Showing posts with label Shi'ite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shi'ite. Show all posts

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Insurmountable Challenges Plague the Middle East Today

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Mideast turmoil. This follows this post about Facebook and Transgendered people. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

While the Arab-Jewish conflict remains the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East, other grave conflicts that torment this region have their origins in ancient history.
The division between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam goes back to shortly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in A.D. 632 and centers on who were to be his rightful successors. While they are at times at peace, centuries of dislike and distrust between the two sometimes breaks out into violence, as the world has witnessed in recent years in Iraq.
About 85 percent of Muslims are Sunni, but some countries in the Middle East are predominantly Shiite, notably Iran, Yemen, Azerbaijan and Bahrain. Iraq is also about 60 percent Shiite, but was ruled by a Sunni for decades—Ahmad Al-Bakr and then Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led invasion of the country has led to Shiites playing a more significant role and could mean a close relationship between Iraq and Iran in the future.
Iran has been under the rule of Islamic fundamentalists since 1979 and is now trying to acquire nuclear weapons, which would drastically alter the balance of power in the region. Not only does Israel feel threatened by this development, but so do the countries adhering to Sunni Islam, notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.
Iran's influence extends far beyond its borders, into Iraq and other countries. In Lebanon, the infamous Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah is supported by Iran. The Iranians also support the radical Hamas movement, which rules the Palestinians in Gaza and also has considerable support among those in the West Bank. Many Western nations, including the United States, Canada and the European Union, have declared Hamas a terrorist organization.
Radical Islam first gained world attention in modern times in the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew the pro-Western shah of Iran. Iran became a theocratic republic under the domination of the ayatollahs, the religious leaders. Iran's influence has spread far and wide, even into Sunni Islam.
Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, is of radical Sunni origin. It operates to the east of Iran in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The former rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban, gave refuge to al-Qaeda before, during and after the attacks of 9/11, but were defeated during the U.S.-led invasion of the country later the same year. Still, the Taliban continues to fight against coalition forces in the country.
At the same time, there are various other regional conflicts. Egypt's southern neighbor Sudan has had an ongoing civil war for most of the years since independence from Britain in 1956. Somalia has spent the last two decades in an ungovernable state. Yemen suffers from intertribal conflict. And Lebanon's various factions often flare up.
In addition to these ongoing conflicts that could explode and become far worse at any time, many Islamic nations in the region suffer under cruel and despotic dictatorships that lack the support of their own people. This has enabled radical Muslims to gain influence as they work among the common people and provide them with needs their governments don't. So there's an ever-present danger of radical Islam spreading and gaining power in different countries.
It is difficult to find a country in the region that is truly stable other than Israel, which is constantly threatened by external conflict. Israel is so small it has to win every single war it fights—for if it loses one, it may cease to exist!
We should also note that Turkey, the country with the closest ties to the West after Israel (and formerly a good friend of the Jewish state), seems to be changing course and turning away from the West. A member of NATO since 1952, Turkey has been seeking membership in the European Union for more than 20 years, having first applied for acceptance on April 14, 1987. Although there is considerable support from some European countries to Turkey's membership, there is also a lot of opposition, notably from Germany.
On top of the divisive rejection from Europe, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted March 5 to proclaim Turkey's suppression of Armenians in 1915 an act of genocide rather than an act of war, as the Turks claim. This will undoubtedly have a negative effect on U.S.-Turkish relations. Turkey for some months has been pursuing closer relations with other Islamic nations at the expense of the United States, the European Union and Israel. This is likely to continue.
The entire Middle East region, culturally and religiously extending into North Africa and South Asia, continues to be very volatile, with no sign of this abating.
While the biblically prophesied end-time “king of the South” could arise as a result of tumult in the region, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a separate issue, one which has caused a number of wars since the birth of Israel in 1948. It remains the world's most dangerous unresolved issue in the world's most dangerous region. GN

You might also be interested in...

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Shi'ite or Sunni: Who Will Dominate the Middle East?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Sunni-Shi'ite conflict. This follows this post about Armageddon. This follows this post about Star Wars. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
 
 
With the shifting sands of the Middle East and North Africa, the United States appears to be losing its ability to shape events in the region. Things are certainly looking bad for the state of Israel. In fact, with so many contending over this region, things are looking bleaker and more dangerous for everyone.
Last year's so-called “Arab Spring” saw dissident groups of vastly different overall aims coming together to remove dictatorial regimes. But that temporary unity based on sharing a common enemy is already beginning to unravel.
Where are the geopolitical changes in the region headed? Let's consider five factors underlying the major power shifts underway.

