Somalia is all over the headlines lately for the prominent piracy of late. One such act resulted in a dramatic shootout and heroic rescue of a U.S. captain. Despite tough words from Obama and the presence of international naval forces, Somali piracy continues to pick up these past few days.

The piracy is backed by an enormous economic industry, some argue, and that makes it a non-starter in terms of military action — especially given the context of Somalia as a non-state.

When they editorialized about the militant religious extremists overrunning Somalia, the actually cited past US policies as contributing to the current crisis in statehood — just months after the Ethiopian occupation it backed ended:

Al Shabab probably would not exist were it not for the disastrous failure of U.S. policies in Somalia. In other words, we are the authors of our own undoing.

When the coalition of Islamist groups known as the Islamic Courts Union became the first chance at a central government in more than a decade in 2006, the Bush administration engineered a foreign invasion to overthrow their leaders — because they were concerned about its possible ties to Al Qaeda. The ICU, by the way, effectively halted the piracy (like the Taliban did to drug production in Afghanistan).

Since Somalia has lacked a central government, its waters have been run amok by western pirates — the kind who dump and over-fish illegally simply because there is no sheriff to enforce any law. American policy has only further precluded Somali non-failed statehood.

By sacrificing current stability for the risk of future attacks, the United States’s actions then invited the crisis now. Was it worth it? Well given that the next dominant Somali movement, Al Shabaab, is more closely related to Al Qaeda and even more fanatical, I think we can chalk this off to another Bush blunder.

But given that Obama is in power now, we should think twice before sending in the guns. According to a Jeremy Scahill piece,

As one “pirate” said, “The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now.” Another added, “As long as there is no just government in Somalia, we will still be the coast guard… If we get an American, we will take revenge.”

While Obama may be tempted to play to red meat Americans and sharpen his national security bona fides by attacks in Somalia, military action is highly unlikely to bring about the results that enhanced Somali sovereignty and governance would. In this economy, foreign development will not fly. Dropping bombs will be the quick and popular solution. But it will only make things worse.

But first, a clip from six years ago that we’re all very familiar with:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOCIfNQXP0]

إعلان الاستقلال العراقي
The Iraqi Declaration of Independence

IN MAJLIS, MARCH 19th 2009

The Ultimate Proclamation of the united provinces of Iraq

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Especially Merciful

When the sands of time are swept forth by the cleansing winds of change that inevitably must come upon the entire face of the earth, and it is no longer deemed to be in the best of interests for one nation to align and associate itself with another, it is the right, nay, the responsibility of those desiring such a disengagement to decree it before Allah and before the eyes and ears of those who will and will not hear, why their sense of duty impels them towards such a change in the established order of things, and thus bring to pass their much yearned for separation in such a manner that guarantees that the aforementioned entanglement between the two will no longer distress nor endanger the future progress and stability of those who aspire to such a disconnection and separation.

We believe and hold fast to the truths sent down to us by الله سبحان و تعالى that all men stand before Him as equals, and that as His creatures, without any regards for color, race, language, or creed, all men and women are entitled to the same basic rights and privileges which no man should ever nor can ever take away, namely: Life, Agency, and Accountability; that الله سبحان و تعالى has entrusted rulers and leaders of nations to guarantee these undeniable rights to every soul whose consultation and endorsement they have obtained. It is therefore the responsibility of the people to support and to uphold those whom they have granted this right to rule, however unjust and cruel in their exercise of power, for it is الله سبحان و تعالى who is the Master of the day of Recompense and He alone, may Allah be praised. But when domestic or foreign entities, seize the reins of this power in a hostile and destructive manner, without the consultation of those whom they intend to govern, and in addition, invade, occupy and threaten to destroy and deprive any or all citizens of any nation from their fundamentally established rights, it is the right of the Citizen and of the Nation to fight and to eradicate such, and to thus establish new means of law and order, based on the principles of consultation with the will of the people.

