Pakistani Paranoia And The Roots Of Duplicity

Sixty-four years ago Pakistan came into being. It
was carved –some say it was sliced- out of India.
Three years later, Hans Morgenthau (then Director
of the Centre For the Study Of American Foreign
Policy at the University of Chicago) adamantly
asserted that: “Pakistan is not a nation
and hardly a state. It has no justification,
ethnic origin, language, civilization or the
consciousness of those who make up its
population. They have no interest in common
except one: fear of Hindu domination.”

In 1950 Morgenthau was right. In 2011
Morgenthau’s assessment of Pakistan is still
correct. Precious little has changed in Pakistan.
Indeed, there are only two dramatic differences
between what Pakistan was in 1947 and what it is
now in 2011.

First and most worrisome, Pakistan is now a nuclear
nation. It claims the world’s fifth largest and
fastest growing nuclear arsenal. But Pakistan’s
nukes are a subject for another day. Still, those
nukes are uncomfortably related to the other
monumental change in Pakistan.

The second dramatic change in Pakistan is
its exploding population. There are now four
times as many Pakistanis as there were in 1947.
Pakistan has the world’s second fastest growing
population. Only Bangladesh, once part of Pakistan,
is growing faster.

But more importantly, the overarching common
interest of Pakistan's multiplying masses is still
the fear of Hindu domination. That fear is best
understood as pathological paranoia. It It is that
pervasive paranoia which is a prime reason for
Pakistani duplicity in foreign affairs.

But let’s start at Pakistan’s beginning. In 1947
Pakistan included Bangladesh. When the
latter –then known as East Pakistan – seceded in
1971, Pakistan felt betrayed by the distinct absence
of American support. But by that date, the seeds of
insecurity and duplicity had long since been planted.

A decade earlier, on May 1, 1960, Pakistan and
the U.S. had colluded by sending an American U-2
aircraft to spy on the U.S.S.R. Amidst much
fanfare, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev
announced that the Soviets shot down that
aircraft and captured its pilot. The U.S.
denied that it had sent a spy plane. The U.S.
denied that the pilot, Gary Powers, was a
CIA agent. The U.S. affirmatively asserted that
a “weather plane” had "strayed" into Soviet
airspace and had crashed “due to oxygen problems.”

To its great embarrassment, the U.S. version of
that U-2 incident was soon exposed to the world
as a series of naked fabrications. Pakistan
learned about diplomatic disinformation and
duplicity from that incident. But what is little
known is that America’s U-2 spy plane actually
took off from a Pakistani air base near Peshawar.
In fact, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower had
previously received express permission from the
Pakistani Prime Minister authorizing such spy
flights from Pakistan.

So, five years later, when Pakistan went to war
withIndia, Pakistan could have reasonably
anticipated American support. Wrong. The United
States stayed neutral. Thus, the seeds of
insecurity and duplicity were implanted into
the Pakistani mentality.

Then, in the 1980s, Pakistan and the U.S.
cooperated to arm and train mujahideen to
fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. But when
America learned that Pakistan had developed
a successful nuclear capacity, the United
States responded with sanctions and cut off
economic assistance. The seeds of Pakistan’s
insecurity and duplicity were ripening.

Not incidentally, India had already successfully
tested a nuclear "device” in 1974. In direct
response to that disturbing disclosure,
Pakistan’s then Prime Minister,Ali Bhutto,
asserted that Pakistan must develop its own
"Islamic bomb." As such, Pakistani paranoia
with India was further exacerbated when
Pakistan's perceived security was imperiled
by a "Hindu bomb."

Time passed. When America entered Afghanistan
to root out al-Qaeda after 9/11, Pakistan
appeared willing to aid U.S. efforts. America
needed Pakistani supply routes. It got them.
America needed to attack terrorist sanctuaries
in Pakistan's tribal areas. Pakistan tacitly
consented. But Pakistan was not pleased with
the infringement on its territorial
sovereignty. This circumstance has further
fertilized the seeds of Pakistani insecurity
and diplomatic duplicity.

At the very same time that Pakistan was
seemingly supporting American objectives
in Afghanistan, Pakistan was also providing
aid and support to the Taliban. That was hardly
news to the Americans. Indeed, the Taliban –to
the extent that such a monolithic entity
exists- is predominantly comprised of ethnic
Pashtuns. There are eleven million Pashtuns
in Afghanistan. But there are also
thirty-two million Pashtuns living right
across the border in Pakistan.

