Jewish lobby

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said in remarks broadcast Monday that Israeli policy in the West Bank represented instances of apartheid worse even that those that once held sway in South Africa.
It is a well known fact that the Jewish lobby in U.S if not the strongest is one of the most influential lobbies in shaping American policies.
Criticizing Jews in general and Israel in particular has always been a very difficult and risky task in States, but it recently became clearer when jimmy carter the former president of United States wrote a book criticizing the Israel's atrocity in Middle East.
The harsh reaction which he got was surprising
For example inside the U.S the press liberal and conservative attacked him, and his close associates left him alone.
After his now former advisor Professor Kenneth Stein resigned over charges that Carter’s latest book contains patent inaccuracies and misrepresentations, the former president is now being charged with plagiarism. Stein claims: "There are elements in the book that were lifted from another source. That source is now acting on his or her own advice about what to do because of this."
or
But House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement regarding Jimmy Carter's new book saying: "With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever? It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."
these examples clearly show that you can not say a word against Jews in U.S even if you are jimmy carter.

Mission Impossible

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush introduced Robert Gates on Wednesday afternoon as his nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, saying the country needs a "fresh perspective" on Iraq.
Bush's decision to replace the Rumsfeld was another symptom to show that U.S war on Iraq was another failure like Vietnam.
The unexpected situation which was faced by American troops in Iraq made some academic scholars and politicians to compare this event with the American experience in Vietnam War (1). These analogies became more important when the architect of the U.S war in Vietnam more than 30 years ago and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that he has "a very uneasy feeling" that most of the same factors that damaged support for the conflict there are re-emerging in the 2-yaer-old war in Iraq. (2)
referring to the Powell Doctrine(3) ,some argue that since America's war on Iraq dose not have a "clear exit strategy" , the united states has stumbled into another overseas "quagmire" from which there is no easy or cheap exit.(4)
It is a widely accepted idea that there are no two historical events which could be perceived thoroughly alike and that is mainly due to the bias understanding of history, so reasoning through the implication of historical analogy can mislead us.
In the case of United States experience on Iraq and Vietnam one has to be very cautious in comparing two conflicts so far apart in cultural, geographical and historical circumstances. In fact, an accurate review of the evidence will show that dissimilarities between to events are more than their similarities. This is especially true when we compare the strategic and military aspects of two conflicts. It can be argued that Vietnam War was the result of American cold war foreign policies while Iraq war belongs to the era of new imperialism. In addition, the death toll in Iraq remains well short of Vietnam measures. At its peak the Vietnam War was taking five hundred U.S lives per month, and did so for many years. American troops in the battle field in Iraq only losing about a tenth that many people per month at this point. The Iraqi fighters lack a secure base of operations. They have no equivalent of North Vietnam with its regular army, or the support of a nuclear-equipped superpower like China. The Iraqi resistant fighters have no jungles to hide in. (5)
Such an emphatic judgment is not agreed by all journalist and writers. Many believe that a good number of similarities can be fined to connect American experience in Indochina to the their experience in Iraq to mention some, they argue, in domestic politics in both occasions there is a president who arrived in office with questionable legitimacy (LBJ by way of assassination, Bush by way of an electoral “victory” in which he received fewer votes than his opponent) .also both wars authorized by Congress in response to questionable, politically tainted intelligence (Gulf of Tonkin/Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destructions & al Qaeda connection) (6). Furthermore in both conflicts lack of clarity by political leaders as to the war’s purpose, justification, duration, costs, and exit strategy is the case. In addition to all these there is a disconnection between political pronouncements at home and realities on the ground, with ideology substituting for objective analysis in the generation of either overly dire or overly rosy predictions (we must stop Communism in South Vietnam or the other nations of southeast Asia will “fall like dominos”; the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will lead to a spontaneous wave of pro-US democracy-formation throughout the middle east) (7).
