from the time of Muhammad to the present day, highlighting the various messianic elements within the sect. He made sure to point out that, while the Ayatollah Khomeini (the leader of the Iranian Revolution) and others in previous years had believed that the messiah (the so-called “Mahdi” or Twelfth Imam) would come on his own at the end of times, the current crop of Iranian leaders believes that they must actively work to bring about Armageddon and thereby cause the return of the Twelfth Imam. This makes the Iranian threat fundamentally different from that of the USSR, for instance: “Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t apply.”

Sen. Santorum then lambasted the Bush Administration for letting political correctness trump the necessity of being honest with the American people about the nature of the threat it faces. The senator argued that the “War on Terror” is a pernicious term, since in fact the real enemy is a specific group of people who actively promote “aggressive, expansionist Islam.” “We need to be straight about this,” he argued: “You need to know who the enemy is.” Since “the President mis-defined the enemy from the beginning, [...] we’ve been convinced we’re not at war with [the jihadists], [...] and most Americans have no idea who these people are,” he continued. The senator dismissed the claim that the former president was correct and we are in fact fighting terrorists who “just happen to be Muslims.” “They just happen to be Muslims?” he asked incredulously. “That’s false! It has everything to do with Islam,” he responded forcefully.

Next, the senator attempted to explicate the motivation of those who are inspired by Islam to commit acts of violence. “The problem with Islam is the way the text has been interpreted for the past 900 years,” he asserted. Unlike Jesus, for example, Muhammad was a ruler of a state and is believed to be the ideal human being. These two factors make reform and reinterpretation much more difficult in Islam than in Christianity. Many Muslims also believe, according to Sen. Santorum, that they “need to get back to the 700s,” since that is when they were winning wars, conquering territory, and expanding rapidly. These Muslims believe that the reason for their failure is that they have strayed from Islam. The senator went on to explain that since the Islamic Caliphate’s defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683—which marked the end of Muslim incursions into Europe—Muslims have been “fuming,” with little ability to exact revenge. The vast inflows of oil money into the region changed all that, however, and made defeating the West not a dream but a very real possibility.

Sen. Santorum then briefly discussed the danger of “creeping Shari`ah” (Islamic law) in the United States and Europe—e.g. the implementation of Shari`ah-compliant finance, honor killings, and so on. The senator declared these cultural elements “antithetical to Western culture” that must be opposed if at all possible.

After this in-depth examination of Islamic history and theology, the senator opened the floor to questions. It was during this portion of the evening that Sen. Santorum addressed the issue of foreign policy in more general terms, criticizing President Obama’s appearance on al-Arabiya TV shortly after his inauguration. Rather than defending the past actions of the United States, President Obama placed the responsibility for the Middle East’s problems squarely on the shoulders of the country he now leads and offered a somewhat groveling apology to the region and even Islam as a whole. Senator Santorum viewed this as counterproductive at best. “When dealing with these radical Muslims, we have no reason to be humble,” he said. In response to another question, the senator severely castigated the State Department and its similarly over-apologetic handling of affairs, labeling the entire department “a disaster” and “the worst bureaucracy in the government” that far too often “does not defend the interests of the United States.” He then suggested firing all of its employees and replacing them with people from Nebraska who truly believe in America.

Despite some dubious claims—for example, that Jesus created the concept of separation of church and state—it was overall an informative, productive event. Far too few people know the in-depth history of Islam that Sen. Santorum outlined, and such knowledge is critical to understanding the current situation in the region and efforts to find workable solutions to its problems. Some may argue that the senator is overly harsh and uncompromising in some of his views, but there is no arguing that the ideological front is an important one in the current war, and one that the West is currently losing. There is a long road ahead.

Originally published February 27, 2009:

Egan went on to describe the Republican Party as the “Party of Yesterday.” Obama managed to capture both the youth vote—the future of the country—and the Latino vote, the fastest-growing segment of the population. Without these two key constituencies, Egan claims, the Republican Party is doomed to irrelevance. However, Egan did concede that national trends can change swiftly and unexpectedly, and thus what may seem like a certainty now might not actually come to pass.