The Pashtuns are tribal brothers. The
arbitrary border aka The Durand Line)
between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a
diplomatic fiasco to the Pashtuns. More
pointedly, Afghanistan has never
recognized the validity of the border with
Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan and Afghanistan
almost went to war in the 1950s over the
Pashtun desire for the creation of an
independent Pashtunistan. That proposed
entity would have comprised half of
Afghanistan plus much of western Pakistan.
Pakistan's territorial integrity was
again imperiled.

Considering that scenario combined with
the omnipresence of the Pashtun/Taliban in
that region, Pakistani cooperation with
the Taliban was almost a given. As such,
Pakistan currently provides succor to
the Haqqani network, a Pakistani-based
and al-Qaeda affilliated fighting force
of Pashtun/Taliban that targets the U.S.
military in Afghanistan.

Not unexpectedly, the Haqqani network has
been quite immune from attack by the
Pakistani military. It is, therefore, not
only conceivable, but also quite probable
that the whereabouts of Mullah Omar are
hidden in a web of Pakistani connivance.
So, the seeds of Pakistani duplicity
continue to ripen.

All this returns us to Pakistan’s fear
of Hindu domination and paranoia about India.
As a by-product of Pakistan's pathology,
both India and Pakistan have abundant reason
to cultivate relations with Afghanistan. The
Pakistani tie with the Afghani Pashtuns is
a familial bond of Pashtun brotherhood.
That bond is combined with Pakistan's need
for strategic depth in Afghanistan
as a defense to a future confrontation with India.

But India is all too cognizant of Pakistan's
paranoia about Hindu domination. As a result,
India has consciously crafted a policy
calculated to encircle Pakistan via a plethora
of Indian enterprises throughout Afghanistan.
These enterprises are designed to ingratiate
India with Afghanistan. India’s sole purpose
is to deprive Pakistan of the strategic depth
which it deems absolutely criticalto its survival.

To Pakistan’s chagrin, India’s endeavors in
Afghanistan have been conspicuously fruitful.
This success prompted Pakistan to dispatch a
fifty-six page document to the U.S. urging the
Americans to get India out of Afghanistan.

India's successes in Afghanistan also prompted
General Stanley McCrystal, then the U.S.
commander in Afghanistan, to author a sixty-six
page report to the U.S. administration. In that
2010 report, McCrystal asserted that:
"Unbridled Indian interference is pushing the
chaos in Afghanistan to the point of being
intractable." Premises considered,
Pakistan has ample reason to fear encirclement
by its arch enemy. In the process, Pakistani
paranoia has been further fueled.

Additionally, Pakistan knows that India has
actually reached a formal understanding with Iran
about Pakistan. Iran agreed that if and when
Pakistan ever attacks India, then India -by treaty-
can use Iranian territory to flank Pakistan, enter
Afghanistan via Iran and thence proceed on to
Islamabad. The result is enhanced Pakistani
insecurity and heightened paranoia.

To rub salt in the wounds of Pakistani
insecurity, the United States surreptitiously
(but with abundant justification) flaunted
Pakistani territorial sovereignty to get Bin
Laden. At the same time, the Pakistanis
correctly perceive that the United States has
been and is cozying up to India. The impact
of these circumstances is foreseeable. Pakistan
will become more paranoid about India and
even more duplicitous in its relations
with America.

So, a critical question looms. Will Pakistan,
the Islamic nation afflicted by the world’s worst
case of paranoia and owner of the world’s worst
record on nuclear proliferation, deteriorate into
a rogue, nuclear-armed, jihadist state?

Was Pakistan Complicit Or Incompetent?

In the aftermath Bin Laden's dramatic death
in Pakistan, several critical questions beg for
answers. First, was Pakistan contumaciously
complicit in harboring Bin Laden? Second,
is the Pakistani government really that incompetent?

A unqualified answer to the above is elusive.
Definitive answers presuppose incontrovertible
evidence. Pointedly, accurate assessments in
geopolitical matters -most decidedly in
Pakistan- are shrouded in complexities, befogged
by irreconcilable contradictions and distorted
by disinformation.

But it is essential to recognize that covert
agencies deliberately obfuscate how they get
intelligence. Of necessity, they beshroud
operational specifics. They distort and camouflage
facts. This misdirects and misleads attentive
enemies. This approach confuses arm-chair
strategists and beclouds their understanding.
This accounts for the proliferation of conflicting
information surrounding the Bin Laden escapade in Pakistan.