Islamists dominate newly elected parliaments

Post-uprising elections have swept political Islamists into office. These have garnered the vast majority of seats in parliaments in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Kuwait.
The same will likely occur in the up-coming Libyan elections, where Islamist strains run through almost all parties. And Yemen's new Muslim president will likely be joined by Islamists coming to power in parliamentary elections.
Egypt's presidential elections scheduled for May 23 and 24 may see the Islamists' newfound political power in parliament at work as kingmakers push for their selected candidate. Furthermore, Islamists in parliament are determined to curtail the president's powers in the next constitution, giving more say in the running of the country to the legislature they now dominate.
(The interim caretaker prime minister and cabinet the military rulers installed are expected to relinquish power this summer. But the diminishing of the military's power in dominating the government is expected to be a gradual process.)
In Egypt and elsewhere Islamists are winning because they have the most organized networks to mobilize voters, are the most trusted public or political groups, and have a track record of challenging oppressive or autocratic regimes.
Muslim Brotherhood offshoots in Libya and Syria, where they have suffered persecution from the government for decades, recently established political parties in anticipation of future elections.
Cairo-based journalist John Bradley, authorof After the Arab Spring: How Islamists Hijacked the Middle East Revolutions (2012), argues that the Islamist groups that have taken power in the Middle East are here to stay—with dire prospects for liberal democracy anywhere in the region. Asked in Zócalo Public Square online magazine whether some Islamist groups have already peaked, giving room for secular agendas to grow in the future, he responded:
“The opposite is true. It's secularism and liberalism that have peaked in the Arab world. Remember, [Iraq's] Saddam Hussein was a secularist, as was [Yemen's] Ali Abdullah Saleh, [Egypt's] Hosni Mubarak, [Libya's] Colonel Gaddafi, and [Tunisia's] Ben Ali. It's therefore not difficult to understand why most Arabs now associate secularism and liberalism with corruption, torture, tyranny, poverty, and a lack of dignity … That's the vacuum now being filled by political Islam. What will happen in the long-term nobody can predict. But the medium-term belongs to the Islamists” (“What Moderate Islamism?” March 4, 2012).
This does not bode well for the West in general and Israel in particular. Islamists in general are more hostile than secularists to peace with Israel and are supportive of Hamas, the terror organization now governing the Gaza Strip.

Sunni Crescent vs. Shiite Crescent

Regional geopolitics pit the powerful “Sunni Crescent” led by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against the beleaguered “Shiite Crescent” states—Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.
Barry Rubin, director of global research in the International Affairs Center in Israel, sizes up the strategic battle for influence in The Jerusalem Post: “The new Middle East strategic battle is heating up, and this is only the start. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with two more serious lines of battle: Arabs versus Persians [of Iran] and Sunni versus Shia Muslims …
“The real struggle is over who will control each Muslim majority country and who is going to lead the Middle East … The Sunni Arab position was stated very clearly by Amr Moussa, a veteran Arab nationalist and candidate for Egypt's presidency: '(The) Arab Middle East will not be run by Iran or Turkey'” (“The Region: The New Middle East's Internal Divisions,” March 4, 2012).
Rubin later clarifies what is emerging: “What we are seeing again, for the first time in three decades … is an Egyptian bid to lead the Arabic-speaking world and even the whole region. On this point, Egyptian leftists, nationalists and Islamists are united.
“And in the first round, the battle over control of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, Egypt won and Iran lost.” (See “Hamas' Shifting Allegiance Reflects New Mideast Dynamics”)
Egypt is the largest Arab country, with a population of 83 million, and has long had a major influence on the region. Now that Islamists have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house and nearly as many in the upper, this fundamentalist orientation will likely be a major influence on the growing number of Islamic governments in the region.

Regional geopolitical jockeying

As Hamas and Egypt push for regional influence, other regional players are doing the same. In its annual forecast, the global intelligence service Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting) pointed out that Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are involved in a dance for dominance in the shifting political sands of the region:
“Iran's efforts to expand its influence will be the primary issue for the Middle East in 2012. The U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has rendered Iran the pre-eminent military power in the Persian Gulf … Turkey, Iran's natural regional counterweight, is rising steadily, albeit slowly” (“Annual Forecast 2012,” Jan. 20, 2012).
Turkey, the report states, will continue to face significant challenges to its regional ascendency due to instability near its borders. It continues its efforts to mold an opposition in Syria, counterbalance Iranian sway in Iraq and influence the rise of political Islamists, particularly in Egypt and Syria. But analysts don't see it making much headway.
Stratfor also explains how Iran affects Saudi Arabia's push for regional dominance: “Iran's regional expansion will be felt most deeply by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals now doubt that the United States has the ability or the willingness to fully guarantee Riyadh's interests. Adding to Saudi Arabia's vulnerabilities, the Gulf Cooperation Council states fear that if Iran is not contained within Iraq, it will exploit continued Shiite unrest in Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia's Shia-concentrated, oil-rich Eastern Province.”
Saudi Arabia is leading efforts to shore up and consolidate the defenses of Gulf Cooperation Council members to try to ward off the threat posed by Iran. But those efforts will not be a sufficient replacement for America's role as a security guarantor.
Stratfor goes on to examine the tug-of-war underway in Iraq and Syria: “The effects of Iran's expansion efforts will be most visible in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, Iran's main challenge is to consolidate Shiite power among several competing groups.
“As Iraq's fractured Shiite leadership tries to solidify its influence with Iranian support, Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish factions increasingly will be put on the defensive. This ethno-sectarian struggle and the security vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal will degrade Iraq's overall security conditions.
“Meanwhile, Turkey will attempt to contain the spread of Iranian influence in northern Iraq by building up political, economic, military and intelligence assets.”
The fight in Syria is really two contests in one. It's a struggle between Syrians over the nature of their government and society, but it's also a regional rivalry between Iran and its adversaries, as Stratfor explains:
“In Syria, the ultimate goal of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States will be to disrupt Iran's Shiite arc of influence by trying to crack Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime. However, without direct foreign military intervention, the Syrian regime is unlikely to collapse.”
Even the normally feeble 22 nations of the Arab League took unprecedented actions in calling for the Assad regime to leave and hosted a “Friends of Syria” meeting to try to gain support for boycotts and possible military assistance.
The League pushed hard for a resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling on Assad to step aside, but even a watered-down version calling for a cease-fire and talks was blocked by Russia and China.
Also, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all calling on Assad to go. But as of this writing they remain ambivalent about direct military action, although Saudi Arabia is providing some arms to the rebels.
Syria's ties to Iran complicate its status in the Middle East's power balance. The two countries are commercial partners, have signed a mutual defense agreement and in the past have supported the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas, which act against Israel. As pointed to above, the tie to Iran is undoubtedly a major factor in the Arab states calling for Assad's departure.
Unlike the other Arab Spring uprisings, Syria's rebels do not reflect a sweeping cross-culture movement. There is still a large segment of the populace remaining loyal to Assad, so the fighting is likely to be protracted.
Writing in Foreign Policy, journalist Nir Rosen explains the Islamic base of the revolt in Syria: “Syria's uprising is not a secular one. Most participants are devout Muslims inspired by Islam. By virtue of Syria's demography most of the opposition is Sunni Muslim and often come from conservative areas. The death of the Arab left means religion has assumed a greater role in daily life throughout the Middle East” (“Islamism and the Syrian Uprising,” March 8, 2012).