Originally published February 13, 2009:

The Hoover Institution has recently unveiled its newest exhibition, entitled “Shattered Peace: The Road to World War II.” The exhibition is a fascinating collection of letters, photographs, propaganda posters, and other memorabilia from events around the globe in the mid to late 1930s. According to the promotional material, the exhibition “illustrates the diplomatic failures and the military actions that paved the way to World War II, highlighting the plight of civilians and the personal stories of witnesses.” All of the items on display are from the Hoover Institution Library and Archives, revealing the incredible depth and immeasurable value of that collection.

The exhibition is organized chronologically, starting with the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and ending with the Katyn Massacre in 1940. In between are displays with artifacts and eyewitness accounts from such disparate events as the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and the Anschluss that incorporated Austria into the German Reich. Each section contains various treasures, including the decoded final message from the Polish ambassador in Moscow in 1939 and Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop’s personal photo album of the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact.

The exhibition also takes care to highlight the plight of the individual during all these events. Photographs show a young girl mourning her older sister, killed mere minutes earlier in an air raid. A father, returning home from the battlefield, runs into his daughter’s eager embrace. And personal testimony relates the horror of the Nanking Massacre. Alongside these heart-wrenching images and stories, prominently displayed, are Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese propaganda posters, fliers, and mobilization orders.

Multimedia is included in the exhibition as well. Television screens throughout the pavilion show historical footage as well as relevant interviews with Hoover research fellows, and on a corner table sit several CD players containing historical audio recordings. These recordings include a version of the Horst-Wessel-Lied (the Nazi national anthem), international appeals for help by the Polish leadership after the Nazi invasion, and wartime broadcasts from Edward R. Murrow.

For many Americans, World War II began with the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yet, as this exhibit shows, the conflict truly began long before then. Nicholas Siekierski, Assistant Archivist for Exhibits and Outreach for the Hoover Institution Library and Archives, explains that the main goal in putting together the exhibition was to “illuminate a period of history that is largely unfamiliar to many people, especially Americans.” Remembering and learning from this history will be crucial if a calamity on the scale of World War II is to be avoided in the future. Exhibitions like this one are a crucial part of that effort.

The exhibition is free and open to the public every Tuesday through Saturday, 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM. It will be open until May 27, 2009.

Originally published January 23, 2009.

The interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict has entered its latest round, and with it have come the now-familiar demonstrations around the world generally condemning—but occasionally supporting—Israel’s decision to go to war in Gaza. Earlier this month, Stanford saw a combination of the two, first with a vigil the night of January 8 and then a protest the afternoon of January 9, both organized by Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI). Emotions ran high at times, but as a whole, both events ran relatively smoothly.

The vigil on Thursday night began with a “prayer for peace” by campus minister Geoff Browning. In it, he asked “The Holy One” for, among other things, “the gift of anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation.” After that, a contingent of the Raging Grannies (a so-called “activist organization” similar to Code Pink) led the group in obnoxious song, chanting that peace cannot come while Israel continues to bomb Gaza. Fadi Quran ’10, president of SCAI and a native of the West Bank, then invited everyone present to grab a candle and stand together in two minutes of silence for the victims on both sides of the conflict.

Unfortunately, the following purported information session proved to be far from objective. Two out of three of the speakers were anti-Israel Jews who used the platform to proclaim their support for Hamas and spout conspiracy theories. Anti-Israel Professor Joel Beinin was due to make an appearance, but illness prevented him from attending. In his place was the first presenter of the night, Professor Hilton Zimmerman, who identified himself as “an American Jew whose family was murdered by the Nazis.” Despite this background, he nonetheless felt compelled to publicly castigate the Jewish state. Zimmerman spoke for several minutes about the humanitarian issues in the current crisis before ending with the insightful comment that the last time he visited Gaza, it was “not a very happy place.”

Next up was the keynote speaker of the night, Professor Khalil Barhoum, coordinator of Stanford’s program of Middle Eastern and African Literatures, Cultures, and Languages. Barhoum gave a cookie-cutter anti-Israel presentation, decrying the “atrocious” and “inhumane” treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis without once mentioning the thousands of rockets that have been terrorizing southern Israel since 2005. He dismissed the notion that Israel was acting in self-defense, stating that it was, on the contrary, engaging in deliberate “delegitimization of the Palestinian leadership” and “dehumanization of the Palestinian people” in an “exact replay” of what it did to Yasser Arafat’s PLO in Lebanon in 1982. Barhoum concluded with more criticism of Israel’s past policies before ceding the stage to the most colorful figure of the evening.