That said, even absent smoking-gun evidence,
circumstantial considerations can provide abundant
illumination. It is not rocket science to extrapolate
from known facts to reach compelling conclusions.
Assuredly, there is a great deal that is abundantly
clear about a wide range of illuminating
circumstances in Pakistan.

Let's begin at the beginning. Pakistan was
created in 1947. It was carved out of India
with the express intent of creating a Moslem
nation. In fact, Pakistan is the only such
nation ever created with that express international
intent. At the same time, Pakistan was to become a
democratic republic.

Some sixty-four years later, Pakistan is a
decidedly Moslem nation which seems to be
drifting to an assertive Islamic nationalism.
As for Pakistani democracy, never in its six
decades of existence has a civilian Pakistani
government successfully served out its full
term in office. These two facts form and
inform the crux of existential life in
Pakistan. Indeed, a proper understanding
of Pakistan must discern what daily life in
Pakistan truly is all about.

Pakistan, a nation twice the size of California,
is divided by region, segregated by ethnicity,
fractured by languages, beset by religious
dissension and muddied by political dysfunction.
It is a nation whose 180 million citizens number
four times those who were there when Pakistan
was created. More importantly, Pakistan’s
population is exploding. By 2050 it will host
335 million people. As such, the realities
besetting Pakistan’s population are a
prime source for insight into that nation.
Pakistan’s realities illuminate the basis for
widespread incompetence, but also suggest
considerations that argue for complicity.

Initially, 42% of Pakistanis are under age
fourteen. That makes for a massive populace that
is impressionable, malleable and volatile. Add to
this the fact that one of every two Pakistanis is
illiterate. But why is this so since the Pakistani
Constitution promises free elementary education to all?

The short answer is that free education in Pakistan
is constitutionally subject to available resources.
Indeed, less than one percent of Pakistani GDP is
allocated to education. As a result, 78% of
Pakistani schools have no electricity, 60% have
no toilets, 40% have no running water, one of
four teachers simply do not show up for work
each day, only one of five citizens ever attended
secondary school and half of the people in
Pakistan over age ten have never attended any
school. Such deplorable educational circumstances
predispose Pakistan to ineptitude.

That state of affairs is compounded by a
linguistically fractured society that speaks sixty
different languages. And yet, Urdu, Pakistan’s
national language, is the mother tongue of only
8% of Pakistanis. Urdu is the second language
of the literate few, but Urdu is quite unspoken by
most Pakistanis. How does one competently run
such a country?

How Pakistan is run presents yet another insight
into whether Pakistan was complicit or simply
incompetent. Pakistan has seventeen political
parties. But Pakistan has only 34 million voters
(less than one fifth of the population).
Moreover, Pakistan’s civilian government is
widely regarded as unusually incapable, widely
incompetent, generally dysfunctional and
pervasively corrupt. Understanding these
operational liabilities, after Pakistan’s
disastrous flooding last year, the government
felt compelled to issue humiliating assurances
that donations for flood relief would not
be stolen. Utter incompetence abounds.

Add to the foregoing the fact that Pakistan
was one of only three governments that formally
recognized the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan.
The other two were Myanmar and Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan’s Sunni soul-mate. Given that
redoubtable association, complicity was
almost predictable.

That said, two final matters directly relate
to considerations of complicity in the Bin Laden
affair. These are the role of Islam in Pakistan
and the status of the Pakistani military.

Islam is the state religion in Pakistan.
Ninety-five percent of Pakistanis are Moslem.
Pakistan should be a homogenous and harmonious
society, but it is not. Why? Theoretically,
every Pakistani is free to practice, profess
and propagate his/her own religion. But that
theory is trumped by a Constitutional provision
that allows reasonable restrictions on free
speech for “the glory of Islam.” In practice,
the masthead of Pakistan’s Ministry Of
Religious Affairs instructively asserts:
“Islam is the only religion acceptable to God.”

But Islam is not monolithic. Seventy-five
percent of Pakistanis are Sunni. Many Sunnis
consider their Shiite co-religionists to be
apostates and/or idolators. The festering
Sunni dislike of Pakistan’s Shia populace
periodically erupts into murderous violence.
But both the Sunni and the Shia spurn
Pakistan’s Ahmadi Moslems.

In fact, virulent legislative antipathy to
Pakistan’s Ahmadis precludes them from even
calling themselves Moslems, from quoting the
Quran or from using the traditional Moslem
call to prayer. On the other hand, Pakistan’s
government is predisposed to favor almost
anything that is Sunni. However simplistic,
it must be remembered that Bin Laden’s
ideology arose from his passionate Sunni
beliefs. Here again, Pakistan’s propensity
to complicity raises its ugly head.

