Web 2.0... The Double-edged Sword for Peace in the Arab World

If we listen carefully, we can hear the beat of drums just beneath the great din of our technological age. The Web, being the height of humanity’s collective achievement, has become the battleground for the minds of men.
The victors shall decide whether our earth shall be ruled by fear, or reason.

The Arab world is one of the fastest growing Internet markets in the world. It is also a land dominated by religious, racial, and social fanaticism.

In all but the most advanced Arab countries; misinformation, intolerance, and war mongering permeate the social structure. Beginning with the nuclear family, to religious communities, all the way to the institutions of government; many Arabs live their lives isolated from any ideas that have run the gauntlet of comparative analysis.

Should we assume that all this misunderstanding, ignorance and blind hatred will immediately be assuaged by the ubiquitous availability of the Internet? Won’t democracy and inter-racial cooperation be the inevitable result of the limitless interpersonal communication the new web affords? Well, many people believe exactly that. While I share their belief in the supremacy of reason; I’m concerned that the grip of fundamentalism is likely to tighten before it falls limp. When these societies are empowered with this magnitude of social connectivity, it vastly increases the ability of fanatics to reach those minds that are up for grabs. To be sure, the intellectuals are also empowered, but they are also greatly outnumbered.

Even in our own marketplace, the most meritorious ideas can be lost in the cloud of noise. Consider the staggering number of conspiracy theory sites and blogs. Such sites vary in their content from the plausible to the incredible, and their audience size ranges from laughable to the phenomenal. In the cases of the more incredible among them, the relative worthlessness of the idea does not prevent the idea from reaching large numbers of people.

I suggest that the inevitable diffusion of the Internet into the Second and Third world will bring a wave of peace, but that peace will be preceded by an inescapable (albeit fleeting) dominance of fanaticism.

The majority of the third world is ruled by a predisposition for action (i.e. totalitarian efficiency) as opposed to the First world predisposition to discourse (or, if you like, sluggish bureaucracy). The difference between the loosely defined worlds will be highlighted by the power of the new web. In our world the web has streamlined our bureaucracy, allowing the existing discourse to happen at an exponentially faster rate. In the Third world, the first thing to be streamlined will be the ability of fanatics to rally support.

I predict that fanaticism will eventually fall to reason. However, we must accept that the eventual Arabian renaissance will be preceded by darker times. Waves of fanatical enterprises will attempt to artificially recreate the Arabian Golden Age. Just as in post-war Germany, Hitler tried to force the birth of the Third Reich, similar attempts to domesticate minds of men are forever destined to catastrophic failure.

The only road to wisdom is age. The only road to knowledge is education. Man can neither wish himself a sage, nor will himself a scholar. The only road to peace is arduous discourse. Mankind can only reconcile his differences on the uncompromising and level battlefield of reason.

Battle of Berkley, the Devil's Side

Citizens of Berkley California are protesting the presence of U.S. Marine recruiters in their traditionally liberal and peace-loving city. It is fashionable to side with the Marines. After all, an all-volunteer force requires broad recruiting. Some go further, criticizing the citizens of Berkley as ungratefully undermining the very people that keep our country free. As a member of the armed services, and a lover of sporting debate, I feel inclined to advocate the Devil.

In the first place, many people too trivially assume that an all-volunteer force is good for our country. More the 60,000 American Sons lost their lives in Vietnam, many of them sacrificed against their will. The great injustice felt by the country led to the suspension of the draft, but I wonder if we missed the point. Might the draft be the very thing that keeps us from getting involved in such a war again? After all, when we might pay for our apathy with our lives; we are much more likely to hold our government to the standard of our best interests.

The image of the ungrateful citizen is a little one-sided as well. The claim that the military keeps our country free, while encouraging to the esprit de corps, is quite the bleak assessment of the republic. I should hope that our continued liberty is the result of our willingness to fight for it intellectually. Our struggle should be to create symbiotic international relationships driven by mutual benefit, that is, not by intimidation. Military might is the worst possible way to achieve freedom. Perhaps this is the reason why our founding fathers were so suspicious of the idea of a standing army.

