More troops, Hopeful less Civilian Casualties

HE WASN'T LYING! POLITICIAN BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT LYING.

The White House confirmed that the President has approved the deployment of an extra 17,000 troops for Afghanistan after a request from U.S. secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

The president is aware that this process took a little longer than expected, but he said that the original strategy presented by the U.S. senior military leadership was dissatisfying and had asked them to come up with a better strategy to put use of the additional troops.

During Bush's presidency, tension and mistrust arose between the U.S. and Afghanistan after U.S. military operations led to a high number of civilian casualties - over 2100 - a 40 percent rise of those killed just in the past year.

Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai addressed the issue of civilians casualties before and demanded President Obama that "there will be no civilian casualties in Afghanistan. We cannot win the war on terrorism with air-strikes." After Karzai congratulated Barack Obama and the Americans on the "courage" of electing him.

Obama has consistently showed concerns of Afghanistan's security and the urgency of winning the war on terrorism for the sake of the WORLD and believes that with new strategies there will be less civilian casualties in Afghanistan and that it is a winnable war. Regardless of his concerns, the president hopes that the Afghan government will also put accountable efforts on the war on terror.

Less than a month in office, and we are witnessing considerable actions. Lets hope that we will hear UN officials saying next year that Afghanistan lost NO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES in comparison to the recent UN rating of "Worse Year" for Afghan deaths. 

President Obama is indeed different than President Bush with his policies. Obama actually believes that diplomacy is needed alongside weapons if we want to win this war. Yes, Obama wants to use diplomatic strategies with Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

With a recent photo portraying former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mullah Zaif in Kabul, Afghanistan using an IPHONE, I am assuming they might understand what diplomatic matters means... after all, they did modernize their technologies to "better communicate".. or PLOT ATTACKS! so maybe they have also        modernized their diplomatic ways.. or at least, the president hopes        so. 

How welcoming do you think the Taliban are of Barack Obama??? Watch Below.

Fundamentalism

In Obama's inaugural speech, we witness he has sent a message to the Muslim world addressing that policies in muslim world is a matter he is concerned about and wants to change. We might come to a surprise that the president attacked for his lack of knowledge in foreign policies does actually have plans and is ready to implement them. 

Pakistan and Afghanistan

President Obama vowed previously that the war of terror we need to fight is one in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al-Qaeda and Taliban. During his campaign the president has said that we need to deploy more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq; because our war of terror is not Iraq.

The issue in that part of the world is based on a struggle for power. When addressing that region in the Muslim world we must remember two groups: Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both groups have been targeted by western societies as they witness them to be a great threat on modernism, security, and the western civilization. 

Who are these groups?

Al-Qaeda and Taliban are considered to be radical Islamic terrorist groups of which believe that the western civilization MUST COME to a complete end and that the way of rule is solely the SHARIA LAW. 

Why were they created?

Radical Muslims believe that the western civilization is immoral and a great threat on the Muslim world by witnessing the U.S.'s extreme involvement in Muslim regions such as Palestine and how such involvements led to the destruction and loss of Muslim lives. Their main objective evolved from "protecting" Islam from the west into complete destruction of the west. Most believe that the west must be destroyed before they destroy all Muslim nations. 

To their unfortunate, they consider many nations of Islam immoral and believe that they must change their way of government. Therefore, these terrorist groups consider themselves to be the RESCUERS OF THE ISLAMIC NATIONS.

Why do they hate the west so much?

•  U.S. and other western nations aid's to Israel allows for the radicals and non-radicals to witness that the west's intrusion is indeed dangerous for Muslim societies. 
•  The presence of western military bases in Muslim nations such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Qatar, Bahrain, Omar, Kuwait, etc raise questions and fear of massive western control in the Islamic Nations.

If all they want to do is protect their faith and religion then why promote the hate of other religions and cultures instead of raising awareness through knowledge?

• Weakness. Though terrorist groups have dramatically grown in power and support, they bitter towards their military weakness in comparison to the West and Israel.
• Lack of knowledge and eduction. Al-Qaeda and Al-Taliban are both terrorist organizations who claim to fight "immoral" religions of the west in the name of God; they allow themselves to portray to the world that God has given them a duty to kill anyone that threatens preserving Islam and WHY? because they distinctly believe that they are protecting themselves and other Muslims from the "immoral" "murderous" "evil" WEST. 

Take a second to think about this situation, this is a group of people who decided to represent Islam through their believes and ideas. But why should their words be trusted when a great number of members of these groups have not received an education passed 4th grade or even been outside the borders of their countries. Ignorance. 

Have they not taken a moment to recall actions by Prophet Muhammad of which they claim they follow. Have they not recalled that Prophet Muhammad has dined with Jews, has prayed in churches? Have they forgotten the fundamentals of Islam that call on respect and TOLERANCE of all holy religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? 