Recent chapters in the tome of mankind’s history have shown that the removal of destructive and oppressive rulers has been welcomed with open arms, namely the long established rule of Saddam Hussein; but when the liberators, into whose hands the right of rule had suddenly been placed, slowly became the tyrants and the persecutors, a bitter record of violence, cruelty, and chaos came forth and called for the Citizen to take responsibility and to throw off the yoke of such oppression and anarchy. الله سبحان و تعالى tells us in the most noble Book that patience is set above all other virtues with the exceptional promise that those who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward without measure (صدق الله العظيم); but the recent events of our history have demonstrated that patience often wears thin, especially when those to whom allegiance is partially due, fail to protect and to serve their subjects and their unalienable liberties. It is then that the people, in exercising their rights and their responsibilities, are perfectly justified in abolishing such rule of law and then in establishing new laws and a new order that will secure, protect and guarantee their rights and interests. Such has been the patient toiling of these united Iraqi provinces and such is the declaration that we now make, calling for such drastic changes in our ties to the resented American presence on our lands; a foreign entity which restricts the full expression of a much desired free and wholeheartedly independent Iraq. This is the message that we now send forth, that we may confirm how our laws in our land will now be handled and why they will be handled as such. The actions of the present American occupation are a narrative of broken promises, unfulfilled commitments and the cruel usurpation of power over our Iraq; an occupation whose sole purpose is to continue an uninvited and imposed military-backed regime of suffering and destruction that was initiated with their predecessor and is now prolonged with their unwelcome company.

Thus we present the truth of these events before the judgment seat of the world in a fair-minded and forthright manner that all may be witnesses to the reality of our situation:

• The American Occupation has destabilized very heart Middle Eastern lands and has given rise both politically, religiously and militarily to its greatest and to some extent, our greatest threat as a country, namely Iran, whose ambitions lie not only in hurting the West, through unconventional and economic warfare, but also in hurting its allies in the region and causing an even greater destabilization in the region with their manifest possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

• It has created a mass exodus of more than three million Iraqi refugees, the majority of our skilled workers and intelligentsia, and the underbelly of our country’s entire infrastructure.

• It has caused more than six hundred thousand Iraqi civilian deaths, more death and destruction than when Saddam Hussein and his merciless regime strangled our lives and oppressed us with the rule of an iron-clad fist.

• Our beloved capital, Baghdad, a city of six million, is now a smoking heap of rubble and disorder with no running water, poorly controlled sewage facilities, and massive power outages. It has also forced upon us an 8 p.m. curfew for the past two years, a move that makes us prisoners within our own homes, within our own capital, within our own country.

• In the month that immediately followed the fall of Baghdad, the Warmongers failed to enact Martial Law, an act permitted under the Fourth Geneva Convention and by failing to do so, created a state of lawlessness, chaos, looting, killing, militia control, free-for-all-ing, and the lamentable loss of our country’s records, our history, and countless artifacts of early human civilization; all this simply because they were ordered not to “police nor patrol” the streets by the former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. It comes and destroys our country, because it does nothing to protect anything, except the Iraqi Ministry of Oil.

• The Forces of the Occupation breaks into our homes, without warrant and without probable cause, arresting at whim; apprehends our fathers and our brothers as “terrorist” suspects without disclosing the location of their detention, and while in custody they suffer unnecessary rape, violent beatings, torture of the most severe nature and undergo a process of deep-seeded humiliation and dehumanization.

• It stopped the formation of an interim Iraqi government at a moment when its inception was of the most vital and crucial import for the stability of our country and the assurance of our country’s new future.

• Its decision to De-Ba’athify the government barred more than fifty thousand Iraqi citizens from ever working in our country again, many of us who had joined and affiliated with the Ba’ath part simply in order to have a job and the means to provide for our families.