Big stakes for the big powers

In addition to the regional forces vying for dominance in the Middle East, the Arab Spring has sparked a global tussle as well. It has become a springboard for big-power geopolitics among the world's greatest military powers—America, Russia and China.
Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has yet to adjust to the post-Soviet reality, and Russia has not settled on its relationship with the rest of the world. And China's growing economic and military prowess means it has a greater need for vital Middle East oil but also the means to secure what it needs.
Syria has emerged as a key battleground for a Cold War–style tug-of-war between these powers. Russia sent warships to discourage foreign intervention in Syria. China has sent emissaries to Syria to try to broker a cease-fire deal and is being drawn more deeply into Iran's confrontation with the West. And America has less and less influence in the region.
Syria is often called Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East. The relationship between them goes back four decades. It formed the centerpiece of the Soviet position in the region during the Cold War, the Soviets then equipping and training the Syrian military.
Moscow today continues to arm and politically shield the Assad regime. The Russians are intent on keeping their only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus. In addition, Russia is thought to have major economic interests in Syria, including arms contracts and plans for nuclear energy cooperation.
But America seems equally determined to see a pro-Western regime in Damascus. This has created diplomatic tensions with Russia and China who oppose measures that could lead to military intervention or forced regime change in Syria.
Russia sent at least three guided missile frigates—reportedly loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles—to Syria. Russia's main interest in blocking UN sanctions against the Assad regime is to prevent NATO intervention in Syria and to keep the country in its sphere of influence.

The threat of nuclear attack and proliferation

Just as Russia's approach to the Middle East is at a turning point, Iran seems as determined as ever to move ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of America, Israel and the rest of the West—and the broader world. Even Russia and China oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
Iranian society 33 years ago was steeped in revolutionary fervor. Today it suffers from revolutionary fatigue. This is one reason Iran's 2009 uprising did not have the same durability as the popular uprisings that have unsettled and unseated numerous Arab dictatorships. People may aspire for revolutionary ends, but there's no romanticism about it and a limited appetite for it.
Iran has been a quasi-theocracy since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It has been at odds with America and the West for much of that time.
Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for its annihilation as an existential threat. Israeli leaders maintain that a decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities will have to occur by the time Iran is on the verge of shielding these facilities from attack—what they call the “zone of immunity.”
Some experts oppose an attack because they claim that even a successful strike would, at best, delay Iran's nuclear program for only a few years.
Many experts believe the greatest threat associated with the Iranian nuclear program is that it might trigger a regional nuclear arms race that would be deeply destabilizing and would dramatically increase the risk of a weapon falling into irresponsible or fanatical hands.
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, has said that nothing is off the table when it comes to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after meeting with Obama, acknowledged that differences still exist in the Israeli and American timetables for contending with the Iranian nuclear program, as reported by The New York Times:
“Mr. Netanyahu reiterated the point he had sought to make forcefully in Washington: that if Iran did not change course, Israel, which considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence, would not allow itself to be in a position where its fate was left in others' hands” (“Netanyahu Says U.S. and Israeli 'Clocks' Differ on Iran's Threat,” March 9, 2012).
Negotiation efforts are underway to try to come to a diplomatic solution. The six-power talks with Iran include the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. Obama was hoping talks would help quiet the “drums of war.” But others think the Iranians' agreement to these talks is just a false show of cooperation while their nuclear development still goes on.
Reuters news agency reports on the U.S. stance: “'Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,' [U.S. Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta told the annual policy conference of the biggest U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. 'But make no mistake, when all else fails, we will act'” (“Obama Says New Iran Talks Should Calm 'Drums of War,'” March 6, 2012).