Which leads us to the Pakistani military.
Pakistan’s army is the world’s sixth largest
fighting force. It has directly ruled Pakistan
for half of that nation’s history. Pakistan’s
military receives one-third of Pakistan’s
budget. Indeed, it is said that whereas nation
states have armies, the Pakistani army has a
state. But the Pakistani army also has nukes.
In fact,it has a quite substantial nuclear
arsenal. That argues for competence.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the
most powerful man in Pakistan is not President
Zadari, but rather the head of Pakistan’s
military, General Asfaq Kayani. He is known
to be contemptuous of India, contentious and
quitecompetent. If something is going on in
Pakistan, he and/or the ISI (Pakistani
intelligence) presumably know about it.
From this perspective, Pakistani complicity
seems totrump its widespread incompetence.

One final thought. For years it was assumed
that Bin Laden was holed up in Pakistan’s
untamed tribal areas which are adjacent to
Afghanistan. No government has ever exerted
substantial control there. But Bin Laden was
not reduced to a cave-like existence in
North or South Waziristan. He was hiding
in plain sight virtually next door to a
Pakistani military installation. How could
that be? Was Pakistan complicit or simply
that incompetent?

In response, an aphorism from Pakistan’s
wild Waziristan may be illuminating. It
recounts what would happen if a Mesud
tribesman were to enter a room where
he saw a Wazir tribesman and a venomous
snake. The aphorism asserts that the Mesud
would first kill the Waziri and only then
would he slay the snake. Bin Laden was
neither a Mesud nor a Waziri. He was a Saudi
and a Sunni. Until two weeks ago, he was
an unmolested viper ensconced in a
substantially more-than-modest Pakistani
country house. Absent Pakistani action, U.S.
Seals entered the house and killed the snake.

So, was Pakistan complicit, incompetent or both?
You now have the facts. You be the judge.

The No Fly Enterprise

O.k, so President Obama has now laid out why
he deemed it imperative for the United States
to intervene in Libya. It is now appropriate
to seek clarity on other aspects of the Libyan
enterprise. First, what are the internal
dynamics in Libya? Second, who, beside the
rebels, benefits from the Libyan turmoil?

Libyan affairs are muddled, fractured and
wretchedly fragmented. Libya is anything
but monolithic. Thus, one wonders precisely
who are the Libyan rebels and anti-Qadaffi
voices? Indeed, U.S. Secretary Of State
Clinton rushed to admit: "We don't know
as much as we would like to know" about
the opposition.

There is ample evidence of al-Qaeda wanna-bees
and Hezbollah sympathizers among the Libyan
rebels. How numerous are they? How much
influence do they have? What other factions
and intolerable agendas infest Libya’s rebel
opposition? Would it simply replace the
Libyan tyrant with another dictator, another
Arab autocrat or a radical Islamist? It’s all
still quite unclear.

In fact, the entire focus on Libya is blurred.
The situation there remains decidedly opaque.
Assuredly, Col. Qaddafi is a grand master
at creating governmental opacity. Consider,
for example, that Qadaffi long ago planned
and created a purposely misleading system
of official titles and military ranks. The
system was expressly calculated to obfuscate,
confuse and conceal levels of responsibility,
ladders of authority and, especially, the
military chain of command.

Indeed, imagine the wonderment when one
learns that a Lt. Col. must report to a Captain
who then reports to an unranked public official.
In fact, one U.S.A.F. report caustically
observed that: “No one outside Libya -perhaps
even inside- knows for sure who controls what."

Such premeditated machinations are not the
meanderings of a madman. They are the
manifestations of masterful manipulation ala
Machiavelli. Of equal importance, said scenario
provides abundant insight into how Libya has
operated and how its people have been
controlled for four decades.

Qadaffi’s long tenure was abetted by the
existence of 140 different Libyan tribes.
Of these, thirty major tribes compete for
prestige and governmental preference in
placement and privilege. The current
disloyal, divided and dedicated opposition
to Qadaffi is a proximate result of carefully
cultivated tribal rivalries compounded by
demographic diversity and astute, but
tyrannical, leadership.

Official disclaimers notwithstanding, the
United States is still spearheading the
conspicuous support of a less-than-transparent
group of Libyan rebels. The White House is
even considering providing weapons to the
rebels. That continues to be a dubious scenario.