• They entered our country with fewer troops than necessary after strong recommendations from top
generals that more troops would be necessary and then removed the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

• It disbanded the Iraqi Army, the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard, and the Secret Police, rendering half a million of us (not including our families) unemployed and without any means of sustenance. It thus created an infuriated, vengeful insurgency of men without jobs and without money; who then turned to armed conflict with the Invaders and Occupiers of our land by storming the largely unguarded weapons storage dumps; these men knew where they were, they knew how to get to those weapons, they knew how to use them and their insurgency still haunts the coalition “Liberators” till this very day.

• In attempting to rebuild our nation, the Neo-Imperialists forces marginalized us, the very people of the land and gave preferential work contracts to Americans and Foreigners and not us, the Iraqis, keeping us further unemployed and impoverished to a far greater extent.

• It has humiliated us as a nation and as a people by first conquering us, taking away our means of sustenance, and then destroying our country one person, one family, one city at a time.

• Its Fabricators convinced the American people that the occupation of our ancestral lands was necessary because Saddam Hussein was an apparent threat, because of his “alleged” link to 9/11, because “[they] [didn’t] want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” because of “Al-Qaeda,” because of Osama Bin Laden, because of terrorism, to “liberate Iraq,” to “spread freedom,” to spread democracy, to keep Iraq’s oil out of the hands of potential “terrorist controlled states.”

• Its Architects claimed that its forces would be greeted as “liberators with flowers”; that as “[we] stood up, [they] would stand down”; that they would “stay the course,” that they would never stay the course; that “the enemy was Al-Qaeda, was Ba’athists, was Foreigners, was Terrorists.”

• Its Media reported turning points in the occupation: “the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay Hussein, the capture of Saddam, a interim government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam,” a drop in the levels of violence, the “success” of the Surge; In the destruction of our country, we came to learn that America had prevailed, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” and that “the resistance was in its last throes.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFijzDyJnVE]

• Its Authors scared the American people into action with inconclusive truths of WMDs, Mobile Labs, Secret Sources, “Aluminum tubing,” and “Yellow Cake.”

• In pushing for and prosecuting their plans of a successful take-over and Pro-American transition, the occupation’s Top Promoters passed on chances to capture their main enemy targets, namely Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in remotely located Afghanistan.

• They short-changed the training of our own troops and failed in their attempts to prevent rampant and pervasive looting and the explosion of sectarian violence.

• Its Designers said that the war would pay for itself: that it would cost 1.7 Billion dollars; $100 Billion; $250 Billion; half a trillion; $1 trillion!

• It has given rise to the most violent of human reactions among brothers and countrymen; it has brought brutal, cruel and disheartening civil war to our very thresholds, and has discarded all careful and detailed planning for a successful post-war reconstruction onto a place that holds twenty percent of the world’s oil supply.

We welcomed the American presence onto our land because we saw in them the hopes of a new life in their desire to remove Saddam from power and to bring him to justice for the crimes he committed. But as the days turned into months, the evident realization was that we removed a dictator to get a dictator’s army to control our lives and to strip us from our much aspired independence and yearning dreams of true freedom. We never invited the Americans to come into Iraq; they came and powerless to stop them, we allowed them to take over our country, hoping that they would present it back to us and allow us to determine our own fate; we thought Occupation had a plan to back it up, an ace up the sleeve, but they had nothing; they had no plans for Post-Saddam Iraq and what little planning we tried to execute in the beginning was deemed as “unworkable,” “undo-able,” and “not in line” with “[their] desires for [us].” Was it not George Bush Senior who after the first Gulf war made it publicly known that “there [was] another way for the bloodshed to stop”? And that it was “for [us] the Iraqi military and [us] the Iraqi people to take matters into [our] own hands” to bring about change in Iraq? We have tried waiting for things to get better, we have waited long and hard; we have struggled during Saddam’s time, and we continue to struggle now with the once-welcomed, now-resented and hated American occupation.