Regional transformation will lead to what is foretold

What all this adds up to is that these multilayered shifting sands of domestic, regional and global forces blowing through the Middle East and North Africa are changing the region more dramatically than at any time in the last half century.
The factors underlying the major power shifts carry long-term effects, creating a dramatically different Middle East than what this generation has known.
And there's another source to help us see what's happening. Bible prophecy reveals how all these shifting forces will eventually play out.
The Arab Spring uprisings, in the short term, have focused the Arab world's attention on the changes swirling around them and away from their longtime nemesis—Israel. But, as prophecy lays out, the persistent hatred of Israel will in the long run grow exponentially as Islamic influence grows. Prophecies indicate that a more united group of Arab nations, perhaps sparked by religious zeal, will focus their rekindled hostility toward Israel.
This hostility will grow to a major crescendo leading to all-out war as we approach the end of this age. Psalm 83 contains an intriguing prophecy that shows a number of Middle Eastern countries forming a confederation of nations determined to cut off Israel from being a nation (verses 3-8).
Out of this region will arise a strong end-time leader Daniel the prophet calls “the king of the South”—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Egypt (Daniel 11:40). This ruler, probably backed by other Islamic nations joined in confederacy with him, will start the cascade of terrifying events leading to a massive war with the power and ruler the Bible refers to as “the king of the North”—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Syria.
This power is synonymous with the final revival of the Roman Empire referred to in Scripture as the Beast—which will consist of a brief union of 10 nations (Revelation 17:12-14).
The forces of the North, Europe at this time, will sweep down through the Middle East in a major military counterattack that will overthrow the southern power and occupy key portions of the Middle East (Daniel 11:40-41). (See also “The Middle East: Focus of End-Time Bible Prophecy”)
Ultimately, however, this European power and other eastern forces arrayed against it will resist the return of Jesus Christ as coming King and will suffer utter defeat (Revelation 16:12-14; 17:14; 19:11-21). (Our free Bible study aid booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy gives more details.)
In the meantime, Jesus tells all of us to stay on the alert to events heralding His coming (Matthew 24:42; Luke 21:36). One major indicator we should be watching for is the rise of a unifying force and leader in the Middle East. Keep your eyes and interests fastened on significant developments in this critically important region.

You might also be interested in...

The hope that a democratic Iraq will exert a powerfully stabilizing influence...
We need to understand what's prophesied to happen in the Middle East because...

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

America's balance of power in the Middle East

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com about America's balance of power in the Middle East. This follows this post about the Sunni and Shi'ite war in the Middle East. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please  follow me here.

Coming to Terms With the American Empire

By George Friedman
"Empire" is a dirty word. Considering the behavior of many empires, that is not unreasonable. But empire is also simply a description of a condition, many times unplanned and rarely intended. It is a condition that arises from a massive imbalance of power. Indeed, the empires created on purpose, such as Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, have rarely lasted. Most empires do not plan to become one. They become one and then realize what they are. Sometimes they do not realize what they are for a long time, and that failure to see reality can have massive consequences.

World War II and the Birth of an Empire

The United States became an empire in 1945. It is true that in the Spanish-American War, the United States intentionally took control of the Philippines and Cuba. It is also true that it began thinking of itself as an empire, but it really was not. Cuba and the Philippines were the fantasy of empire, and this illusion dissolved during World War I, the subsequent period of isolationism and the Great Depression.
The genuine American empire that emerged thereafter was a byproduct of other events. There was no great conspiracy. In some ways, the circumstances of its creation made it more powerful. The dynamic of World War II led to the collapse of the European Peninsula and its occupation by the Soviets and the Americans. The same dynamic led to the occupation of Japan and its direct governance by the United States as a de facto colony, with Gen. Douglas MacArthur as viceroy.
The United States found itself with an extraordinary empire, which it also intended to abandon. This was a genuine wish and not mere propaganda. First, the United States was the first anti-imperial project in modernity. It opposed empire in principle. More important, this empire was a drain on American resources and not a source of wealth. World War II had shattered both Japan and Western Europe. The United States gained little or no economic advantage in holding on to these countries. Finally, the United States ended World War II largely untouched by war and as perhaps one of the few countries that profited from it. The money was to be made in the United States, not in the empire. The troops and the generals wanted to go home.
But unlike after World War I, the Americans couldn't let go. That earlier war ruined nearly all of the participants. No one had the energy to attempt hegemony. The United States was content to leave Europe to its own dynamics. World War II ended differently. The Soviet Union had been wrecked but nevertheless it remained powerful. It was a hegemon in the east, and absent the United States, it conceivably could dominate all of Europe. This represented a problem for Washington, since a genuinely united Europe — whether a voluntary and effective federation or dominated by a single country — had sufficient resources to challenge U.S. power.
The United States could not leave. It did not think of itself as overseeing an empire, and it certainly permitted more internal political autonomy than the Soviets did in their region. Yet, in addition to maintaining a military presence, the United States organized the European economy and created and participated in the European defense system. If the essence of sovereignty is the ability to decide whether or not to go to war, that power was not in London, Paris or Warsaw. It was in Moscow and Washington.
The organizing principle of American strategy was the idea of containment. Unable to invade the Soviet Union, Washington's default strategy was to check it. U.S. influence spread through Europe to Iran. The Soviet strategy was to flank the containment system by supporting insurgencies and allied movements as far to the rear of the U.S. line as possible. The European empires were collapsing and fragmenting. The Soviets sought to create an alliance structure out of the remnants, and the Americans sought to counter them.