This article tries to examine two major aspects of political struggles of the Iraq and Vietnam War; first, United States effort to build an American style state in a region with completely different culture, and second, maintaining domestic political and social support in a prolonged war against an irregular army.
Reviewing the neo-conservatives foreign policy one can simply come to the conclusion that, United States is now seeking to do in Iraq what it failed to accomplish in Vietnam: design, form and sustain a pro- American state which not only gets the approval of Iraqi nation but also serves the U.S interests in the region.
The Republic of Vietnam was a cold war model of American state-building which for its brief and wicked twenty-year history relied entirely for its durability on American military power and economical and technical assistance .these facts made Saigon regime a politically attractive target to the communists, who questioned the legitimacy of the U.S backed government. Finally there were simply a few numbers of South Vietnamese who were ready to fight, and if needed die, to defend the non-communist political order as it was then configured. (8)
Ironically the question of illegitimate government is one of the important challenges for American politician in today's Iraq. Iraqi nation bearing the bitter memory of western colonization in mined are not willing to re-experience what has been one of the darkest parts of their history , further to that among the nations in the region Iraqis, the strong supporters of the Palestinian cause, firmly believe that it is the US policies which has made the middle east into the war zone, above all, for Muslims according to Quran any government which puts them under the authority of nonbelievers is illegitimate (GHAEDE- NAFIE –SABIL). According to these facts it is obvious that U.S policy of state-building in Iraq would not be possible through democratic ways.
The other aspect which can be discussed in relation to the comparisons between the challenges the United States faces in Iraq today and those it confronted in Vietnam is the issue of maintaining internal, political and social support in prolonged war against an irregular army.
During Vietnam War the North Vietnamese strategy of protracted war worked effectively since it correctly identified the American center of gravity as public opinion. The limited and abstract nature of U.S goals in Vietnam indicated that there were limits to the internal, political and social sustainability of the American war attempt. The lost of American life and money with no clear progress on the ground turned public opinion against war. The hard situation in the battlefield with the high dissatisfaction in home leaded to withdrawal of U.S forces and accession to a negotiated settlement that leaved South Vietnam alone with its communist foe. (9)
The outcome of recent congressional election in united states showed that U.S public and congressional tolerance levels for prolonged and inductive conflict are not what they were in 1965.the nation wide demonstrations against war in Iraq in addition to individual movement with national support such as SINDY Sheehan's are good examples to show that American public opinion has already turned against the war on Iraq.
As Paul Rogers says:
It is all; in short, eerily reminiscent of the early years of the Vietnam War. Analysts have been reluctant to draw comparisons between those early Vietnam years and
Iraq, not least because of fundamental political differences in the two conflicts. In two respects, though-continuing false optimism and the potential length of the conflict –the similarities are becoming steadily more apparent. (10)
At the end I would like to quote what Seymour Topping, San Paolo Professor Emeritus of International Journalism has said in
"Lessons of Vietnam for Iraq: On the Thirtieth Anniversary of the End of the Vietnam War";
"When the United States finally withdrew from Vietnam on April 30, 1975, it left behind chaos and rule by a despotic regime. We must hope for a better outcome after the American withdrawal from Iraq. The outcome will turn in great part on how profoundly the occupant of the White House has come to understand the history, culture, and motivations of the Iraqi people."(11)