Which is why we, on this day, March 19th 2009, as we contemplate these past six years of destruction and anarchy under the banner of “Iraqi Freedom,” we as a united assembly of Iraqi patriots, avow the dissolution of any and all ties with this American presence and rule over us and with الله سبحان و تعالى as our witness and our ally, and before the eyes of ears of all that are within the reach of this declaration, we say: Out! Out with the American Occupiers! Out with the American Imperialists who have brought nothing but war and destruction to our country; who have implemented the Machine of War and of Death on the foundation of lies, speculation, profiteering interests, and lack of solid, concrete intelligence. How many more innocent Iraqis or Americans must be sacrificed until we see a “victory” in Iraq? God willing, very few and in much the same way that his Majesty, King George gave our former president and his sons an ultimatum of forty eight hours at the grim beginning of this quagmire in March of 2003, so we give you an ultimatum: Leave and Live or Stay and Die; for we will not leave our homes, our land, our families, our religion and our God. We will stay and fight until the last of these foreign agents of destruction are eradicated from our lands. Peace is what we deserve; Liberty is what we need; Blood may be the price to pay, because Freedom is among the greatest of all the gifts of الله سبحان و تعالى. We would rather “die on our feet than to live the rest of lives crawling on our knees!” And as we now absolve all allegiance and ties to this tyrannical American regime set up to further increase our pain and suffering, we place our trust in الله سبحان و تعالى to be our Strength and our Protector as we mutually consecrate our time, our talents, and our blessings as Iraqi brothers and countrymen, standing firm with one language, as one people, and as believers in one God.
لا إلهَ إلا الله و مُحَمَّدٌ رَسولُ اللهِ . . . إن يَنـْصُرْكـُم اللهُ فـَلا غَالِبَ لكـَمْ

أسعد أبو خاطر عبد الرحمن
إيمان أيوب آل الأمين
كريم صلاح الجندي
فاطمة جميل الزكاة
مالك طاهر عبدالله
جميل فروك علاوي
أية الله علي سيستاني
مهدي المودن
فؤاد علي البصري
نصرالدين الفيصل
نادية سعيد البورّاسي
أحمد علي البغدادي
نوري المالكي
جلال طالباني
بشار الحمّاد
زكريا الفرابي

Days before the recent Salvadoran presidential elections, five Republican Congressmen gave speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives warning that an electoral victory by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) would hurt the Salvadorans in the United States. They echoed George Bush’s warning in 2004 that an FMLN victory would damage relations with the United States.

“Those monies that are coming from here to there I am confident will be cut, and I hope the people of El Salvador are aware of that because it will have a tremendous impact on individuals and their economy,” stated Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Others mentioned it would dramatically impact immigration cases since the FMLN is/was a Marxist group.

Some Republicans treat El Salvador as the 51st state, but more in the sense of ownership rather than equality in the federal system.

Naturally, they are not happy with the outcome.

It appears the FMLN’s candidate, Mauricio Funes, is locked up to win the head position. It would end the two decades of conservative rule, which was enabled by American imperialism.

Since 1992, the FMLN has been a leftist political party, but was an umbrella revolutionary guerrilla movement before that. It has a long history of animosity with the United States. Funes appears far from a revolutionary, as he had sympathies developed over his time as a journalist covering the civil war (in which his brother perished). He was recruited as a candidate, and gave the party a prominent boost by agreeing.

He is being called a “moderate” in news reports, which usually is a bad sign. He has referred to social justice, but has not claimed to take any strong actions. “Nothing traumatizing is going to happen here,” Funes said in an interview with local Megavision television. “There will be no confiscation, we will not reverse any privatizations. We will not jeopardize private property. There is no reason at this moment for fear.”

Funes also pledged to keep the free trade agreement with the United States in tact. As a dependent satellite, the fear is its economy would be even further in ruins if it took dramatic steps.

El Salvador was like the Afghanistan of the Americas, torn apart by great power rivalries and interventions, leaving the country impoverished and perpetually de-stabilized by civil strife (12 years of war left 70,000 dead) and right-wing dictatorships.