The Economics of Empire

One of the advantages of alliance with the Soviets, particularly for insurgent groups, was a generous supply of weapons. The advantage of alignment with the United States was belonging to a dynamic trade zone and having access to investment capital and technology. Some nations, such as South Korea, benefited extraordinarily from this. Others didn't. Leaders in countries like Nicaragua felt they had more to gain from Soviet political and military support than in trade with the United States.
The United States was by far the largest economic power, with complete control of the sea, bases around the world, and a dynamic trade and investment system that benefitted countries that were strategically critical to the United States or at least able to take advantage of it. It was at this point, early in the Cold War, that the United States began behaving as an empire, even if not consciously.
The geography of the American empire was built partly on military relations but heavily on economic relations. At first these economic relations were fairly trivial to American business. But as the system matured, the value of investments soared along with the importance of imports, exports and labor markets. As in any genuinely successful empire, it did not begin with a grand design or even a dream of one. Strategic necessity created an economic reality in country after country until certain major industries became dependent on at least some countries. The obvious examples were Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, whose oil fueled American oil companies, and which therefore — quite apart from conventional strategic importance — became economically important. This eventually made them strategically important.
As an empire matures, its economic value increases, particularly when it is not coercing others. Coercion is expensive and undermines the worth of an empire. The ideal colony is one that is not at all a colony, but a nation that benefits from economic relations with both the imperial power and the rest of the empire. The primary military relationship ought to be either mutual dependence or, barring that, dependence of the vulnerable client state on the imperial power.
This is how the United States slipped into empire. First, it was overwhelmingly wealthy and powerful. Second, it faced a potential adversary capable of challenging it globally, in a large number of countries. Third, it used its economic advantage to induce at least some of these countries into economic, and therefore political and military, relationships. Fourth, these countries became significantly important to various sectors of the American economy.

Limits of the American Empire

The problem of the American Empire is the overhang of the Cold War. During this time, the United States expected to go to war with a coalition around it, but also to carry the main burden of war. When Operation Desert Storm erupted in 1991, the basic Cold War principle prevailed. There was a coalition with the United States at the center of it. After 9/11, the decision was made to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq with the core model in place. There was a coalition, but the central military force was American, and it was assumed that the economic benefits of relations with the United States would be self-evident. In many ways, the post-9/11 wars took their basic framework from World War II. Iraq War planners explicitly discussed the occupation of Germany and Japan.
No empire can endure by direct rule. The Nazis were perhaps the best example of this. They tried to govern Poland directly, captured Soviet territory, pushed aside Vichy to govern not half but all of France, and so on. The British, on the other hand, ruled India with a thin layer of officials and officers and a larger cadre of businessmen trying to make their fortunes. The British obviously did better. The Germans exhausted themselves not only by overreaching, but also by diverting troops and administrators to directly oversee some countries. The British could turn their empire into something extraordinarily important to the global system. The Germans broke themselves not only on their enemies, but on their conquests as well.
The United States emerged after 1992 as the only global balanced power. That is, it was the only nation that could deploy economic, political and military power on a global basis. The United States was and remains enormously powerful. However, this is very different from omnipotence. In hearing politicians debate Russia, Iran or Yemen, you get the sense that they feel that U.S. power has no limits. There are always limits, and empires survive by knowing and respecting them.
The primary limit of the American empire is the same as that of the British and Roman empires: demographic. In Eurasia — Asia and Europe together — the Americans are outnumbered from the moment they set foot on the ground. The U.S. military is built around force multipliers, weapons that can destroy the enemy before the enemy destroys the relatively small force deployed. Sometimes this strategy works. Over the long run, it cannot. The enemy can absorb attrition much better than the small American force can. This lesson was learned in Vietnam and reinforced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a country of 25 million people. The Americans sent about 130,000 troops. Inevitably, the attrition rate overwhelmed the Americans. The myth that Americans have no stomach for war forgets that the United States fought in Vietnam for seven years and in Iraq for about the same length of time. The public can be quite patient. The mathematics of war is the issue. At a certain point, the rate of attrition is simply not worth the political ends.
The deployment of a main force into Eurasia is unsupportable except in specialized cases when overwhelming force can be bought to bear in a place where it is important to win. These occasions are typically few and far between. Otherwise, the only strategy is indirect warfare: shifting the burden of war to those who want to bear it or cannot avoid doing so. For the first years of World War II, indirect warfare was used to support the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union against Germany.
There are two varieties of indirect warfare. The first is supporting native forces whose interests are parallel. This was done in the early stages of Afghanistan. The second is maintaining the balance of power among nations. We are seeing this form in the Middle East as the United States moves between the four major regional powers — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey — supporting one then another in a perpetual balancing act. In Iraq, U.S. fighters carry out air strikes in parallel with Iranian ground forces. In Yemen, the United States supports Saudi air strikes against the Houthis, who have received Iranian training.
This is the essence of empire. The British saying is that it has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. That old cliche is, like most cliches, true. The United States is in the process of learning that lesson. In many ways the United States was more charming when it had clearly identified friends and enemies. But that is a luxury that empires cannot afford.