ENDNOTES
1. Commentary on the Iraq War and its aftermath bulges with favorable and
unfavorable references to the Vietnam War analogy. See, for example, Robert
L. Bartley, “Iraq: Another Vietnam?” Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2003;
Elizabeth Becker, “In the Ranks, Similarities Between Vietnam and Iraq,” New
York Times, November 2, 2003; Max Boot, “Forget Vietnam—History Defl ates
Guerrilla Mystique,” Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2003; Robert J. Caldwell, “Iraq is
No Vietnam,” San Diego Union-Tribune, November 9, 2003; Hank Cole, “Iraq War
Bears Resemblance to U.S. Efforts in Vietnam,” Colorado Springs Gazette, December
9, 2003; “Facts Fail to Support Iraq-Vietnam Comparisons,” USA Today, November
7, 2003; Howard Fineman, “Echoes of Vietnam Grow Louder,” Newsweek, October
29, 2003; David Gelernter, “Don’t Quit as We Did in Vietnam,” Los Angeles Times,
November 9, 2003; David Gergen, “The Fierce Urgency of Iraq,” U.S. News and World
Report, October 13, 2003; Bradley Graham, “Is Iraq Another Vietnam Quagmire?
No and Yes,” Washington Post, October 5, 2003; Richard Haloran, “Vietnam
Syndrome Resurfaces in Iraq,” Honolulu Advertiser, February 15, 2004; February 15, Victor Davis
Hanson, “Then and Now,” National Review, December 8, 2003; Seymour M. Hersh,
“Moving Targets,” New Yorker, December 15, 2003; John Hughes, “Why Iraq is
Not Like Vietnam,” Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 2003; Michael Ignatieff,
“The American Empire (Get Used to It),” New York Times Magazine, January 5,
2003; Robert G. Kaiser, “Iraq Isn’t Vietnam, But They Rhyme,” Washington Post,
December 28, 2003; James Kitfi eld, “No, It’s Not Vietnam,” National Journal,
November 22, 2003; Stanley Karnow, “Do Not Compare Iraq with Vietnam,”
Boston Globe, April 20, 2003; Richard Leiby, “Iraq Vs. Vietnam: The Scorecard,”
Washington Post, March 21, 2004; Gordon Livingston, “Iraq’s Chilling Echoes
of Vietnam,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 30, 2003; Sandra Mackey, The
Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein, New York: W. W. Norton, 2002, p.
396; John Maggs, “Too Much Like Vietnam,” National Journal, November 22, 2003;
Michael Mandelbaum, “Iraq Doesn’t Fit Vietnam Picture,” Long Island Newsday,
October 31, 2003; Dave Moniz, “Monthly Costs of Iraq, Afghan Wars Approach
that of Vietnam,” USA Today, September 8, 2003; Dave Moniz, “Some Veterans
of Vietnam See Iraq Parallel in Lack of Candor,” USA Today, November 7, 2003;
Walter Pincus, “A Quagmire? More Like a Presidential Fixation,” Washington Post,
August 31, 2003; James P. Pinkerton, “Bush’s War Strategy Looks Like a Steal of
Nixon,” Long Island Newsday, November 18, 2003; Thomas E. Ricks, “For Vietnam
Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory,” Washington Post, December
23, 2003; Thomas E. Ricks, “Marines to offer New Tactics in Iraq,” Washington Post,
January 7, 2004; Sally Satel, “Returning from Iraq, Still Fighting Vietnam,” New
York Times, March 5, 2004; Evan Thomas, Rod Nordlinger, and Christian Caryl,
58
“Operation Hearts and Minds,” Newsweek, December 29, 2003-January 5, 2004;
Mike Turner, “The Only Way Out is Forward,” Newsweek, September 12, 2003;
Craig R. Whitney, “Tunnel Vision: Watching Iraq, and Seeing Vietnam,” New York
Times, November 9, 2003; George C. Wilson, “Beware a Phoenix Rising from Iraq’s
Ashes,” National Journal, December 20, 2003; and George C. Wilson, “Iraq in Not
Vietnam,” National Journal, April 12, 2003.

2. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/15/us.iraq/
3. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19921201faessay5851/colin-l-powell/u-s-forces-challenges-ahead.html
4. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/02/pelosi_is_left_and_wrong.html
5. http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/07/06/vietnam-and-iraq-a-comparison
6. http: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/06/25_zinn_specter-vn.htm
7. http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/07/06/vietnam-and-iraq-a-comparison/
8. www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/00367.pdf
9. www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/00367.pdf
10. www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/article_2019.jsp
11. www.professorsemeritus.columbia.edu/topping_4.7.05.pdf

American Exceptionalism or Siniatic Covenant

When the American studies movement was founded in the 1930's, in order to explain United States, many emphasized on the idea of America's uniqueness. The notion which highlight the profound contrast- in term of society, culture and politics- between the U.S and other countries around the world. Historically speaking American's holier-than-thou attitude (1) or what is usually named as American Exceptionalism is not a new notion, it started as early as 1630s in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when john Winthrop, a non- separating Congregationalist, addressed his people " we shall be city upon hill" the words that centuries later would be quoted over and over by U.S presidents.
"The word "exceptional" was first employed as a description by Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer who visited the U.S in 1830s and 1840s. The concept was also used by the activist in the communist movement during the late 1920 as they sought to reconcile the American experience- and the weakness of socialism in the U.S- with the defining tenets of Marxist theory. Exceptionalim was later revived during the cold war years as a justification for, and explanation of, the role of the U.S in leading the so called free world. The U.S it was said had been constructed around values such as democracy, freedom and opportunity" (2). It has a "mission" to promote these across the glob, or as Howard Zinn says in his essay "the power and the glory, myth of American Exceptionalism";(3)
" American Exceptionalism is the notion that the United States alone has the right whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary… expanding into another territory, occupying the territory and dealing harshly with people%2

Wall policy

"President Bush signed into law Thursday a broad measure that calls for fencing a third of the 2,100-mile border between the United States and Mexico."
White house recent decision to fence the Mexican border is another sign to show the importance of Hispanic challenge to American identity.
By the end of last century, United States had become a multiethnic, multiracial country with a dominant Anglo-protestant culture surrounding many subcultures. In late 20th century, some important changes accrued that, if continued, my alter the Wasps' land into a culturally and racially separated Anglo- Hispanic society with two national tongues.
Most of the conservatives who are concerned with this issue believe that the existence issue is in part "the result of the popularity of doctrine of multiculturalism and diversity among intellectual and political elites, and government policies on bilingual education and affirmative action that those doctrines promoted and sanctioned" (Huntington, who we are?). However the main cause for this new trend toward making a Hispanic- catholic culture next to Anglo- protestant culture has been immigration from Latin America and especially from Mexico. That is why George bush has called the U.S- Mexican border fence bill an important step in immigration reform which will protect American people; and it is clear by American people he means White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans.
Immigration from Mexico is leading to the demographic changes in territories Americans took from Mexico by force in the 1830's and 1840's. this immigration not only mexicanized the mentioned areas, California, Texas, and Arizona in particular; but also blurred the border between Mexico and America, introducing a very different culture, while also promoting the emergence, in some areas, of a blended society and culturally, half American and half Mexican. This is the fact which can be seen in Bush's statement when he said;
"Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades, and therefore, illegal immigration has been on the rise. We have a responsibility to address these challenges, we have a responsibility to enforce our laws, we have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously,"For sure this responsibility means to keep the superiority and dominance of Anglo-protestant culture over the other sub-cultures especially the growing Hispanic culture.

MADE IN WAR

Historically many commentators argue, since the civil war Americans have been a flag-oriented people. The stars and stripes have the position of a religious icon in U.S and in comparison with the status of flag among other nations it has a more identifying value for Americans. Probably never in the past, however, was the flag as omnipresent as it was after September 11.It was everywhere: homes, business, automobiles, clothes, furniture, windows, and storefronts.
The flags were physical evidence of the sudden and dramatic rise in the importance of the national identity for American compared to their other identities such as racial, political or religious identities.
For many educated and elite Americans, national identity seemed at times to have faded from sight. Globalization, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, immigration, and anti nationalism had destroyed American national identity. Ethnic, racial and gender identities came to the fore. Contrary to their antecedents, many immigrants were maintaining dual loyalties and dual citizenships. A massive Hispanic flow-in raised questions concerning America's linguistic and cultural unity. Corporate executives, professionals, and information age technocrats supported cosmopolitan over national identities. The teaching of American national history gave way to the teaching of American ethnic and racial histories. The celebration of diversity replaced emphasis on what Americans had in common. The American national unity and the sense of national identity created by wars in the 18th and 19th century and consolidated in the world wars of the 20th century seemed to be eroding. By 2000, America was, in many respects, less a nation than it had been for a century. The stars and stripes were at the half-mast and other flags flew higher on the flag pole of American identities.September 11 drastically reduced the salience of these other identities and sent old glory back to the top of the national flag pole. Will it stay there? The truth is America needs to experience recurring destructive attacks or be always in the threat of a strong enemy to keep its national identity.