Funes, a former TV Newsman, was leading the polls late Sunday night with 51.2 percent of the vote and more than 90 percent of the ballots counted.

El Salvador has been struggling with an economic crisis and a murder rate that is among the highest in the world. This election is significant in that it furthers the leftist political swing down south, what seems to be a stunning reversal after years of failed right-wing economic reforms. Or at least time will tell.

In response to an influx of calls and messages regarding the push by certain Republicans to sink the FMLN, the State Department released a statement of neutrality,

The US government reiterates its official position that it does not support either candidate in the upcoming presidential election in El Salvador on March 15th… The separation of powers and freedoms in the United States allows the debate in which members of the US Legislature have expressed their opinions, which do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States.

Then again, we heard similar declarations after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2005. Look where that got us.

The FMLN’s transition from a revolutionary fighting group to a participatory political party that can actually win a Presidential election, without state opposition, is a model the Arab world should aspire to.

In Egypt, the state oppressed the Muslim Brotherhood — which was never even a guerrilla force — despite its huge support. Egyptian relations with the West have been one reason for many tolerating it. In Lebanon, Hizbollah is yet to decide which way to go, and the looming threat of Israel’s military at the border gives power to the militant’s argument.

In short, in the Arab world, domestic politics are entirely skewed and structured by regional geo-politics.

Of course, there is another Palestine connection. The FMLN’s last candidate for President, in 2004, was long-time Communist leader Shakif Handal (pictured above), who is of Palestinian descent. He lost and since passed away. He was a hero to many, and villain to some.

The War on Terror suffered a major lexical loss yesterday when the Obama administration tossed the legalistic euphemism, and Bush invention, “enemy combatant” into the dustbin of shameful history.

The Bush administration invented the term in order to circumvent preexisting legal structures that gave the accused an inconvenient array of rights.

Observers debated how significant a departure this move means for the overall program of American extraterritorial law enforcement/prosecution of those who use politically-motivated violence against institutions and individuals.

It did not set anyone free yet, and the resulting institutional framework is still taking shape, so it is hard to tell.

In filings, the kidnap victims previously known as “enemy combatants,” are now “detainees.” And non-citizen detainees have no great experience with the United States.

Some saw the detention camp has half-empty: “What’s important about it is it’s a plan on how they will evaluate Guantánamo detainees and future detainees,” said Eugene R. Fidell, -military law Professor at Yale University. “It sets the bar higher than it had been set in the Bush administration.”

Seeing the camp has half-full, the Center for Constitutional Rights said dropping the term “enemy combatant” was hardly a change.

“They have adopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people without charge — with one change, the addition of the word `substantially’ before the word ‘supported.’ This is really a case of old wine in new bottles.”

I tend to agree with CCR until we see the actual effects. It will take time for the nature of the change to be fully understood. For instance, what is substantial support. Some may say this post substantially supports Al-Qaeda just for questioning the country’s policies.

The machinery of injustice is a lot faster than its counterpart, especially when it comes to the War on Terror. With the United States, I presume the change won’t be “substantially” — to borrow the government’s new word — different.

With Obama’s intention to close the camps at Guantanamo, and now dropping this term from its paperwork, the fate of the military commissions that Congress established to try Guantánamo detainees for alleged war crimes is still an open question. Obama suspended these travesties of justice shortly after taking office.

The military commission law says that only “alien unlawful enemy combatants” can be tried at the Guantánamo war court. Will the law need to be changed to include detainees? Or does the Obama administration intend their end?

The Obama administration position, according to a Military Commissions spokesman, “very much contemplates the existence of ‘enemy combatants’ and justifies detention at Guantánamo on that basis under the laws of war.”

So, only Muslims apparently violate the laws of war now. It looks like the rule of law won’t do much better even with a law professor as president.

Still, some hail this as the beginning of the unraveling the Bush administration’s kangaroo legal structure.

