Obama's Concentration on other conflicts

Is he doing it all? or is he just IGNORING Middle Eastern conflicts?

It has become very odd for me to go through a whole week without hearing about a President's speech, actions, or major talks regarding Middle Eastern conflicts. After all, don't they account for the country's most controversial foreign issues?

This week, I've witnessed that our president has made comments, visits, and possible changes in many other foreign nations such as Cuba and Venezuela. It has been since last week, since the Turkey speech, that i've heard anything about Obama and the Middle East.

Speech on Turkey:

This could be a good and a bad approach, it could be a positive approach because the president is paying attention to other conflicts around the world rather than SPEND ALL HIS ENERGY on only the Middle East, spending more time to make proper decisions in that region, and it could be that he is asking for assistance from other nations in the world. 

It could however be a negative approach because the President might be; ignoring these conflicts for them being TOO COMPLEX, adding more on his plate with other nations' problems, or delaying such conflicts as they get worse. 

Over all, while I approve of many of his approaches that he says he will take, I and many other people waiting for actions get very anxious while waiting for the President to take actions of all these steps he only SAID he will do.... its the matter of the unknown that I hate to be in, time will eventually answer many of our questions though. 

Grassroots - Disbelieving Obama

The action of political resistance has always been deeply rooted into individuals coming together as masses and uniting their voices for remarkable impressions. Unity and freedom are key words in our American constitution, a constitution that's guided under "freedom, liberty, and justice for all."

Grassroots organizations, or political resistance groups in the U.S., take advantage of the First Amendment; which allows them the freedom to comment, organize, and speak against the political environment. However, remembering that these are grassroots organizations, they do not have the needed resources to spread their m

essage through EXPENSIVE MEDIA... and they therefore, rely solely on donations and volunteers to stand up against the powerful voice of the media. 

If we date back to President Bush's presidency, we vision many of the rallies on the streets of Washington to have increased around that time. These gathered voices against the presidents' decisions were organized by grassroots organizations, and therefore, what these organizations think of the president makes a huge difference of other people's approach on presidents as well.

As of President Barack Obama, we can witness that many grassroots organizations who are in support of Middle Eastern conflicts are DISLIKING how the President is handling the following controversies:

1. Palestine-Israel - apparently, the President is made a major shift from pro-Palestine to pro-Israel dating his campaign.

2. Iraq - according to members in ANSWER Coalition, president is promising too many actions of withdrawing troops from Iraq, but they will not be going home and will instead transfer to Afghanistan.

3. Afghanistan and Pakistan - ANSWER members are also stating that while Obama might end the war in Iraq, he will be intensifying a different war in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan.

Here is a list of some of the grassroots organizations in Washington D.C. for Middle Eastern conflicts:

• ANSWER Coalition.
  
• United Palestinian Appeal.
• Muslim American Society.
• ADC.
• U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

To Date, since the President's Inauguration, ANSWER Coalition has already organized a massive Anti-war protest against America's interven

tion in the Middle East. Generally, the rally called to ending the occupations.

Response to Obama's

As a response to Barack Obama's Nowruz message, 

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei dismissed these overtures and has said that Iran does not see any change in U.S. policy under Obama's administration.... Hmm, does not sound too hopeful!!!

He Talks the Talk, But Does He WALK THE WALK?

It was during a speech last Saturday that Khamenei stressed that relations with the U.S. and Iran will not change unless Obama puts an end to U.S. hostility towards Iran and brings real changes in U.S. foreign policies... How "impressive"; the quick judging and instant negativity from Iran that is. 

In last Saturday's speech from Khamenei, we can conclude the following:

• Iran is dissatisfied because they have yet to see any promised changes in U.S.'s relations with Iran. "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," said Khamenei.
• They say a change of U.S. words is not enough, "we will watch and we will judge. You change , our behavior will change," said Khamenei.
• Iran is been dissatisfied with U.S.'s intervention since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979... therefore, its not Bush they had a problem with, its all of America's policy in Iran.
• Khamenei asks Obama how he could congratulate Iranians on the new year while they CONTINUE TO ACCUSE Iran of supporting terrorism and making nuclear weapons.