REVERSE SECULARISM

During early 80s it was a widely accepted fact that the religion was an absentee in American public life. A decade later America went through a dramatic changes .in the 1990s, religious ideas, concerns, issues groups, and discourse underwent a great resurgence, and the presence of religion in public life far exceed what it had been earlier in that century. "One of the most striking and unexpected features of late 20th century America life, "Patrick Glynn( prelude to a post secular society spring 1995) observed "has been the re-emergence of religious feeling as major force in politics and culture." By the end of century, the religious resurgence had become sufficiently extensive to generate alarm among secularists who had thought history was on their side.
"Yet in the recent presidential election, religious views provided an undercurrent to the debates over school prayer, faith-based charities, abortion, school vouchers, the death penalty and even the presidential candidates themselves. It seems as though religion and politics, each controversial in its own right, are increasingly linked in our public dialogue."
Two aspects of this development were of crucial importance. First, the numbers and proportions of Americans who were evangelical protestant or who identified themselves as "born again Christians" increased significantly in the latter decade of the century, as did the number of activities of evangelical organization. Large numbers of Americans became concerned about what they saw as the decline in values, morality and standards in American society and also came to feel personal needs for believing and belonging that secular ideologies and institutions did not satisfy.
The interaction of born-again Christians and the spiritual needs and moral concerns of large numbers of Americans made religion a key factor in American public life and Christianity again a central feature of American identity.

Homage to the cold war

North Korean statement that it "successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions" made her one of the certain members of "nuclear club". The point which makes this event more important is the fact that, the communist regime of North Korea, one of the few reminders of cold war era, acts boldly against American public and strategic policies.
One of the post-cold war paradigms for U.S public diplomacy oriented around total controlling and limiting countries with nuclear power. United States major concern in the recent years was to halt addition to the members of "nuclear club" especially those regimes which are challenge to American values and interests.
It is clear that North Korea, even with the technology of making atomic bomb can not be a threat to U.S national security due to her lack of ballistic and intercontinental missile; but the challenge which it caused for U.S role, as international police has made American neo-cons nervous.
Pyongyang believing in the fact that the language of military power is the only language which disciples of power politics understand, tries to create a new international condition in which she got a stronger voice.
Kim Jong Il's nuclear test not only escalated the tension in the region but also threaten the united states global position as international gendarme, the position which is derived out of America's high military technology and her ability to perform military operation in every part of the world, from Latin America to mid east, and from central Africa to far east.
North Korea's nuclear test questioned the America's power to maintain statu que in the Far East.
Another issue which has made Pyongyang recent decision important is its coincidence with Iran's nuclear crises.Iranian had acquired good experiences from U.S military invasion to Afghanistan, Iraq and recently Lebanon (not to mention that during the 33 days of Israeli invasion, Israel only fought for the first week and the rest was American war). Having the advantage of analyzing American war techniques and military supplies, North Korea is a good case for I.R.I to understand us political tactics and world reaction toward it. this case is also an appropriate criteria to test the behavior and policies of Iran's traditional allies i.e. Russia and china.

American Ethnology

i think we will get some good information about the different races and ethnic groups which shaped the american nation during this course. According to what i know people in U.S are from different backgrounds and although different races have impact on the shaping of this contry but the ruling race is Anglo-Saxson.