As CCR warns, it could be old wine in new bottles. I estimate it will be watered down old wine in shiny, new, well-marketed bottles. And the Obama administration will likely move in very slow steps, testing the political winds and legal ramifications each way.

Obama will strike down the most objectionable and glaring faults, but leave the American imperial, politically-grounded, imperial quasi-judiciary in place. It is enough that the American military dominates so many beyond this nation’s borders, why play legal games with the administration of justice — it is a transparent attempt to give the whole stinky enterprise the facade of legality.

An Iraqi court sentenced television journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi to three years in jail for tossing his shoes at then-American president George W. Bush in December. He missed. And everyone knows it was not a physical attack meant to harm, but meant as an act of protest. But the court didn’t care. It convicted him of assault on a foreign leader.

It didn’t matter that the same foreign leader spent 5 years assaulting the country. Al-Zeidi gets imprisonment for throwing shoes and Bush walks free for dropping bombs. What madness!

Al-Zeidi’s lawyers argued that the charge was inadmissible since Bush was not on an “official visit.” They sought to reduce the charge to insult also failed. Al-Zeidi, aged 30, has been in detention since he was detained by American security staff and later handed over to Iraqi security services.

International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) condemned the disproportionate sentence.

“This sentence is hugely out of proportion,” said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. “The journalist made a serious mistake, but it was something that should have been properly dealt with internally and not brought before the courts at all. The Iraqi response is regrettable and we urge that there is clemency and his sentence is reduced on appeal.”

This penalty is ridiculous. He should be freed immediately. If anything, there should be a standing order to arrest George Bush or any high American officials if they step foot in the country. That is what a proud, independent country would do, not punish courageous, lowly, journalists.

Muntadhar is the man!

Thump, thump.

The Obama camp is seemingly following in the soft footsteps of Wimp Jr. They named as the new US envoy on North Korea, Stephen Bosworth.

Admittedly, I know very little of the man, and even less about Obama’s foreign policy towards NK. But, it is quite clear from the picture above that we need someone much tougher in the envoy position.

If Cheney were running the show, he’d being in a real Bosworth: the Boz. Besides being tough, he is considered a screen god in North Korea. He could therefore be a boost to American soft power efforts — if they decide to go that weakling route.

President Obama took some impressive measures to undo a boatload of President Bush’s War on Terror legalistic machinations according to the Washington Post. Yes, for the Post, Obama’s executive order undermining the war on terror, was panty-wetting:

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

I have to say this is no small order since it means the significant curtailing of government directives and reigning in on the new Cold warriors who operated secret prisons and torture chambers. It does not however remove too much of the meat of the American war on terror, including the PATRIOT Act’s poisonous rule.

Still, for Obama, this could become rather politically risky, as much as it is a world-pleaser now; any attack hereafter will cost the Obama administration tremendously as many will link it to these steps. The crazies who think Obama’s trying to free his Islamic cousins, would be joined by a torrential downpour of lunacy.

So, while it is signifies important change, we have to be sober about these moves against the clearly objectionable. It will not mean the end of American empire, nor of its nastiest tactics, including allying with dictators, and its self-awarded right to intervene in other nations. Even if Obama dismantled the war on terror completely, keep in mind that pre-September 11, 2001 America had problematic policies.

The closing of the Guantanamo, however, is not quite necessary. It would be a great place to detain Bush, Cheney and their ilk behind the criminal “war on terror” — true terrorists who wiped their ends with international law. Ahh, if only I were dictator. That would be real change.

My brother’s deep patriotism, one that awaited the day the departure of Bush was made official, welcomed this moment as the culmination of lost hope in a man who sent American troops on a death march to Iraq five, almost six, years ago.

Although I can confidently say that my brother and I depart from each other’s ideological political positioning significantly, I could still appreciate my brother’s excitement over the “regime change.”