Building a System of Balance

We are now seeing the United States rebalance its strategy by learning to balance. A global power cannot afford to be directly involved in the number of conflicts that it will encounter around the world. It would be exhausted rapidly. Using various tools, it must create regional and global balances without usurping internal sovereignty. The trick is to create situations where other countries want to do what is in the U.S. interest.
This endeavor is difficult. The first step is to use economic incentives to shape other countries' behavior. It isn't the U.S. Department of Commerce but businesses that do this. The second is to provide economic aid to wavering countries. The third is to provide military aid. The fourth is to send advisers. The fifth is to send overwhelming force. The leap from the fourth level to the fifth is the hardest to master. Overwhelming force should almost never be used. But when advisers and aid do not solve a problem that must urgently be solved, then the only type of force that can be used is overwhelming force. Roman legions were used sparingly, but when they were used, they brought overwhelming power to bear.

The Responsibilities of Empire

I have been deliberately speaking of the United States as an empire, knowing that this term is jarring. Those who call the United States an empire usually mean that it is in some sense evil. Others will call it anything else if they can. But it is helpful to face the reality the United States is in. It is always useful to be honest, particularly with yourself. But more important, if the United States thinks of itself as an empire, then it will begin to learn the lessons of imperial power. Nothing is more harmful than an empire using its power carelessly.
It is true that the United States did not genuinely intend to be an empire. It is also true that its intentions do not matter one way or another. Circumstance, history and geopolitics have created an entity that, if it isn't an empire, certainly looks like one. Empires can be far from oppressive. The Persians were quite liberal in their outlook. The American ideology and the American reality are not inherently incompatible. But two things must be faced: First, the United States cannot give away the power it has. There is no practical way to do that. Second, given the vastness of that power, it will be involved in conflicts whether it wants to or not. Empires are frequently feared, sometimes respected, but never loved by the rest of the world. And pretending that you aren't an empire does not fool anyone.
The current balancing act in the Middle East represents a fundamental rebalancing of American strategy. It is still clumsy and poorly thought out, but it is happening. And for the rest of the world, the idea that the Americans are coming will become more and more rare. The United States will not intervene. It will manage the situation, sometimes to the benefit of one country and sometimes to another.
Share

Thursday, April 9, 2015

What Religious Days Do You Observe?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about religious worship. This follows this post about the U.S. and the Middle East. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for dontinued posts.


What Religious Days Do You Observe?


Friday, April 3, 2015 (All day)

What religious days do you keep? Easter? Passover? What does the New Testament say?


Media Download Options [ Download Media: right-click on link ]
filesVideo
MP4 Video
Video
MP4 Video - Low Quality
Audio
MP3 Audio - What Religious Days Do You Observe?

[Steve Myers] What religious days do you keep? In the New Testament you’ll find a couple of days that are mentioned that are God’s festivals that most Christians today don’t even observe. And yet, we’re given very specific instructions that we ought to be doing that. We can find them over in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, and in this particular passage – verse 6 begins to describe the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. And it says this: “Your glorying is not good. Don’t you know a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” Now, why talk about that? Well, he goes on and says, “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you are truly unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast,” he says, “not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians:6:5-8).
So the apostle Paul says very specifically, “Keep the feast”. Or some translations say, “Observe it”. Other translations say “Celebrate the feast”. So do you keep the Passover? Do you keep the Days of Unleavened Bread?
You know, back in the Old Testament, even Leviticus 23 tells us these aren’t any old days, that these are God’s feast days. They are the feasts of the Lord. And so, you ought to check it out. Check out what the Bible really says about the days that you should observe, and then when you find what it really says, well, keep it. Celebrate them. Observe the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread and all God’s festival days. Check them out – maybe something that you’ll be surprised to find out about.
That’s BT Daily . We’ll see you next time.
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

2015 - A Year of Triumph or Trial for America?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the U.S. and the Middle East. This follows this post about about religious libery. This follows this post about Iran. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.


2015 - A Year of Triumph or Trial for America?




After years of bad economic news, some think things are looking up for the United States. But are they? What troubling signs are on the horizon?

A man holding an American flag flapping in the wind.
Has America passed, or is it about to pass, that point of no return?