But, geopolitically speaking, other insidious
scenarios also surround Libya. Admittedly,
the United States did not intervene to avert
more massive humanitarian catastrophes in
Rawanda or Darfur.

Therefore, is the American intervention in
Libya solely attributable to this Oval Office’s
humanitarian concerns? Or is the Libyan
intervention more readily explicable in light
of the fact that Rawanda and Darfur are
devoid of the oil and gas upon which Europe
is so desperately reliant? Or is it that oil and
humanitarian concerns are both vital to a
functional and civilized society?

There is yet another concern which has been
rarely addressed. Precisely why did both
Russia and China strangely abstain and
willfully choose not to vote "No" on U.N.
Resolution 1973. That resolution encapsulated
the expansive wording which authorized the
No Fly Zone over Libya.

Both Russia and China normally abhor
outside interventions in any nation’s internal
affairs. Both Russia and China are customarily
aghast when any entity even contemplates
intervening to address unrest in their respective
geopolitical neighborhoods and/or spheres of influence.

Therefore, apparently both Russia and China
have unspoken agendas lurking behind the
scenes of U.N. Resolution 1973. Indeed, while
it is improbable, it is not geopolitically inconceivable
that they may have even colluded in their abstentions.

Consider one aspect of Russian motives
behind its No Fly abstention. Europe is
heavily dependent upon Russian oil and
gas. But Libya was also a major energy
supplier to Europe. As a result of the
Libyan turmoil, its energy is off the market.
That means enhanced Russian sales to and
dependency by Europe. Russia wins!

Is it too conspiratorial to suggest that
both Russia and China were delighted
to stand aside and watch America extend
itself into yet another potentially
indeterminate conflict? America’s foray
into Libya has further diluted U.S. military
strength across the globe. And the No Fly
adventure has also already cost Americans
over 600 million dollars. China loves owning
American debt and drools at an over-stretched
American military. China wins!

The foregoing well serves Chinese and
Russian interests. It deflects American
attention from aggressive Russian
nationalism in its near abroad. It diverts
focus away from Chinese adventurism in
the So. China Sea and its String of Pearls
strategy in the Indian Ocean. In addition,
none of the above is adverse to Chinese or
Russian interests. Their No Fly absentions
created a win/win scenario for both
China and Russia.

On the other hand, the Libyan escapade
harbors an unknown end game for the
United States. That end-game is beset by
significant known risks as well as by serious
unforeseen consequences for the U.S.A.
As such, Russia and China win again.

So, who stands to lose in the Libyan
No Fly enterprise?

The Mideast Malady

The Arab Mideast is sick. Tunisia sneezed and
blew its long-time President out of office into
exile in Saudi Arabia. Egypt caught a terrible
cough and expectorated its President out of
Cairo into exile in Sharm-a-Sheikh. Not so
curiously, Libya - alternately known as “The
Hidden Jewel Of Africa” or, by its detractors,
as “The Armpit Of Africa” - is geographically
sandwiched between the Tunisian sneeze and the
Egyptian cough. So, Libya and its mercurial
madman are also now suffering from a disabling
and perhaps fatal socio-political infection.

Even forty-one years of Jamahiriya (State of
the Masses) injections could not prevent
Qadaffi and not-so-loyal subjects from being
afflicted by the virus that is rapidly perfusing
the Mideast atmosphere. Apparently,Qadaffi’s
vaunted Jamahiriya juice (as that political
innoculation is derisively described by one
geopolitical pundit) has finally lost its
potency. But is this any surprise since
that now ineffectual vaccine was personally
manufactured by a leader who long ago lost
his legitimacy?

Not surprisingly, the Mideast malady that
has now percolated across much of North
Africa has mutated. Variant, but equally
virulent, forms of this virus (which some
have eagerly –if prematurely- dubbed
“The Arab Awakening”) have now severely
infected Bahrein, Yemen and Syria. Many
Arab states are scurrying about attempting
to provide their restive populations
with face masks (economic incentives aka
bribes) to limit the further spread of
the virus in their countries.

Depending upon what media reports and upon
whose human intelligence one relies, the
manifestations of the fast-spreading
Mideast malady may be characterized in
several ways. Some say the malady is a
profusion of widespread Arab interest in
the enhancement of human dignity. Perhaps.
Others suggest that the popular pursuit of
elementary human rights by young Arabs is
breeding the virus. Maybe. There are even
those who contend that the virus is fed
by an incipient Arab struggle for a more
democratic (or is it merely a less autocratic?)
society.