Why fight in the name of Islam? 

Simply because a group of oppressed, angry, ignorant people have come together believing that their way of life and that their purpose in this world will preserve Islam and wipe Israel off the map.

Quite frankly, the opposite is happening, their false spread of Islam as a religion of war and hate is fueling the fire and drawing more negative/false views on the reality of Islam and its purpose of existence. 

Your probably thinking. If there is a great threat on the Islamic nations from the West, then how do you protect it? 

I hereby argue that what such nations need is not additional bombs, wars, or forcible actions. The money spent on all these warrior actions (the west too) needs to

 be transfered to healthcare, food, and most importantly education. If the high literacy rate in the Islamic nations of 35% is lowered and a better educational system on the teachings of Islam becomes more realistic then we might see a better generation of well-taught people who will defend their religion and nations with KNOWLEDGE not a gun. 

Stay alert for my next blog to learn of Obama's plans in the region. 

Controlled Policies

Biased policies 

President Obama said, "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security." Has he once mentioned the importance of the Palestinian's security? The answer is NO. In another AIPAC meeting, he said "I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran." Sounds like a true hero. How about ensuring that Iraq and Palestine can also defend themselves? Does a 23-day war in Gaza leading the death of more than 1300 Palestinian lives call for an immediate protection of the Palestinians as well?

Many wonder what makes Israel deserve complete support and protection from the U.S., others probably wonder if the policies of the Muslim world are really restricted towards Israel and Jewish benefits is because the U.S. is Zionist controlled. 

The following points are important to understand while analyzing the US's domestic relationship with the Jews. 

1. Many of Hollywood and the media's key people are Jewish. 
2. AIPAC - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - is one of the most influential lobbies whose goal is to ensure America's support for Israel remains strong.
3. The Federal Reserve - the central bank of the US - is also largely operated by Jews.

• Ben S. Bernanke - Chairman of the FR.
• Randall S. Kroszner - Governor of the FR.
• Kevin M. Warsh - Governor of the FR.

Generally, President Obama's policies in the Middle East will not be fairly implemented because of the mutual interests the U.S. shares with the Jewish community. Not to say that previous presidents and President Obama are biased by nature. To simply put it, the U.S. benefits from supporting Israel's cause in the Middle East by winning the support of the powerful Jewish community in the U.S.

Due to these powers, objective policies in the Muslim world - Israel's obstacle to its dreams - cannot be easily implemented because they share much less mutual interest with our Government.

Imagine how the U.S.'s foreign policies in the Middle East would be if Arabs or Muslims controlled the economy and obtained a powerful lobby such as AIPAC. 

A Handful of problems.

Can he really handle it all? It is quite evident that the president is expecting a pile of unsolved controversies waiting for him at the White House; a great deal of hope and expectation is also piled up as people from all angles of the world have undoubtedly directed all their hopes on the change-advocate president of the strongest power of the world.

MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS!!!

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Oil, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the list can go on... forever.

Arab and Muslim Americans illustrated their support of Barack HUSSEIN Obama during the 2008 presidency campaign. Why I wonder? Is it because his middle name is Hussein? Or is it because he was once a courageous supporter of the Palestinian cause? Maybe for the reason that President Obama is not a WAR advocate and the Middle Easterners are FED UP with war. Whatever the reasoning behind this support is, I would like to URGENTLY announce to the Middle Easterners of world that America's new Hopeful President is only a sympathizer to your hopes and dreams of PEACE. Hint: President Obama's views on the Palestinian/Israeli controversy have dramatically shifted.

Due to the recent Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip, I would like to first and foremost discuss President Obama's views on the controversial Palestinian/Israeli issue.

The question is, is the President a Palestinian or an Israeli advocat? or is he a supporter of both parties? I doubt the possibility after witnessing the failure of any balanced peace-agreements prompted by previous presidents that they have the capability of supporting both parties without one side feeling neglected. 

Previous to the campaign, actions and words by Senator Obama at the time drew a picture that he is a  supporter of the Palestinian cause and their people. Obama was seen attending fundraisers in Chicago, Ill. and have shown his compassion of the Palestinians suffrage at various pro-Palestinian events. As well, he was known to have been an opposer to the Israeli cause. Watch below: 

According to Palestinian Democracy advocate Mustafa Barghouti, President Obama's comfort of discussing the Palestinian-Israeli cause has changed for the campaign. Watch below:

Obama REFUSED to comment on the Gaza crises explaining he is not yet a president and only one president at a time should speak on behalf of America. Perhaps he was still not courageous enough to comment on the controversial issue.

On a final note: I believe that President Obama's dramatic change of political views on the Palestinian/Israeli controversy is not a result of personal believes but instead Presidents of the United States are almost crippled in making fair decisions when it comes to this controversy. 

Why? Stay alert for my next blog as I discuss that in greater details.