Source: Chandler Erisman/Snapwiresnaps
Millions of Americans have seen reasons to believe that 2015 is on track to being better than recent years. Economic forecasts are up. Crime is down. Lower oil prices translate into hundreds of dollars more per year in consumers’ pockets.
Yet while this is all good, should we also be paying attention to troubling signs on the horizon?
To be sure, some signs do indeed look promising. After the economic crisis of 2008-2009 and several years of sluggish recovery, U.S. economists are nearly unanimous in the estimates of robust economic growth in 2015, with most expecting 3 percent or greater.
This would translate into more good news for the job market. The unemployment rate is expected to continue to decline, with tens of thousands of new jobs created each month. And the gradual tightening of the labor force should give U.S. workers more leverage in wage negotiations, finally driving up wages that have been stagnant for years.
A solid growth rate should also translate into stock and bond market gains, as an improving economy translates into higher earnings for companies. A growing economy would prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which would help bond investors.
As mentioned, the nation can take some satisfaction in an improved crime situation. Federal Bureau of Investigation figures show a striking but positive trend: The rate of violent crime has dropped by nearly half since 1993. FBI data shows a decline in violent crime from a rate of 747 incidents per 100,000 in 1993 to 387 incidents per 100,000 in 2012, the most recent year for which complete data has been published.
Nearly every type of violent crime declined over the past 20 years, with homicides down 51 percent, forcible rape down 35 percent and robberies down 56 percent. Property crimes, such as burglary and vandalism, also dropped sharply.
Some U.S. cities are the safest they’ve been in decades. New York City of the 1970s was considered one of the most crime-infested cities in the nation. Since that time, however, the city’s crime rate has plummeted to where it is now considered safer than Dallas or Houston (Justin Wolfers, “Perceptions Haven’t Caught Up to Decline in Crime,” The New York Times , Sept. 16, 2014).
The good news is something to rejoice about. But before we start celebrating too loudly, we should ask ourselves: Are we seeing the complete picture? Or could we be closing our eyes to dangers we’d rather not think about?

Not-so-rosy economic figures

While some economic figures are encouraging, a number of others are highly sobering. For example, a Jan. 13, 2015, report by Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup, Inc., noted at the Gallup website that over the last six years, 70,000 more businesses have shut their doors than have opened.
He went on to explain: “When new businesses aren’t being born, the free enterprise system and jobs decline . . . Without a growing entrepreneurial economy, there are no new good jobs. That means declining revenues and smaller salaries to tax, followed by declining aid for the elderly and poor and declining funding for the military, for education, for infrastructure—declining revenues for everything.”
Going hand-in-hand with this, a New York Times article last year reported that over the previous decade, “the inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household” had declined 36 percent (Anna Bernasek, “The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third Less,” July 26, 2014).
A Jan. 16, 2015, Washington Post article noted the following shocking fact: “For the first time in at least 50 years, a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families . . . a statistic that has profound implications for the nation”(Lyndsey Layton, “Majority of U.S. Public School Students Are in Poverty”).
Further, a CNSnews.com headline on Dec. 10, 2014, stated, “65 Percent of Children Live in Households on Federal Aid Programs.” The total number, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, was more than 40 million.
Especially troubling is the skyrocketing U.S. government debt. According to the U.S. Treasury website, as of Jan. 1, 2005, total federal debt was just under $7.6 trillion. A decade later, at the beginning of 2015, debt stood at more than $18 trillion —a staggering increase of almost 140 percent, and more debt than the nation had accumulated in its entire previous history of almost 230 years!
Sadly, such figures are the tip of the iceberg in terms of the nation’s true financial picture. Making matters worse, on Feb. 2 President Obama presented a proposed 2016 fiscal year budget that would add another $1.44 trillion in taxes and another $6 trillion in debt over the next decade.

An island in a sea of turmoil

In spite of its financial problems, America could be likened to an island of relative peace and tranquility in a seething cauldron of worldwide unrest, where violence and hatred seem to be escalating everywhere.
The new year was barely one week old when two French-born Islamic terrorists of Algerian descent, brothers Cherif and Said Quache, stormed into the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7. Using automatic weapons with military precision, they gunned down 10 journalists and cartoonists, plus two policemen.
As they murdered a wounded Muslim policeman they shouted, “The prophet has been avenged!” Apparently they thought it was their Muslim duty to avenge any insult to the founder of Islam.
The murders had a chilling effect on press freedom, long a core belief of Western democracies. Major news organizations immediately began rethinking their editorial policies. At CNN, senior editorial director Richard Griffiths told staffers worldwide that Charlie Hebdo cartoons were not being shown on any CNN platforms, encouraging them instead to “verbally describe the cartoons in detail” (quoted at Politico, Jan. 7, 2015).
The Islamist terror organization al-Qaeda’s affiliate group in Yemen took responsibility for the Paris killings, which the French now refer to as their 9/11. Al-Qaeda has shown its ability to strike the major Western democracies, with nearly 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks on America in 2001 and 52 in England with the 2005 London subway bombings.
The sensational news of the attacks in France overshadowed other terrorist incidents that day—suicide bombings in Iraq that killed 23 people and a car bomb in Yemen that killed 38 and injured more than 60 others. These followed attacks in which an estimated 2,000 people were slaughtered by the Islamist group Boko Haram in northern Nigeria Jan. 3.
Very few realize that the Bible sitting on their bookshelf has something to say about these events. Speaking through Moses, God foretold events that would befall ancient Israel—and its modern-day descendants, particularly the major English-speaking peoples—for national rejection of His law:
“But if you will not listen to Me, and will not do all these commandments, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul hates My judgments . . . I will even appoint terror over you, consumption, and burning fever, consuming the eyes and causing sorrow of heart . . . And I will set My face against you, and you shall be slain before your enemies”(Leviticus:26:14-17, Modern King James Version, emphasis added throughout).
Could it be that we’re seeing these ominous punishments begin to be played out in America today? What do such growing trends portend for the nation’s future?