The final speaker, local reporter Eduardo Cohen, was so radical that he made the other speakers look almost Zionist in comparison. This ‘self-hating Jew’ explained that his anti-Israel feelings began with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and have steadily grown ever since. He then launched into a long-winded rant claiming that the entire situation in Gaza today was created by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Cohen claimed that Sharon orchestrated Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip with the express purpose of igniting a Palestinian Civil War and thereby gaining an excuse to re-invade and kill as many Palestinians as possible. Despite this somewhat unorthodox point of view, he still managed to garner applause from the crowd at several points in his speech, especially when he praised Al Jazeera TV as “a more objective news network than all those in America put together.”

The vigil ended with short speeches by an Israeli community member and a Palestinian student, but the excitement continued with a rally in White Plaza at 1 PM the following day. Approximately fifty pro-Palestinian demonstrators and forty pro-Israel counter-demonstrators showed up, with the former carrying signs provided by the ANSWER Coalition declaring “The Real Terrorists U.S.-Israel” and “End the Massacre in Gaza.” The pro-Israel demonstrators held up homemade placards with statements such as “Let Israel Exist!” and “Ceasefire Now!” The Stanford Israel Alliance was also on hand distributing fliers presenting their side of the issue. One demonstrator, apparently aiming to be neutral, stood in between the crowds with a sign that stated, “The offensive is legal, but its conduct is highly problematic.”

Fadi Quran, who led and organized the Thursday night vigil, did the same for the protest. He began with an unorthodox move: asking the protesters from both sides to come together, shake hands, and hug. Both sides reluctantly complied, with the exception of several Israelis who refused to shake hands with Hamas supporters. Quran then gave a short speech about the crisis, briefly mentioning the rockets continuously fired at Israel by Hamas, and subsequently left the protesters to their own devices. The pro-Palestinian side began chants of “Free, free Palestine!” and “Free Gaza!” to which the pro-Israel side responded, “Free Gaza from Hamas!” This went on for roughly twenty minutes, interspersed with long interludes of relative silence, after which the two sides began to disperse.

Overall, the two events were nothing out of the ordinary for an American college campus in the current political climate. In fact, the events’ lack of blatant anti-Semitism or calls for genocide (as was the case at UC Irvine, for example, the same day as the Stanford protest) left them looking comparatively calm and even moderate. Despite this, it was still disappointing that the events presented such a one-sided view of the situation and mentioned the ongoing rocket attacks on southern Israel only once, and in passing. Perhaps some day it will be possible for both sides to take a step back and put the facts ahead of their emotions.

From the Students for an Open Society blog, January 16, 2009:

Pervez Musharraf, former president of Pakistan, spoke at Stanford’s Memorial Auditorium today, thanks to the ASSU Speakers’ Bureau and Stanford in Government.

The very first utterance Musharraf made, even before “Thank you for the introduction,” was “Bismillahi al-rahmani al-rahimi.” That is, “In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful.” This is the first sentence of every chapter of the Qur’an (except Chapter 9) and is the first line of the constitutions of many Islamic countries. By beginning with this line, Musharraf wanted everyone present to know that he was not only making his statements as a Muslim, but as a pious Muslim. I have never personally heard any speaker begin with this phrase, and I have heard many Muslims speak at Stanford, including a past president of the Shariah Scholars’ Association of North America.

Given this beginning, it is not surprising that Musharraf, throughout his speech, consistently refused to link terrorism to Islam in any way. Instead he singled out “Islamophobia” as “very dangerous” in the fight against terrorism. He spoke of the need to “uproot” the “tree of terrorism” and not merely cut off the “branches and leaves.” But what is the root cause of terrorism according to President Musharraf, former leader of one of the largest incubators of terrorism in the world? Illiteracy, desperation brought about by autocratic governments, and political grievances.