My father’s reaction rested more on what was not said. Although what was said focused squarely on the, in his mind, strange reverence for the recitation of the oath over the invocation and the benediction, the political over the religious. He could not understand why, consistently, as both the reverend and the pastor approached the podium and recited their sermons, why the audience remained seated for that portion and stood up in unison for the arrival of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. This appeared to my father as a weird twist to the separation of church and state, wherein the state is church. But there was one particular recitation that delighted my father, Obama’s choice to include his middle name in its entirety, “Hussein,” and not by initial.

However, what was not said was very much written in lines that produced and maintained his stunned grimace: a Blackamerican officially became the 44th President of the United States, at 12:01pm and not after taking the oath of office-as my father, the ever astute political historian remarked (so excited was he to point out this little known factoid before the CNN correspondents announced this executive office protocol to their millions plus viewing audience). For a man who arrived to the states in 1968, a couple of months after the assassination of MLK, the U.S.’s racism-infused atmosphere emitted a pungent stench that filled the air and was hard to miss, even for a Syrian Bedouin country-bumpkin, fresh off the TWA jet from Brussels.

As would have been expected, given the Obama administration’s silence on Gaza and our community’s already marked division over the election of the man, this historic moment gave rise to mixed reactions coming from Arab-Americans. Facebook status alerts were litmus test-ament to this: ranging from a bashful admittance that they too “teared up during Obama’s speech” and proclaiming that “this is our moment for change,” some regarded this moment as an omen that portended American greatness. While others who asserted, “_____is hoping our new President’s policies never warrant a shoe-throwing.” and “_____”How can we throw coins into a fountain of blood and wish for peace?” Hope Obama will cut aid to Israel & hold it accountable 4 war crimes-hopeful, I know :-/” towed the ever familiar line of pessimistically-tinged apprehension and one-issue political positioning.

I guess, in the end, most Arab-Americans (based on my non-Gallup and Zogby methodology of polling), welcomed this day not simply because they too shared in Obama’s vision of a “eyes fixed on the horizon, with God’s grace by our side,” but because, as my brother appropriately observed, it meant a future we all could rejoice in: “Game Over for Bush.” An arab friend of mine parlayed similar sentiments over an online chat this morning:”I started to tear up when Bush boarded the plane. That was the most beautiful part of the inauguration-more beautiful and powerful than Obama’s speech. I was screaming at the TV. Allah m3k ya ibn al-kalb”

*meaning my family and close friends

Not only did those comments and the conjoined hurling of shoes spark what would later be known as “shoe-gate,” but it created a flurry of chatter in Western media about the symbolism of “the sole of the shoe in Arab culture,” with sweeping, unfounded monolithic anthropologically-oriented assumptions about “Arab culture” reminiscent of Orientalist fascinations of yester-year. Here are some I made note of in Western broadcast news realm:

ITN: “The biggest insult in the Arab world, to slap your shoe on somebody”

Patty Culhane of MSNBC: “Now people at home might be wondering, “what is the importance of the shoe?” Well in arab culture that’s considered, the sole of the shoe is considered an insult. So it was this reporter’s way of insulting President Bush during his surprise visit to Baghdad.” Were people at home really asking themselves, “hmmm, there must be a REASON why he threw his shoes at Bush. There has be some Arab cultural symbolism I’m missing, and thus, I need media outlets to explain it to me.”

BBC World News does one worse by rolling footage of “the angry arab mob” slapping the toppled Saddam statue with their shoes as the reporter explains the “importance of the sole of the shoe in arab culture”: “But in the Arab world, a shoe branded against anyone is a huge symbolic insult.”

Comparatively these culture claims sound eerily similar to ones made in the 19th century by british orientalists writing on the Middle East. For example, in Anna H. Jessup’s 1897 article “Children in Palestine” for The Biblical World, she makes the profound observation that, “A nursing baby is promptly given anything it cries for –from cooked food to raw vegetables and unripe fruit.” Yes, because responding to a crying baby is only specific to “Palestinian/Arab culture.”