Khamenei's Speech:

In this matter, I agree with both Barack Obama's action to congratulate the Iranians on Nowruz and with Khamenei's response. First of all, through the message sent to the Iranians, I witness an honorable approach from our President to new beginnings with Iran... however, words of hope and sympathy aren't enough to do the job. But, instead of completely dismissing and mistrusting such wishful thinking, Khamenei is at fault by OVERREACTING and QUICK JUDGING of Obama's policies. After all, he has only been a president for about 5-months.

More war funding.. right? not?

Like any matter, there is a side of opposition and a side of support. As of the matter of Barack Obama receiving and handling $83 billion more for U.S. wars, I could attribute more quotes of opposition. 

Problems, concerns, and facts:

• The Pentagon will now be set to receive a $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending September 30 - the problem here is that the PROMISE of the Pentagon to receive more money, which many parties oppose, is now SET and DONE.
• According to an Aljazeera article, while most Democrats and Republicans are likely to support this request, those who oppose the wars say that OBAMA NEEDS to take more actions to end the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• According to Lynn Woolsey, Democrat congresswoman from Califronia, "this funding will do two things: it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinetly."
• Woolsey said that Barack Obama's fundamental theories in those regions should be shifted towards promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts. 
• After this request, the cost of the two wars since the 9/11 will total to almost $1 trillion dollars, according to Congressional Research Service.
• This action of money request is similar to many of those taken by President Bush. The problem here arises on whether President Obama will take similar actions as President Bush... He voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
• Funding for training of Iraqi Government will not be supported by Iran, Shia combats in Iraq. Thus, funding for training for the Afghanistan National Army will frustrate  Al-Qaeda, and Taliban.

With all do respect to all these facts and oppositions, the war will not end without more funding. What many of the critics need to remember is that President Obama is not the person who got the U.S. into this mess. Quite evidently, we all know that he has entered this presidency announcing his willingness to "dust off our shoulders."

Like all problems, ending them takes a lot more effort than to start them. Throughout Obama's presidency, we are bound to experience him making many similar requests to those of President Bush... the difference is, we have a NEW MAN AT THE TASK and all we can place on him is hope. We cannot deprive and stand in the way of the President because of fear. Clearly, we only have on option towards peace; that option is to take action. Doing absolutely nothing will leave us at war, strengthen terrorism, and allow filth to continue on our reputation.

We got in this mess, and it is now our President's responsibility to lead us out of it. 

Obama seeks MORE MONEY FOR WAR

But wait,

I thought Obama is synonymous with ANTI-WAR... more money? more war? When is the end of this!!!

The U.S. President has asked congress on Thursday for $83.4 more for U.S. wars. According to Obama, 95 percent of the money requested will head for three regions:

1. Iraq: money will support U.S. military operations in the Iraqi basis.

2. Afghanistan and Pakistan: for diplomatic operations in effort to defeat al-Qaeda and Taliban. 

As well, $3.6 billion will go for strengthening the Afghan National Army.

"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to rake responsibility for their own future - and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It is always a terrifying factor when Presidents request more money for war. It leaves you thinking: doesn't more money mean a more intensified war? isn't Obama hope  the opposite of that? however, would we be able to reach an end to this war without intensifying some certain measures? well, maybe we do need additional funding and training.

As we've witnessed in the previous 8-years, blank checks for war given to President Bush have led him to irresponsible and reckless actions. Which in return, caused a FILTH for America's reputation and resulted in bloodshed of many innocent civilians. 

However, the question here is, should Barack Obama be given the same opportunity President Bush had and just hope that he will act differently?

Approach to Shiasm

President's beginning statements on Iran:

During the campaign, President Obama proclaimed that Iran DOES NOT pose a serious threat on the U.S. for reasons such as: the possibility of finding mutual interests with Iran, and the "seriousness" of this threat is weak. 

While he said that Iran is not a "serious threat," he as well contradicted that statement to the CNN by saying that their NUCLEAR POWERS can be a great threat on our national security. 