Would that some of this conjecture
was so. Perhaps some are, but slogans
are slippery, mottos are messy and
shoot-from-the-hip analyses are dicey. And
so are mass protests and public demonstrations
of discontent. They are not always what
they purport to be.

Indeed, the accuracy of the above diagnoses
of the Mideast malady is quite unconfirmed.
The true nature of the alleged Arab awakening
is subject to prolonged verification in
multiple Mideast laboratories. To be politically
correct, these laboratories are more accurately
identified as Arab nations. Not unexpectedly,
most –if not all- of these nations and their
potentates are committed –above all else- to
preserving the status quo. And that is the
redoubtable rub.

Pointedly, while Arab autocrats and Mideast
monarchs are distinctly different in multiple
regards, they do manifest one significant
common characteristic. They fight with a
defiant, dogged and seemingly fatalistic
determination to stay in power. Colonel
Qadaffi is not the exception, he is an
exemplar of this pattern.

Still, the two long-term Arab autocrats
in Tunisia and Egypt have already succumbed
to the Mideast malady. If that virus is
equally lethal to other Arab rulers, then
the potentates across the residue of the
Arab Mideast are hardly insulated from the
ravages of that implacable virus. Syria’s
President Bashir al-Assad recently protested
that Syria was immune from the turmoil. He
was wrong. Smug Saudi officials have made
similar protestations about the Saudi
populace. The Saudis may have unduly discounted
the relentless virulence of the Mideast malady.

It seems uncontrovertible that the fragmented
and fractured Arab populaces are uniformly
seeking new realities. But their aspirations
and the realities they seek are arguably as
different as are the nations they people and
the dictatorial rulers who dominate them.

In fact, the precise composition and character
of the many disparate groups that carry and/or
propagate the Mideast malady are still muddled.
Additionally, the nature of the new realities
they seek remains befogged by uncertainty,
beclouded by indecision and beset by a dirth
of demonstrable leadership. This is true in
Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria and
elsewhere in the region. And all that, indeed,
may offer some insight into the pathology of
the relentless malady that is enveloping
and -perhaps- indefinitely paralyzing the Arab Mideast.

The often inscrutable insight of an old
Arabic aphorism may be be pertinent.
The adage suggests that “the best jihad
is telling the truth to the face of a dictator!”

Unveiling The Arab Mideast

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (adoo
adoowee sadeechee). So goes a well-known
Arabic aphorism. In fact, said aphorism is
so well-known outside Arab circles precisely
because it aptly reflects the omnipresent
Arab reality to which it refers.

Depending upon where one is located (both
geographically and existentially) in the
Arab Mideast, one’s enemy may well be the
Sunni tribes around Benghazi, or the al-Houthi
tribe/Zaidi Shiite sect in north Yemen, or
the Ismaili sect and Shiite tribes in
southeast Saudi Arabia, or the substantial
Shia majority on the island of Bahrein, or
the minority Shiite community in Syria, or
the Sunni Palestinians(Hamas and Islamic
Jihad)in Gaza, or the Shiite Hezbollah in
Lebanon and many others who should - by
all reasonable and logical considerations-
actually be friends, but who often are
horribly hateful enemies.

Indeed, affairs in the Mideast are seldom
reasonable or logical. Clearly, Colonel
Qadaffi -long ago labeled "The Mad Dog of
the Mideast"- has no monopoly on irrationality,
instability or seeming madness.

More pointedly, all the potential friends
(aka enemies)in the Mideast are ethnic Arabs
most of whom seem pay at least verbal
obeisance to Allah. Yet, they ubiquitously
somehow manage to dislike each other with
an intensity that flies in the face of and
belies their uniquely pervasive commonality
of ethnicity, language, religion and mentality.

Simply stated, the Mideast has long been
peopled by a fractured and fragmented populace
that is both superficially united, but
desperately divided by their common Semitic
ethnicity, their Arabic language, their Islamic
religion and their ubiquitous Levantine mentality.

What is a Levantine mentality? That is unusually
difficult to define. But it is arguably comparable
to a legally scurrilous definition of pornography,
i.e. you know it when you see it or hear it or
witness it. That said, a Levantine mentality is a
predisposition to think and/or function in a
pattern that may be exemplified by the customary
path to power in the Mideast.