The people of Berkley have intentionally built a community of peace loving, liberal idealists. From their point of view, allowing the presence of military recruiters is tantamount to an endorsement of their country’s militant foreign policy. There is a current trend to accuse all dissenters as “undermining the troops”. This sentiment implies that without the public support, we will think we cannot win this war. In truth, we already won the war for Iraqi Freedom. The War for Iraqi independence is not ours to fight.

Shine forth The Light

Smoke on the Horizon

I have looked out many windows. I have stood a top many mountains. I have heard the call of many birds. Today I looked out a window, and beheld something I will never forget.

In the land between two rivers in the dessert, a great oasis of life and fertility has existed since this land was young. These places have had many names, especially the city I am in today. ‘Baghdad’ is a Persian word. My friend tells me it means either the jungle or the garden that ‘is given’. If it is in fact "the garden that is given" (implicitly by God) you could make a reasonable argument that to a Persian, Baghdad means ‘Garden of Eden’.

It makes sense when you think about it. This whole area is the lush garden or jungle between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Such a large oasis in the relatively arid land of the Arabian peninsula would surely have been thought of as a gift from God.


I had this conversation with my friend atop a tower in Baghdad. My Iraqi friend was sad in his quiet accepted way. He told me of the ancient world, and the shame of war that has come to it. We talked about the state of this great planet, given by God unto man. God's creation, this beautiful and mystical land is God's greatest revelation to us. And so I come to my sorrow today.

I have looked out many windows. I have stood a top many mountains. Today I heard the distant call of a raven and when I looked out my window I saw smoke... smoke rising from the Trees of Eden.

Shine Forth the Light

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. General Kerr did both.

Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr caused a scandal at the Republican You Tube debate last week. He challenged the candidates with a question demanding that gays be allowed to serve in the military. It was discovered, later that he was on a steering committee for Gay issues in the Clinton campaign. General Kerr has said that he is still evaluating who he will vote for, and I believe his association with Clinton is because she is listening to his issue. I don’t believe that makes him ‘her man’.

As a Soldier I believe that a retired General, has earned the right to speak on his own merit. He is a gay man who took the high rode. He hid in the military so he could serve his country. Now years later, after faithful service, he says that he felt that the army was wrong to make him stay secretive. He has every right to feel this way, and I support his position that Soldiers are professionals able to work with gays in the workplace.

Fight the smear campaign against him as a ‘political pawn’. Generals are not pawns, he has earned the right to scream his outrage from the rooftops.

Homosexuals in the Military

Homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military.

The very first Amendment to the United States Constitution, was intended to grant citizens the rights of free expression, especially as it pertains to their spirituality. By forbidding Congress to establish an official religion, it specifically baptizes the new nation as a secular nation. The founding fathers believed that the republic was best served when all mankind was free to pursue spirituality as they see fit.

There is no more important spiritual expression then the choice of a life partner. Our partners act as a balance, and keep us true to ourselves. They are moments of the divine alight in the body of another. They guide us, inspire us, comfort us, and kick us in the ass when it becomes necessary.

The idea that this fulfilling spiritual relationship cannot exist between homosexuals is absurd to many. Still many others believe that it is a sinful and unnatural relationship. What ever your position, you must accept that your conviction is a spiritual one. It is a matter of what you believe about human spirituality.

This should not be used as a basis to refuse homosexuals entrance into the military. As a Soldier, I believe it is the right of any citizen, some might say the duty, but at least the right, to serve their nation. The ideal of our “Sacred Honor” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence should be held high over a primarily Christian condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle.

Undoubtedly, there are practical issues surrounding the inclusion of gays in the military. All of them must be overcome. Those in the military incapable of discretionary thinking should be phased out anyway. This is about right and wrong, and defending the Sacred Honor of standing up for something. They have the right to serve and the military must accommodate them.

Cowardice in the State Department

I must say that over the past 5 years, a lot of people have accused their respective opponents of not supporting the troops. Someone wants a huge expenditure authorized for the war. Their opponent refuses to agree because he wants to know that there is an end in sight. Inevitably, the first guy will accuse the second guy of “not supporting the troops.”