First of all, it is laughable that President Musharraf would condemn oppressive governments, having led one himself for nine years. Second, if illiteracy and desperation at heavy-handed government were truly the root causes of terrorism, we would be facing hundreds of millions of terrorists from Sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, we see Muslim doctors and medical students blow themselves up in order to kill innocent civilians around the world, from Scotland to Iraq. These people are far from illiterate or desperate. Now, to be fair, the illiterate masses in the Muslim world do provide fertile recruiting ground for radical groups. However, this is not a root cause of terrorism. This is merely a branch on Musharraf’s figurative tree. The root cause lies with the people doing the recruiting. They are motivated by something else.

That brings us to Musharraf’s third “root cause” of terrorism: political grievances. Musharraf singled out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dispute over Kashmir as particularly strong recruitment tools for Islamist terrorist organizations. If these conflicts were resolved (the first with a two-state solution, the second as the result of an unclear “peace process”), much, if not most, terrorism would end, according to Musharraf. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan have expressed similar views. That fact, however, does not make this outlook more correct. Does anyone truly believe that if, say, Israel did not exist, Iran would stop funding terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda would close up shop, and the hordes who cry “death to America” across the Middle East would magically disappear? Does anyone truly believe that, were but the Kashmir issue resolved, India’s 154 million Muslims would suddenly live in perfect harmony with their Hindu neighbors and relations between India and Pakistan would normalize overnight? This belief is mere fantasy.

But I digress. Musharraf continued his speech by affirming that the Pakistani army and intelligence service (ISI) are completely trustworthy organizations doing their best to fight Islamist terrorism under the leadership of the Pakistani government. He also stated that anyone who believes otherwise is sorely mistaken, since it is “in the best interest of Pakistan” to fight terrorism; the people are tired of the constant bombings and death. ISI’s history makes this statement hard to believe. Take a look at this backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations for a roundup of the accusations leveled at the group.

After his speech, Musharraf faced what could be termed an interrogation by political science professor Scott Sagan. Musharraf adroitly avoided answering every single question. The most notable question asked was regarding Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group that has been accused of carrying out the attacks in Mumbai last November and has suspected ties to ISI. Musharraf’s answer was to bring up the bombing of the Samjhauta Express (a train that goes between India and Pakistan) in 2007, which was supposedly perpetrated by a radical Hindu colonel in the Indian Army. Even if this charge is true, it does not change the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba (let alone the dozens of other terrorist groups based in Pakistan) has conducted numerous deadly attacks in recent years, including the2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Varanasi bombings, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, and the 2006 blasts at Malegaon. Musharraf made no mention of these attacks.

Professor Sagan then opened the floor for the audience to ask questions. Indian and Pakistani students rushed to the microphones to grill Musharraf on the toughest issues facing their respective countries and the region as a whole. Unsurprisingly, Musharraf repeatedly denied that Pakistan was responsible for any of the region’s ills, stated that all of his actions as dictator were taken in accordance with the Pakistani constitution, and blamed India for the recent deterioration in relations between the two countries. He went so far as to state that India “wants war,” claiming that a “war hysteria” had swept through the country. He added, ominously, that Pakistan “does not want war,” but would not shy away from it if it was thrust upon it.

Two students asked questions about Islamist terrorism, the first asking why most terrorist acts around the world are perpetrated by Muslims, and the second asking how we can fight terrorism while remaining respectful towards Islam. After stating that the number of attacks carried out by Muslims “needs to decline,” Musharraf once again brought up the Israeli-Palestinian issue, arguing that if that issue were resolved, “extremism” would see a sharp decline. He also brought up the Samjhauta Express bombing again as an example of non-Islamist terrorism.

Overall, Musharraf’s presentation was disappointing, especially because of his refusal even to name Islamism as a vitally important factor in Pakistan’s recent destabilization. He instead only referred to “terrorism” or “extremism” and made only one passing reference to Pakistan’s 13,000 madrasas, or Qur’an schools, which are notorious for serving as incubators for radicalism and terrorism. Musharraf’s insistence that most of the region’s problems were the fault of India was also disheartening.

Nevertheless, it was enlightening to hear about these issues from someone so deeply involved in them, and it was encouraging that my fellow students had the courage to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. I wouldn’t mind seeing more of that spirit on this campus.