Consider that since 1995 nine long-time Mideast
monarchs/autocrats have died. Each of them ruled
for lenghty periods. Some ruled for decades. Six
of the deceased rulers were succeeded by their
sons. The seventh ruler was replaced by his
brother and the eigth ruler was followed by his
half-brother. Only one long-time ruling autocrat
who died since 1995 (Yassir Arafat) was not
replaced by a member of his immediate family.
Not incidentally, no deceased Mideast ruler
was replaced by a woman. As fate would have it,
the ninth ruler was Arafat and he only had
a daughter.

In this current year of 2011, four rulers have
either been ousted or are facing increasing
threats to their power. Three of these (Mubarak,
Saleh and Qaddafi) were grooming a son to follow
in their respective footsteps. In Tunisia, the
ousted President's presumptive heir-in-waiting
was the President's son-in-law.

That this pattern is currently under pervasive
attack across the length and breadth of the Mideast
is simply a testament to the prevailing atmosphere
in the Levant and its existing dynamics.

The seeming similarities of public protest,
popular unrest and common cries for reform
are as different and disparate as are the
dissenters and the regimes they seek to
change.

But then this is precisely the nature of the
Mideast. Despite its pervasive commonalties,
the Mideast has always been complex, confusing,
contradictory andcapricious. The Mideast was
and is impulsive, erratic and volatile. And that
pattern is expressly why the aforesaid Arabic
aphorism encapsulates the very essence of the
Arab Mideast.

Considering the current unrest and outright
rebellion in the Mideast, it is well to remember
that the difference between enemies and friends
is no thicker and no thinner than the blood of
those who share the identical ethnic DNA, speak
the same language, profess the identical
religion and operate within the parameters of
a pervasive mentality.

And that is assuredly why “the enemy of
my enemy….” flows so mellifluously, so
glibly and so ominously from the lips of so
many in the Arab Mideast.

Tumult In Tripoli

Some forty five years ago I was secreted into
Libya. No, I was not a CIA operative. And no,
I did not have a license, ala James Bond, to
do anything other than to hold a clandestine
meeting in Tripoli withan unusually prominent
Libyan citizen. By prearrangement, the Libyan
arrived alone an hour before me at a designated
location. Then I arrived, also alone. We
conducted a private meeting in a spartan room.
Then, also by prearrangement, the Libyan left.
After a reasonable time had elapsed, I also left
that location. At my very earliest opportunity,
I hightailed it out of Libya.

But this commentary is not about me. It is
about Libya. Indeed, in the years referred to
above, Libya was the locus of Wheelus Air Force
base. It was situated on a Mediterranean beach
on the outskirts of Tripoli. Wheelus was then
perhaps the largest U.S. Air Force base in the
world. Aircraft from that base used Libya’s
considerable desert as a convenient and
uninhabited bombing range.

In those years, King Idris I ruled Libya.
He was not terribly beloved by his subjects,
but neither was he horribly hated, except
by rabid nationalists and pan-Arabists who
disliked his cozy relationship with England
and the United States. Indeed, it can be argued
that King Idris was quite blindsided when,
in 1969, a twenty-seven year old Libyan army
captain named Muammar Qaddafi ousted him in
a bloodless coup.

From that date until this February, Libya and
Qadaffi, with a few notable exceptions,
seemed -at least on the surface- to have been
almost of one voice. Indeed, virtually from
the outset of his rule, Qaddafi has
repeatedly and viscerally protested that
Libya is an Islamic, socialist government
of the masses (jamahiriya). Theoretically,
Libya has been a direct democracy run by
communal councils which speak with the
voice of the people to the people and
for the people. Clearly, however, theory
and practice are not and have not been
birds of a feather in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

That said, upon assuming power, Col. Qaddafi
pointedly refused to promote himself from
Captain to General. He wittingly also
refrained from naming himself as President,
Ruler or Emir. In fact, it was forty years ago,
in keeping with his espoused egalitarian
ideology, that Qadaffi cast off his early
titles of prime minister and as secretary-general
of The General People’s Congress. As a matter
of and for public consumption by the Libyan
people, Qaddafi was to be no more and no
less than one of the masses.

Qaddafi’s egalitarian protestations notwithstanding,
deep down most Libyans have apparently always
fully understood who unilaterally called all
the shots and made all critical state decisions.
That awareness came into bold relief on 31 August
2006. It was then that Qaddafi - absent a scintilla
of discernible compunction, mental reservation or
emotional disquiet- blatantly urged his supporters
to kill enemies of his revolution and anyone who
sought political change in Libya.