However, for the slippery puddle produced by the attar-like Orientalism seeping through these MSNBC, ITN and BBC off-the-cuff, on-the-spot reports, they seem less offensive when compared to the following New York Times article that appeared two days after the incident. The opening line to the article written by Timothy Williams and Abeer Mohammed “In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.)” is testament to this: “Calling someone the “son of a shoe” is one of the worst insults in Iraq.” I find this analysis more troubling given that the writers of this article had time to sit and cogitate about such a ludicrous claim, and EVEN with such afforded time, to find sources to support their claim! But still they didn’t. Therein lies the most illuminating aspect of this story: Even respected news outlets like the NY Times and BBC see no need to justify essentialist views on the Middle East or Arabs because they see what clearly are opinions as facts about an entire population of people. Even when they get it all wrong.

Actually the most insulting part of his action was not what he did, but said. As he hurled the shoes, he yelled “Ibn Kalb.” Many an Arabic-speaking students are familiar with the dramatically different reaction one gets with the slip of the “Kaf” in place of the “Qaf.” They can tell you the hard lesson they learned. Also, as Will pointed out in his post “A New Arab Hero Emerges,” most likely, it is what you say or don’t say that gets you in more trouble. I mean, throwing a shoe at your rowdy kids is so commonplace that it really has lost a lot of loathsome weight. But, not greeting a relative, that is so rare it warrants the severest of rebukes! I remember refusing to give salaams to my aunt once and, as a result, causing a civil war within my extended family. It was already under frequent discussion that I was very inconsistent with my cheek kisses, and this one incident sent all 30 of my cousins and 10 plus uncles and aunts into a passionate fit against me and my parents. I was literally assigned a hearing with a jury of my peers, waited for a deliberation and was delivered an official sentence-all nine yards! Balah, ma bmzah!

But the best part of shoe-gate was not the throwing of the shoe or Bush’s impressive dodging skills, but his half-wit jokes and political analysis geared at minimizing the historic and political importance of this event:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4]
Bush sounds more like a Kindergarden teacher than a president of 8 years as he explains the Al Baghdadiya journalist’s motivations in a less than subtle attempt to dodge not just a shoe but also the original question posed by a journalist about the so-called political success in Iraqi back to the incident: “Well, to get back to the shoe. It’s one way to get attention…like driving down the street and have people gesture with not all 5 fingers…I don’t know the guy’s cause was…but that’s what happens in free societies.” That’s right Bush, your legacy as President of the US will be reduced down to starting two losing wars, jeopardizing world security in the process, turning a blind eye to the death of conservatively a million Iraqis and the displacement of at least 5 million Iraqis stemming from you “liberation” efforts, a failed economy, choking on a pretzel and now, dodging two shoes at a press conference centered around the “Iraqi victory.”

But in all seriousness, I am not trying to downplay the special place the “sole of the shoe” has or doesn’t have in the soul of the Arab or in his or her “mind,” but there are far more nefariously-regarded things throw. As such, KABOBers created a list of top ten plus “Things to throw…Worse than a shoe” (list originally composed by Fayyad-all the uncredited ones are his contributions):

1. A Rock
2. First Born
3. IED
4. Falafel Sandwich
5. A Zionist
6. A Smart Bomb
7. A bucket of labne (Sunbala)
8. A stack of 3 Million Syrian Lira’s
9. man2ooshe (Emily)
10. Saeb Erekat (Diana)
11. The words “stupid” and “ihmar” (me)
12.Bacon n’ Eggs (Sunbula)
13. A #1 license plate (me)
14. A molotav cocktail (Mohammad)

Lastly, the bigger point that has been missed about these Anthropologists du jour, at the end of the day, getting a shoe thrown at you is undesirable in EVERY culture. Unless of course it’s part of some obscure martial arts training I’m not aware of. Fadi’s comment speaks directly to this point: “Today i threw my shoes at two of my bosses and a coworker; thankfully, hurling a shoe at somebody is considered an insult in only the Arab world.”

Related: “A New Arab Hero Emerges“