Failing schools reduce national competitiveness

For the past few decades, America’s failing educational institutions have been an embarrassment to the nation and a blot on its national pride.
A recent Washington Times article described American public schools as “in a free fall,”with U.S. schools now ranking 29th in the world. This from the nation that earlier put man on the moon and has for decades led the world in finding cures for killer diseases.
Slovakia, Russia and Vietnam have joined the ranks of China, India, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in the list of nations surpassing U.S. schools in the quality of education and the caliber of its graduates.
And now comes evidence that many American college graduates lack the skills to compete even in an average U.S. work environment. In mid-January, The Wall Street Journal reported that as many as four in ten U.S. graduates lack the reasoning skills to manage white-collar work.
The Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus exam, given to 32,000 college seniors at 169 U.S. colleges and universities, measures reasoning ability needed in typical U.S. managerial environments. It noted that many students start college at a deficit in reasoning, making it that much harder to catch up by the time they graduate.
“‘Even if there is notable growth over four years, many students are starting at such a low point that they may still not be proficient at the point of graduation,’ said Jessalyn James, a program manager at the Council for Aid to Education, which administered the test” (Douglas Belkin , “Test Finds College Graduates Lack Skills for White-Collar Jobs,” The Wall Street Journal , Jan. 16, 2015).
The implications for an America competing in a global economy could be disastrous. As nations such as China and India graduate more trained engineers, scientists, business managers and computer experts, American competitiveness will suffer.

Alarming increase in mental illness

Not well publicized is the dramatic rise of mental illness in America today. No less an authority than Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, had this to say in a June 23, 2011, New York Review of Books piece titled “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?”:
“The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007 —from 1 in 184 Americans to 1 in 76. For children, the rise is even more startling— a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades.”
Today, young people by the millions are experiencing the onset of clinical depression, among the most debilitating of mental illnesses resulting in thousands of suicides annually. Speaking to the National Press Club in 1998, Martin Seligman, then-president of the American Psychological Association, reported that the average age for the onset of depression had decreased from 29 to 15.
Antidepressant use in the United States has increased nearly 400 percent in the last two decades, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), making antidepressants the most frequently used class of medications by Americans ages 18-44. By 2008, 23 percent of women ages 40-59 were taking antidepressants, the CDC reported.
It seems every other person in the country is on some type of antidepressant these days. What does it portend for America’s future with depression and other mental illnesses on the rise?
And how much of this may be attributed to a sobering prophecy that applies to our time today found in Deuteronomy:28:28? Speaking to the ancient Israelites—and their modern-day descendants—about the consequences of disobedience to His law, God tells them, “The Lord will strike you with blindness and madness and confusion of heart.”

Rising racial tensions creating a divided nation

The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American president brought hope to millions that race relations in America would enter the final stage of healing, marking the start of a new era in the nation.
That optimism soon vanished. Annual Wall Street Journal/ NBC News polls show that positive views of race relations peaked among African Americans at 66 percent in 2010, one year after Obama took office. Then opinions took a steady downturn so that by July 2013 only 38 percent thought race relations were good—worse than the 40 percent in 2007 before Obama.
Perceptions of race relations dropped even lower with the highly publicized 2014 killings of two black men by white police officers, one in Ferguson, Missouri, and the other in New York City, along with grand juries in both cases deciding not to indict the officers. In another Wall Street Journal/ NBC poll in mid-December 2014, only 35 percent of African-American respondents rated race relations as good, while 63 percent rated them as bad.
The change in perceptions among white Americans was even more dramatic, having risen from 59 percent seeing race relations as good in 2007 to a peak of 79 percent considering them so in late 2009 and then plunging to only 40 percent now feeling this way, as of December 2014 (Reid Epstein, “Poll: Views of Race Relations Worse Than Before Obama Took Office,” Washington Wire, blogs.wsj.com, Dec. 17, 2014)
It would seem that America’s long-running racial divisions have not improved nearly as much as we would have expected since the early 1960s civil rights struggles. This does not bode well for the future of the country. As Jesus Christ Himself stated, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew:12:25, New International Version).
Certainly, the U.S. is not the only nation with significant gulfs between racial groups. But we could ask ourselves to what extent will smoldering racial tensions lead to the weakening of the world’s leading democracy?

How much longer?

Some will point out that America has faced crises before. One can’t forget the grim situation the nation faced in the 1930s, when worldwide economic depression crippled the U.S. economy with 25 percent unemployment in 1933. The nation came through a decade later when, roused from isolationist slumber by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it mobilized its human and material resources to defeat the Axis powers.
But other observers also correctly point out the differences in the character of the American people then compared to today. With the nation’s flagrant disregard for morality and God’s righteous law, does America have what it takes to pull through today’s challenges?
Moses’ warning to ancient Israel is especially relevant to 21st-century America. Read it in Deuteronomy 28, where God promised blessings for obedience and curses for violating His laws. God dealt patiently with ancient Israel, and He will deal patiently with us today—but only to a point. Has America passed, or is it about to pass, that point of no return?
Individually, none of us can change the course of a nation bent on increasingly turning away from God. But each of us can personally heed God’s command given through the prophet Isaiah: “Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah:55:6-7).
May we have the wisdom to turn from our human ways that lead to suffering and death (Proverbs:14:12; Proverbs:16:25) and choose, as we’re told to in Deuteronomy:30:19, the way that leads to blessings and life!