Another popular slander is made of anyone that says the war is unjust, a waste of lives and treasure, or cannot be won. . Their opponents will say they are undermining the troops and even giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I don’t really take much offence to this type of thing; I see it as politicians doing what they feel is best. Even if they are wrong, they are trying.

I was recently offended by a member of the Department of State (DOS). I saw him on CNN complaining to some spokesman of DOS. “An assignment to Iraq can be tantamount to a death sentence and you know that.” WELL SWEET JESUS CONNECTICUT CHRIST! If you will forgive me a moment of vulgar expression, It would seem that a department of the United States Government has decided that it is dangerous in Iraq. He then went on to complain about how DOS is putting their families welfare in danger…Blah Blah Blah.

I can handle my service being used as a political pawn. What I can’t handle are members of the Department of State, by the way the branch of government responsible for representing America to the world, acting like cowards. That’s right I said it, and you should to. This country has never needed diplomats more in Iraq. With all there CNN interviews saying ‘there needs to be a diplomatic solution’ they cower and whine on national television. I’m offended and every diplomat should feel shame for the dishonor their brother has brought

NOTE: In accordance with Article 88 of the UCMJ, this literature is not intended as contempt for any elected official or duly appointed officer of the U.S. Government.

The Sound Byte Media

When I was young I remember hearing people ask, “Did you see the news last night?”. I am fortunate to remember, barely, a time before cable news. With war so common in the last 50 years the 24 hour news networks provide content to the most influential in society. The evidence of this is in the commercials. Notice that CNN is broadcasted with luxury cars, designer drugs and financial firms as their advertisers.

Coming with the age of the 24 hour news channel is the age of the internet. The fore-mentioned question has been replaced with “Did you hear about (some specific story)”. The internet has made people more and more aware of the world around them. It has also necessitated a new type of filtering. Citizens of the digital world are even more required to submit everything they hear to their own internal sense of Truth. Our politicians, however, are quite far behind in this process. Politicians still expect people to believe what they are told at face value. Unfortunately, this style of talking to the public still works for a majority of Americans.

An example of this is clear in President Bush’s treatment of President Ahmadinejad. When the Iranian president spoke to Columbia University, he said many things. The television media concentrated on very few. Among them was his assertion that the nation of Israel should be “wiped off the map”. If one were to listen to the address at Columbia, they would find that he was not talking about physical destruction. He meant quite literally political destruction. Literally interpreted “wiped off the map” refers to the changing of the political boundaries on a map. He believes that the west was unjust in their forcefully forming, and funding of Israel after World War II. He stated that the Palestinians have been put in an untenable situation because the west, primarily England and the U.S., have armed the Israelis, giving them an unfair political and military advantage. Whether or not you agree with him, we must admit a fair point for debate when we see it. I was most disturbed to hear my President interpret his comments so as to hint that he said “If we had the ability we would Nuke Israel.”

Most people can tell you only a few things about the President of Iran. Not many can even pronounce his name. You will hear that he denied the holocaust. You will hear that he executes homosexuals as well as women who speak there mind. You will hear that he wants to destroy Israel. Whether or not any one of these things is true, it is quite dangerous to believe them blindly without any tangible evidence. It is the same as believing that President Bush invaded Iraq to steal all the oil. The world is not as simple as our sound byte media would have you believe.

Sen. John Kerry lost an election because the Republicans were able to convince millions that he was a flip-flopper. They even went so far as to bring ninety-nine cent sandals to the national convention and wave them in the air. Honestly, I thought it was pretty lame and simple minded, the stunt embarrassed me as a human. Seriously though, isn’t the ability to dynamically react to complex situations desirable in the leader of the free world? Should not the Commander of the worlds most awesome military power be capable of changing his mind based on information contrary to his original premise?

If our great country is to succeed in the new millennium, we must have a higher reverence for the Truth even if means not fully understanding a situation. We must be prepared to look at a situation, and consider whether we have simplified too much to feel comfortable with it.

Shine Forth