But Qaddafi's violent and brutal propensities
have not been confined to Libya. Arguably,
Qadaffi financed the Black September
Movement which perpetrated the unspeakable
1972 Munich massacre of Israeli athletes.
Qaddafi was presumably behind the dastardly
1986 Berlin discotheque bombing which killed
three people and wounded hundreds, including
dozens of U.S. servicemen. It is Qadaffi
who purportedly personally authorized the
appalling 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103
over Lockerbie.

Premises considered, there should be little
cause for surprise that many Libyans are
now following the regime changing model so
recently set by their immediate neighbors
to the west in Tunisia and to the east
in Egypt.

What is surprising is that the West
in general and the United States in
particular seem to be painfully afflicted
with the errant notion that their adamant
verbal demands for safety, sensibility and
sanity in Libya will somehow be heeded by
that Libyan personality derisively known to
President Reagan as “The Mad Dog Of The Mideast.”

Alabama Governor Double Faults

News of the new Alabama Governor’s provocative and unsettling inaugural address
reached me in Melbourne, Australia where I had been blissfully enjoying The Australian Open. The tennis courts were afire with competitive vehemence, psychological one-upsmanship and emotional disarray. But all that was eminently predictable, foreseeable and anything but problematic.

Off the courts all around Melbourne’s colorful and character-filled tennis
venue, spectators from disparate corners of the world were united in a brotherhood
of tennis afficianadoes. Long time foes (actually enemies) like Serbs and Croats
(Novak Djokovic v. Ivo Karlovic) were at ease with each other. Americans, like
yours truly, were not even booed by the heavily Aussie crowd when we cheered
wildly for our countryman(Michael Russell) who was crushing an aspiring young
Aussie player (Matt Ebden). No one squirmed uncomfortably when Russian Dinara
Safina (once ranked #1) was literally demolished by a delightful Belgian (Kim Clijsters).A veteran Japanese player (Date-Krumm) was soundly defeated, but her dignity was unsullied by verbal indelicacies. A Thai player (Tanasugarn) was bludgeoned, but her Americanized-Russian opponent (Sharapova) was gracious to her.

Amidst this highly-charged competition enveloped in international conviviality, I learned that Alabama’s new Governor had –with a fusillade of inaugural verbiage – disavowed me (and countless others) as his Alabama brother. It was then that Governor Bentley’s appalling words - tantamount to a proclamation of socio-religious apartheid- virtually singed my ears.

No, I am not and never was the new Governor’s biological or even emotional brother. In fact, we are, both politically and spiritually, far from being even kissing cousins. But when the Governor disowned me (and so many others) as a brother Alabamian, I was not merely offended, I was also ashamed of him, embarrassed for Alabama and aggrieved as an American.

Sure, tennis is only sport, but it invites ferocious competition. It expects court-controversy which it resolves with instant shot-spot replay. And yes, tennis even contends with on-court verbal explosions like McEnroe’s infamous “You cannot be serious!” and Serena’s tempestuous (but unpublishable) tirade against a line judge. But why, pray tell, would any Alabamian of good-will, good sense and genteel southern upbringing not be inflamed and incensed by Governor Bentley’s intemperate and insulting pronouncement that if one does not hold his Christian belief in Jesus Christ then brotherhood is dead in the Alabama Governor’s mansion?

If tennis players and their fans from across the world can come together in an amicable brotherhood of sport at a Grand Slam tournament, can Alabama countenance a Governor who seeks to discount, demean and emotionally disenfranchise so many good, gracious and loyal Alabamians?

Melbourne, Australia is a lovely tennis venue, but it is not my home. Birmingham,
Alabama has been my home for the last forty years. Sadly, Governor Bentley’s remarks
have now stained my Birmingham residence, tainted my Alabama citizenship and
humiliated me as an American visiting Australia. When next I hear “Sweet Home Alabama” I will have ample reason to loudly shout: “Governor Bentley, you cannot be serious!”

In tennis parlance, the Alabama Governor has double-faulted. His verbal service was a clear fault and his verbal backhand to the people of Alabama was way out of bounds. Perhaps Dr. Bentley should take a verbal-injury time out to reconsider how he double-faulted his way to a love game. He now desperately needs some Divine coaching to restructure his gameplan and save his political match.

After a tsunami of protests, the Alabama Governor tendered a “sincere apology.” Does that mean that he did not mean what he said or that he is simply sorry that he said what he means? No matter, Dr. Bentley would do well to remember that it is not he, but that totally impartial Chair Umpire In-The-Sky who calls all the shots whether they are on an Australian tennis court or in Alabama’s political playground.