Drawing from these contradictory statements, Obama seems to believe that Iran HAS THE TOOLS to be a threat on our security.  At the same time, he does not believe that they have the intentions on using these tools (even if they say they will).

2008, Obama on CNN:

The President's idea on resolving the conflict:

1. To begin with, the President believes that the "blank checks" given to former president George Bush allowed for the War in Iraq. Which then led, according to the president, to the strengthening of Shia regimes, which THEN ALSO LED to strengthening Iran... Overall, the President believes AMERICA UNINTENTIONALLY EMPOWERED IRAN through the Iraqi War.

Decision of ending this conflict to the president seems quite SIMPLE to say, but complicated to act upon. Part of the plan is, pulling troops out of Iraq. This action should in return make Iran "happier." Because, obviously, whether the President sees it or NOT, leaving Iraq for its people to handle will empower Iran and result in its dominance of Iraq through the Shia Regimes. Hint: Iran is continuously providing support and fund to bodies of Shia regimes in Iraq.

2. In other efforts, the President portrayed his desire to resolve conflicts with Iran through a message directed to all those celebrating NOWRUZ - a holiday cheerfully celebrated by the Iranian people. Specifically though, the message was DIRECTED TO THE IRANIAN LEADERS. The thematic statement of this message is the understanding of the President's recognition of the two countries' GREAT differences and his great desire on resolving these differences.

Obama's Nowruz Message to Iran:

3. ACTIONS TAKEN FOR IRAN AND IRAQ. In February, despite his intentions to withdraw all troops, President Obama said to the CNN that troops will gradually leave Iraq, while about 35-000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after . The remaining troops however, will be withdrawn gradually until all the forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Irana Bama

America's issue with Iran is based on the U.S.'s fear of possible terrorist acts Washington assumes Iran might take against the U.S. and or its closes ally Israel. Fear has revolved over witnessing actions and statements by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad that raise threats of their withholds of NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Intentions to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, and disapproval of the U.S.'s existence in Iraq.

Conflict: Shia Revival: After invasion of Iraq, division of Islamic sects amongst Iraqi people became apparent. This division then resulted in daily civil violence and conflicts amongst mostly SUNNI IRAQIS and SHIA IRAQIS. Moreover, the group on the rise of power seemingly is Iraq Shia Muslims. 

Iran, being led and powered by Shia Muslims, is a  concern for both Sunni Iraqis and the U.S.

Lets keep in mind that the Shia revival was unintentionally fueled by the invasion of U.S. on Iraq. Iraq having been ruled and humiliated for decades by previous Sunni leader Saddam Hussein has left the Islamic Shia sect desperate for power and respect. Therefore, the U.S. invasion, and the prosecution of Hussein became an opportunity by groups of people previously humiliated in Iraq to finally rise and gain the power and respect they've always wished for. 

Why the Fear of Shia Revival:

1. While the Iraq invasion played a big role on strengthening Iraqi Shia Muslims, neighboring country Iran's POPULATION MAJORITY is Shias, almost all government officials in Iran are Shias, and the President along with the government's members, are Shias.

2. Iran is a major powerful country in the Middle Eastern region and is in major support of all Shia parties. This support raises concern with the unlimited support Ahmedinejad is willing and has been giving to the Shia powers and the Shia revival in Iraq.

3. Major fear to U.S. security is been witnessed through growing ties between between Shia Iran and Shia Iraq. The U.S. repeatedly accuses Iranian-linked groups of attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

4. Sunni Iraqis also fear the link of the Shia powers of neighboring countries because it deters the Sunni powers. At the current situation of CIVIL CONFLICTS, Sunnis losing power resulted in their fear of losing many sunni lives... because of Shia revenge. 

5. Final concern is of ISRAEL'S SECURITY. Rumor has it that Ahmedinejad said he desires to "wipe Israel off the map" while other critics have said he did not literally "mean to wipe Isreal off the map". But regardless, Iranian president dislikes the Israeli occupation as he sees it to "besiege our Muslims brothers and sisters of Palestine." Israel is a major ally of the U.S., and therefore, Israel's security from Iran is an issue the U.S. must handle with Iran. 

Ahmedinejad and Israel/Palestine: