"One Who Submits To God"


I submit the following essay. It is by Hank LaBate, a friend and a fellow member of the Traverse Bay Area 912 Project.  I believe it fairly & unbiasedly presents the Muslim Religion as it truly exists today - without the rhetoric of radicals on either side.  I pray to God, the one God in whom Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe, that you will take away a better understanding of one of the three largest Monotheistic religions of the world.

IMNTBHO, Dave Skibowski

Muslim (one who submits to God)

Hank LaBate

• Genesis and the story of Abraham and his 2 sons Isaac and Ishamael
• Ishmael from Sarah's hand maiden (servant)
• Isaac from Abraham's barren .wife Sarah as God promised
• From Isaac the Jewish and Christian nations
• From Ishmael the Arab nations
   The schism (split) relates first to who was the "only" son put on the alter of sacrifice by Abraham, and continues with the Muslim rejection of the Son of God in Christian and Jewish theology (Messiah and Ezra).

When Ishmael Comes Home

by Kevin Coval

   Coval, a Chicago Jewish poet, writes, in the voice of Ishmael, of images as what happens when the two brothers meet to put their father in the earth. These are the last few lines:
. . . together we will dig this grave brother
lay the bones of a man I never knew
cover earth over him, say Kaddish
we will mourn together my brother
did he tell you my name, that I look like you
love you, dreamed to have a brother
at night sleeping curled under my lineage
    my Lord is Allah, is Yahweh, is what saved you
atop the mount and damned me to wander, but
I am strong, brother, do not weep cuz the patriarch
Is gone, death is rebirth is time to build new temples
Tell stores of our father, sing his praises, mend his curses
Stand over his memory and decide where to move from here
   Isaac, I have returned
My shoes are off in your home
My open palm extends to you Salaam, Shalom, in peace
Brother, will you take my hand

Influence of Religious works (books)

Muslim                                               Hebrew
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KORAN (Quran) (610 - 632 AD) - - - - -TANAKH (canon of the Hebrew Bible) (200 BC)
                                                     Includes: the Torah(5 books of Moses)
                                                                  Nevi'um (12 Prophets)
                                                                  Ketuvim (11 books of writings)
Hadith (rules, words and deeds) & - - -Talmud (Jewish law, study, customs, etc.)
Sunnah (living habits of Muhammad)
Sufi Mystics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kaballah (inspired by Song of Solomon or
Inspired by Masnavi - Persian Poems)                 Song or Songs and the Sufi)
History of Muslim Religion
• Muhammad born in 570 AD in Mecca, a trading stop on a secondary trade route.
• Muhammad died in 632 AD
     o Orphaned at age 1
     o Raised by grandfather and powerful uncle who was head of Quarish tribe
     o Married a rich 40 year old widow at age 25
     o Became a man of leisure with time to spare
     o Spent much time in the desert and caves in deep contemplation
     o Was visited by the Angel Gabriel who implored him to convert his           tribesman to the one true God and stop worship of other gods and idols
     o In 610 he began to proselytize his monotheism (one God)
     o His Quarish clansmen rejected him and threatened to kill him (saved by his uncle) as they did to many of his followers.
     o In 622 his uncle died and he quickly left Mecca for the safety of Medina o He warred with his clansmen and finally triumphed in his return to Mecca in 630 AD
     o Had 6 children; 2 sons who died early in life and 4 daughters
     o Two of his daughters were married to the third and fourth Caliphs (Mohammad's successors).
     o Both the Caliphs were assassinated and thus split the Sunni and Shite major sects in the mid-600's.
     o (Most of the schism (splits) in the Muslim religion have to do with who is in charge, i.e., blood line or politics.)
   The Muslim religion and Islam (which includes the religion and the culture of the rules and laws of the Hadith/Sunnah and Shariah law (devised by the first and second Caliphs) spread west to the Atlantic across north Africa and the Iberian peninsula and east to Asia minor very quickly in the first hundred years after Muhammad's death. More often than not, military threat and conquest rather than religious conversions were the cause of the spread of Islam.
Islam Today (peace through submission to God)
1. Approximately 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world; mostly in the Middle East, Indonesia and North Africa. (200 million in 1900, 550 million in 1970).
2. Examples of Hadith/Sunnah -Clerics interpretation of Muhammad's words in the Koran and recording of his or his companions actions and responses include the following: Revelation, Belief, Knowledge, Ablutions (washing of the body), Rubbing hands and feet with dust, prayers, Virtues of the prayer Hall, times of prayers, Call to Prayers (Adhaan), Characteristics of Prayer, Friday Prayer, The Two Festivals, Invoking Allah for Rain, Eclipses, prostration during recital of Quran, Prayer at Night, Funerals, Obligatory Charity Tax, Pilgrimage (Hajji), Penalty of Hunting while on pilgrimage, and there are many more.
Shari'ah (path) Law-
   Shari'ah is considered God's Law, distinct from all human codes of law. It is God's indispensable link between Himself and His people (ummah); the manifestation of His divine will for Muslims and for those non-Muslim minorities (or majorities) under the domination of the Muslim community, (pious point of view) It is derived from the Koran and Hadith/Sunnah and, all too often, includes some disgusting tribal traditions that include "honor killings" that predate the Muslim religion. In countries that have secular and Shari'ah law, Shari'ah is limited to familial issues (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.). Interesting, a NY Times November 2008, article, entitled: Britain Grapples With Role for Islamic Justice, discussed the country allowing sharia law in governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agree. The new system is noted to be in line with separate mediation allowed for Anglican and Jewish communities in England. (You can find the article on-line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/ll/19/world/europe/19shariah.html? r=l&pagewanted=l). "There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation," Britain's top judge, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said in a July 2008 speech (PDF). Supporters of this initiative, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, argue that it would help maintain social cohesion (BBC) in European societies increasingly divided by religion. However, some research suggests the process to be discriminatory toward women (BBC). Other analysts suggest the system has led to grey areas. Britain's Muslims come from all over the world, Ishtiaq Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Council for Mosques in England, told the BBC, noting that this makes it hard to discern at times "where the rulings of the sharia finish and long-held cultural practices start." Sharia has recently become a topic of political concern in the United States. The state of Oklahoma passed a ballot measure in November 2010 to ban the use of sharia law in court cases, which supporters are calling "a preemptive strike against Islamic law" (ABCNews). Several opponents of new mosques being built around the United States, including one near Ground Zero, have cited fear of the spread of sharia as a reason for opposition. And about a third of Americans in an August 2010, Newsweek poll suspect U.S. President Barack Obama sympathizes with Islamist goals to impose sharia.
   There are three categories of punishment derived from the Koran and Hadiths:
a. Hadd are those that are directly addressed in the Koran (most horrific punishment including stoning, flogging and amputation). Include unlawful sexual intercourse, false accusation of sexual intercourse, wine drinking, theft and highway robbery,
b. Judge discretion,
c. Tit-for-Tat (blood money payment).
   Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial (Hadd punishment) practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at AI-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
Government under God countries - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates allow alcohol), Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, (in some countries Non-Muslims are not expected to obey shariah and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.)
Secular countries - Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Chad, Somalia, Senegal and Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Newsweek, "Turkey has achieved what people said could never be achieved-a balance between Islam, democracy, secularism and modernity." Secular Muslim countries are a minority, however, and the popularity of Islamist political parties are narrowing the gap between religion and state.
4. HAJJ - Yearly pilgrimage to Mecca which commemorates trials of Abraham and family. Muhammad said proper Hajj will return person as newly born and sinless.
5. IHRAM - Spiritual state of purity during Hajj requiring no sex, quarrelling violence or wearing two piece unsewn clothes.
6. KA'BA - Stone cube shaped building, said to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael but contained idols of 26 gods before Muhammad returned and smashed them in 630 AD. It was the site of pagan pilgrimage much before the Muslims.
7. Five Pillars of Islam (believed by both Sunni and Shi'a)
     a. Shahabad - Profession of Faith
     b. Salah - ritual prayer, 5 times a day facing Mecca (Ka'ba)
     c. Zakah - alms tax
     d. Sawm - fasting during Ramadan
     e. Hajj
   In addition, the Shi'a believe in the following 3 additional Pillars along with the previous 5 Pillars:
     f. Jihad important to Sunni but not a Pillar to struggle in the way of God or to struggle to improve self or society. Jihad is directed against devil's inducements, aspects of one own self, or against visible enemy. Four categories of Jihad are: self-persecution, jihad of tongue, jihad of hand, and jihad of sword.
     g. Amr-Bil-Ma'Ruf- enjoing to do good.
     h. Nahi-Anil-Munkar=exhortation to desist from evil.
Sects of Islam
1. SUNNI-80%-believe in electing leaders-Caliphs
2.  4 major schools of law
     a. Hanifites-most liberal-Turks/ldians/central sians(Usbecks/Kirgs-       Kazaks/Pakistanis/Bangaladeshis
     b. Malikites-traditionalist-Kuwaite/UAE/Bahraiann/Sudan/uper     Egypt/Lybia/Tunesia/Algeria/Morocco/west africa/Spain
    c. Shafite.-believe hadith on level of Qur'an-Palastine/Jordan/Syria/Lebanon/lraq/Kurds in Iran/east africa/lndonesia
    d. Hanablite-most fundamental & fanatic-accept Wahhabi & Islamic brotherhood, want religious Islamic governments not secular Arabic states-Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Pakistan
    • Salafi,Wahhabi and Ahle Hadith are sometimes used interchangeably
    • Wahhabi also called particular orientation within Salafismfancestors fundamentalism- 1st three generations-follow strict Qur'an & Hadith interpretations law Alhari school of Aqeedah (believe only what is written w/no interpellation)). Wahhabi is considered derogatory and they prefer 'Unitarians' (Muwahiddun).
    • Wahabbi primary doctrine is Tawhid, or uniqueness of unity of God
2. SHIITES(SHI'A) 10-20%-(PARTY OF ALI-cousin/SON IN LAW of Mohammad)-bloodline of succession-12. Imams are infallible-death of 12th Imam (Husayn) is like Christ death-Shiite law practiced in Iran/Lebanon/Syria/Palestine.
    a. One major school of law-Ja'fari
    b. 8 sub sects
        • Kharijites(Seceders)-extreme fundamentalists-assassinated Ali-Qur'an interpreted literally-no interpretation
        • Murjiites(Postponers)-among Muslims, only polytheist go to hell
        • Hashimites and the Abbasids-Jordan-descendants of al-Abbas uncle of Muhammad & Ali. Kept throne from Shiites,
        • Meccans & al-Mansour-believe at end of history religious leader of Islam name will be exact name of prophet- Muhammad Iban Abd Allah
        • Zaydis-most like Sunni. Don't believe in return of hidden Imam- Imam must be chosen from Ali's line based on ability/learning- oppose Sufi mystics- Yemen
        • Assassins of Almamut-smoke hashish before going on suicide missions-tried to kill Sunni Caliphs & followers
        • Druze-secretive Muslims-civil wars with Christians in Lebanon
        • Nusavris(Alawites)-Syria (500.000) -They celebrate Christian holy days.
3. IBADISM-<1%, distinct from Sunni and Shi'ia. One of oldest sects. Very conservative but very tolerant- agree with some of the Sunni Caliphs and Hadith-Oman/Libya/Algeria/east Africa(Zanzibar)/Tunisia
3 Groups of Islam Philosophy
    1. MU'TAZILA-uphold philosophy of reason
    2. PREDESTINATION-(IF ALLA WILLS-)
    3. SUFIS-Mystics who focus on loving and experiencing God directly. Similar to Jewish Kabbalah and said by some to have inspired them.
Muslims Come in 4 Social Types
    1. Fanatics -ritualistic and usually poorly educated
    2. Religious & Educated - can discuss with open mind
    3. Nominal - all levels of society and have traditional knowledge of religion/open to gospel of Christ
    4. Mixed Marriage - able to consider other religions, i.e., Christianity
   The point is that there are many different forms of the Muslim religion and only a few sub sects want to kill all the Jews and Christians. Each sub sect follows different Hadiths/Shariah and is more or less accepting of the world's other religions, Muslim, as a religion, is not monolithic. It is my belief that the Koran's reference to infidels was not directed toward Jews and Christians but toward Mohammad's own clansman who were polytheists. The Koran says that Mohammad, at Medina, directed his followers to "go to the Christian lands and wait for me to call for you. They will take care of you until I call" and the Koran says "respect the people of the Book" (Torah)?
   Regrettably, I fear that there are a great many "radicalized" Muslims that have been taught hateful Hadiths. They are not all bomb throwers but they are supportive of bomb throwers. They number in the 100's of millions. I believe that the attempt to turn this very large ship full of say 400 million radicalized Muslims very, very slowly to the right by injecting the politics of personal freedom into the middle east in two strategic countries; Iraq and Afghanistan, was the best chance we have of quelling this hatred for the world by the radical Muslims. I pray that it will work. Jews, Christians and Muslims are all cousins linked through Abraham. We believe in our one true God and none of us are infidels in the meaning of Mohammad. Remember that his clansmen were trying to kill him after his Uncle in Mecca died.

Time context is important

Poem About September llc By Rooshna Kidwai

Tragedy struck the country on the llth of September

Terror grasped our hearts on a day that all will remember

Shock combined with anger, pain combined with fear

As we intently watched the news and brushed away the tears

Planes explode into buildings, causing them to collapse

Maybe a scene from a movie, or just a nightmare, perhaps?

But that's just wishful thinking, we knew it was very real

Because the families of the victims wait for the pain to heal

The question continued to echo, only the answer did we lack

Who were the monsters who committed this deadly terrorist attack?

Now we know their identities: Muslims by their names

And because of these cowards, all Muslims were defamed

This isn't what Islam teaches; I'm a Muslim so I should know

What the terrorists did was wrong, and Hell is where they will go

Us Muslims did nothing wrong, but still you persist to despise

A group of innocent people, who now fear to step outside

We won't ask you to forgive us for something we didn't do

But please respect us like your own, because we are just like you

Let's hold our hands with peace, and lets join our hearts with love

Pray for the victims who died in the blue sky up above

Too high above for us to know how these people felt

The victims in the buildings and the horror with which they dealt

Imagine the pain of their families, who lie at home in wait

For someone to come inform them of their beloved's fate

We called it the United States, but it wasn't until now

That we were a country united under a single vow

Dear God, Together we stand and together we pray

For all who lost their lives on that sorrowful day

And protect all the Muslims from anyone who expresses malice

And doesn't know the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist

GOD BLESS AMERICA

© 2001 Rooshna Kidwai. AH rights reserved to the author. Reprinted here by permission.

Henry LaBate biography

I am a graduate of Clark, NJ regional high school, class of 1959. I attended Rutgers University for one year prior to joining the US Navy. I spent 20 years in the US Navy, qualifying in submarines and serving on nuclear and diesel fast attack and World War ll diesel submarines as well as Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines. I also served on Admiral Rickover’s staff at Nuclear Reactors code 08 in the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C. The US Navy sent me to the University of New Mexico where I graduated with a degree in Electrical engineering in 1967. I received graduate level Nuclear Power education from the US Navy and attended George Washington University for MBA studies.

I have been employed by various consulting firms in Washington D.C., including Booz Allen & Hamilton and have been employed by RCA, General Electric, Martin Marietta and Lockheed Martin (same job but our division was sold/acquired) for the past 25 years as a test engineering manager for Aegis (computer controlled combat systems) Cruisers and Destroyers. I headed a project to install the Aegis system on Japanese ships for 15 years and traveled and lived in Japan extensively. I am semi-retired and consult part time for Lockheed Martin.

My wife Diane and I reside in Long Lake, Traverse City, Michigan and Bayville, New Jersey. We are members of the Traverse Bay 912 Project. We are avid sailors and RVers.

Aviation Security Threats and Realities

With the uproar about airline security raging, you may ask, "Are we really doing the right thing"? Read the following, and make up your own mind . . .
Dave Skibowski

November 23, 2010
By Scott Stewart

   Over the past few weeks, aviation security — specifically, enhanced passenger-screening procedures — has become a big issue in the media. The discussion of the topic has become even more fervent as we enter Thanksgiving weekend, which is historically one of the busiest travel periods of the year. As this discussion has progressed, we have been asked repeatedly by readers and members of the press for our opinion on the matter.
   We have answered such requests from readers, and we have done a number of media interviews, but we’ve resisted writing a fresh analysis on aviation security because, as an organization, our objective is to lead the media rather than follow the media regarding a particular topic. We want our readers to be aware of things before they become pressing public issues, and when it comes to aviation-security threats and the issues involved with passenger screening, we believe we have accomplished this. Many of the things now being discussed in the media are things we’ve written about for years.
   When we were discussing this topic internally and debating whether to write about it, we decided that since we have added so many new readers over the past few years, it might be of interest to our expanding readership to put together an analysis that reviews the material we’ve published and that helps to place the current discussion into the proper context. We hope our longtime readers will excuse the repetition.
   We believe that this review will help establish that there is a legitimate threat to aviation, that there are significant challenges in trying to secure aircraft from every conceivable threat, and that the response of aviation security authorities to threats has often been slow and reactive rather than thoughtful and proactive.
   Threats
   Commercial aviation has been threatened by terrorism for decades now. From the first hijackings and bombings in the late 1960s to last month’s attempt against the UPS and FedEx cargo aircraft, the threat has remained constant. As we have discussed for many years, jihadists have long had a fixation with attacking aircraft. When security measures were put in place to protect against Bojinka-style attacks in the 1990s — attacks that involved modular explosive devices smuggled onto planes and left aboard — the jihadists adapted and conducted 9/11-style attacks. When security measures were put in place to counter 9/11-style attacks, the jihadists quickly responded by going to onboard suicide attacks with explosive devices concealed in shoes. When that tactic was discovered and shoes began to be screened, they switched to devices containing camouflaged liquid explosives. When that plot failed and security measures were altered to restrict the quantity of liquids that people could take aboard aircraft, we saw the jihadists alter the paradigm once more and attempt the underwear-bomb attack last Christmas.
   In a special edition of Inspire magazine released last weekend, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) noted that, due to the increased passenger screening implemented after the Christmas Day 2009 attempt, the group’s operational planners decided to employ explosive devices sent via air cargo (we have written specifically about the vulnerability of air cargo to terrorist attacks).
   Finally, it is also important to understand that the threat does not emanate just from jihadists like al Qaeda and its regional franchises. Over the past several decades, aircraft have been attacked by a number of different actors, including North Korean intelligence officers, Sikh, Palestinian and Hezbollah militants and mentally disturbed individuals like the Unabomber, among others.
   Realities
   While understanding that the threat is very real, it is also critical to recognize that there is no such thing as absolute, foolproof security. This applies to ground-based facilities as well as aircraft. If security procedures and checks have not been able to keep contraband out of high-security prisons, it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to keep unauthorized items off aircraft, where (thankfully) security checks of crew and passengers are far less invasive than they are for prisoners. As long as people, luggage and cargo are allowed aboard aircraft, and as long as people on the ground crew and the flight crew have access to aircraft, aircraft will remain vulnerable to a number of internal and external threats.
   This reality is accented by the sheer number of passengers that must be screened and number of aircraft that must be secured. According to figures supplied by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in 2006, the last year for which numbers are available, the agency screened 708,400,522 passengers on domestic flights and international flights coming into the United States. This averages out to over 1.9 million passengers per day.
   Another reality is that, as mentioned above, jihadists and other people who seek to attack aircraft have proven to be quite resourceful and adaptive. They carefully study security measures, identify vulnerabilities and then seek to exploit them. Indeed, last September, when we analyzed the innovative designs of the explosive devices employed by AQAP, we called attention to the threat they posed to aviation more than three months before the Christmas 2009 bombing attempt. As we look at the issue again, it is not hard to see, as we pointed out then, how their innovative efforts to camouflage explosives in everyday items and hide them inside suicide operatives’ bodies will continue and how these efforts will be intended to exploit vulnerabilities in current screening systems.
   As we wrote in September 2009, getting a completed explosive device or its components by security and onto an aircraft is a significant challenge, but it is possible for a resourceful bombmaker to devise ways to overcome that challenge. The latest issue of Inspire magazine demonstrated how AQAP has done some very detailed research to identify screening vulnerabilities. As the group noted in the magazine: “The British government said that if a toner weighs more than 500 grams it won’t be allowed on board a plane. Who is the genius who came up with this suggestion? Do you think that we have nothing to send but printers?”
   AQAP also noted in the magazine that it is working to identify innocuous substances like toner ink that, when X-rayed, will appear similar to explosive compounds like PETN, since such innocuous substances will be ignored by screeners. With many countries now banning cargo from Yemen, it will be harder to send those other items in cargo from Sanaa, but the group has shown itself to be flexible, with the underwear-bomb operative beginning his trip to Detroit out of Nigeria rather than Yemen. In the special edition of Inspire, AQAP also specifically threatened to work with allies to launch future attacks from other locations.
   Drug couriers have been transporting narcotics hidden inside their bodies aboard aircraft for decades, and prisoners frequently hide drugs, weapons and even cell phones inside body cavities. It is therefore only a matter of time before this same tactic is used to smuggle plastic explosives or even an entire non-metallic explosive device onto an aircraft — something that would allow an attacker to bypass metal detectors and backscatter X-ray inspection and pass through external pat-downs.
   Look for the Bomber, Not Just the Bomb
   This ability to camouflage explosives in a variety of different ways, or hide them inside the bodies of suicide operatives, means that the most significant weakness of any suicide-attack plan is the operative assigned to conduct the attack. Even in a plot to attack 10 or 12 aircraft, a group would need to manufacture only about 12 pounds of high explosives — about what is required for a single, small suicide device and far less than is required for a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. Because of this, the operatives are more of a limiting factor than the explosives themselves; it is far more difficult to find and train 10 or 12 suicide bombers than it is to produce 10 or 12 devices.
   A successful attack requires operatives who are not only dedicated enough to initiate a suicide device without getting cold feet; they must also possess the nerve to calmly proceed through airport security checkpoints without alerting officers that they are up to something sinister. This set of tradecraft skills is referred to as demeanor, and while remaining calm under pressure and behaving normally may sound simple in theory, practicing good demeanor under the extreme pressure of a suicide operation is very difficult. Demeanor has proved to be the Achilles’ heel of several terror plots, and it is not something that militant groups have spent a great deal of time teaching their operatives. Because of this, it is frequently easier to spot demeanor mistakes than it is to find well-hidden explosives. Such demeanor mistakes can also be accentuated, or even induced, by contact with security personnel in the form of interviews, or even by unexpected changes in security protocols that alter the security environment a potential attacker is anticipating and has planned for.
   There has been much discussion of profiling, but the difficulty of creating a reliable and accurate physical profile of a jihadist, and the adaptability and ingenuity of the jihadist planners, means that any attempt at profiling based only on race, ethnicity or religion is doomed to fail. In fact, profiling can prove counterproductive to good security by blinding people to real threats. They will dismiss potential malefactors who do not fit the specific profile they have been provided.
   In an environment where the potential threat is hard to identify, it is doubly important to profile individuals based on their behavior rather than their ethnicity or nationality — what we refer to as focusing on the “how” instead of the “who.” Instead of relying on physical profiles, which allow attack planners to select operatives who do not match the profiles being selected for more intensive screening, security personnel should be encouraged to exercise their intelligence, intuition and common sense. A Caucasian U.S. citizen who shows up at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi or Dhaka claiming to have lost his passport may be far more dangerous than some random Pakistani or Yemeni citizen, even though the American does not appear to fit the profile for requiring extra security checks.
   However, when we begin to consider traits such as intelligence, intuition and common sense, one of the other realities that must be faced with aviation security is that, quite simply, it is not an area where the airlines or governments have allocated the funding required to hire the best personnel. Airport screeners make far less than FBI special agents or CIA case officers and receive just a fraction of the training. Before 9/11, most airports in the United States relied on contract security guards to conduct screening duties. After 9/11, many of these same officers went from working for companies like Wackenhut to being TSA employees. There was no real effort made to increase the quality of screening personnel by offering much higher salaries to recruit a higher caliber of candidate.
   There is frequent mention of the need to make U.S. airport security more like that employed in Israel. Aside from the constitutional and cultural factors that would prevent American airport screeners from ever treating Muslim travelers the way they are treated by El Al, another huge difference is simply the amount of money spent on salaries and training for screeners and other security personnel. El Al is also aided by the fact that it has a very small fleet of aircraft that fly only a small number of passengers to a handful of destinations.
   Additionally, airport screening duty is simply not glamorous work. Officers are required to work long shifts conducting monotonous checks and are in near constant contact with a traveling public that can at times become quite surly when screeners follow policies established by bureaucrats at much higher pay grades. Granted, there are TSA officers who abuse their authority and do not exhibit good interpersonal skills, but anyone who travels regularly has also witnessed fellow travelers acting like idiots.
   While it is impossible to keep all contraband off aircraft, efforts to improve technical methods and procedures to locate weapons and IED components must continue. However, these efforts must not only be reacting to past attacks and attempts but should also be looking forward to thwart future attacks that involve a shift in the terrorist paradigm. At the same time, the often-overlooked human elements of airport security, including situational awareness, observation and intuition, need to be emphasized now more than ever. It is those soft skills that hold the real key to looking for the bomber and not just the bomb.
  
"Aviation Security Threats and Realities is republished with permission of STRATFOR."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101123_aviation_security_threats_and_realities

With Certainty

It is only certain that uncertainty rules . . .

It really doesn't make a whole lot of difference if we are in the first part of a double dip recession or close to the bottom of a single dip; the US economic recovery will be very, VERY slow compared to what the country has been used to after past recessions.

   The recovery won't really get under way until the real estate market gets back on track. Today, the estimate is that we have more than a year’s supply of homes on the market. That is, a year's supply of what used to be a year's supply in the good (read, "of course the beanstalk grows to the moon, stupid") old days. In today's market it is two or three times that amount. Then there is the shadow inventory (those are the houses that the banks will wind up owning when this all shakes out, and which they will then dump on the market.) that will be, at least, another 12 months added. So you see, in real terms it may be 4, 5, 6 or even seven years before things get back to some semblance of "normal" in the residential real estate market. Oh yes, we are just now beginning to feel the slump in the commercial real estate market. That bit of bad news has yet to be figured into the sound bites of the Political Wonks.
   The American Consumer is not as stupid as most political and financial pundits are. Those of us who live in the real world, that is East of Riverside, CA, and west of the Hudson River, excluding that part of the heartland which lies inside "Beltway"; have a much better understanding where the economy is, and where it is going than those inside the Beltway, on Wall Street, or the nuts of the West.
   Consumers have become Savers and are saving all they can, at least those who have a job are. Job or no job, there are few who are spending on anything which isn't necessary, so retail sales aren't going to pull us out of the doldrums. Small businesses, the major creators of jobs, aren't going to do anything that uses cash because they don't know what "money grabbing/money costing" Sisyphean Load Washington will pile on their backs next.
   Maybe the Tea Partiers and their associated groups will get Washington's attention and stop the ridiculous taxing and spending spree before it is too late. The only certainties are these:
   · Unless things turn around, the U.S. will be relegated to Third World Status by the time my Grandson graduates from collage and has to go to India or China to find a job.
   · Until entrepreneurs are free to carry on business without fear of retribution from Washington, we will continue with 10% plus unemployment.
   · Without reducing the exponentially increasing size and cost of government, that’s all governments, Federal, State and Local, to somewhere under 5 % of GDP, we will continue to be a debtor nation.
   Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. I wonder how Mexico would treat US illegals streaming into their country looking for a job?

IMNTBHO
Dave Skibowski

HIGH TAXES AND POORLY EDUCATED WORKERS DRIVE BUSINESSES OFF SHORE . . .

Sending Jobs Overseas, and Corporate Tax Breaks
From: FactCheck.org

Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don't transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.
It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:


Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that's not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil Company Tax Breaks?
Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.
Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.


Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.


Emi Kolawole


Sources
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In. 3 Nov. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.
Policy Address on America's Economic Challenges. 19 Nov. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 26 Feb. 2008.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Taking Our Government Back. 22 Jun. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.
Democratic Presidential Debate. 23 Jul. 2007. CNN Transcripts.
Congressional Research Service. "Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis." Washington: GPO, 2007.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues," Nov. 2005.

Copyright © 2003 - 2009, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Elections and Obama's Foreign Policy Choices

They may be few, but he has choices.


September 14, 2010
0856 GMT

From:  Stratfor Golobal Intelligence http://www.stratfor.com/
By George Friedman

   We are now nine weeks away from the midterm elections in the United States. Much can happen in nine weeks, but if the current polls are to be believed, U.S. President Barack Obama is about to suffer a substantial political reversal. While we normally do not concern ourselves with domestic political affairs in the United States, when the only global power is undergoing substantial political uncertainty, that inevitably affects its behavior and therefore the dynamics of the international system. Thus, we have to address it, at least from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy. While these things may not matter much in the long run, they certainly are significant in the short run.
   To begin thinking about this, we must bear three things in mind. First, while Obama won a major victory in the Electoral College, he did not come anywhere near a landslide in the popular vote. About 48 percent of the voters selected someone else. In spite of the Democrats’ strength in Congress and the inevitable bump in popularity Obama received after he was elected, his personal political strength was not overwhelming. Over the past year, poll numbers indicating support for his presidency have deteriorated to the low 40 percent range, numbers from which it is difficult, but not impossible, to govern.
   Second, he entered the presidency off balance. His early focus in the campaign was to argue that the war in Iraq was the wrong war to fight but that the war in Afghanistan was the right one. This positioned him as a powerful critic of George W. Bush without positioning him as an anti-war candidate. Politically shrewd, he came into office with an improving Iraq situation, a deteriorating Afghanistan situation and a commitment to fighting the latter war. But Obama did not expect the global financial crisis. When it hit full blast in September 2008, he had no campaign strategy to deal with it and was saved by the fact that John McCain was as much at a loss as he was. The Obama presidency has therefore been that of a moderately popular president struggling between campaign promises and strategic realities as well as a massive economic crisis to which he crafted solutions that were a mixture of the New Deal and what the Bush administration had already done. It was a tough time to be president.
   Third, while in office, Obama tilted his focus away from the foreign affairs plank he ran on to one of domestic politics. In doing so, he shifted from the area where the president is institutionally strong to the place where the president is institutionally weak. The Constitution and American tradition give the president tremendous power in foreign policy, generally untrammeled by other institutions. Domestic politics do not provide such leeway. A Congress divided into two houses, a Supreme Court and the states limit the president dramatically. The founders did not want it to be easy to pass domestic legislation, and tradition hasn’t changed that. Obama can propose, but he cannot impose.
   Therefore, the United States has a president who won a modest victory in the popular vote but whose campaign posture and the reality under which he took office have diverged substantially. He has been drawn, whether by inclination or necessity, to the portion of his presidency where he is weakest and most likely to face resistance and defeat. And the weaker he gets politically the less likely he is to get domestic legislation passed, and the defeats will increase his weakness.
   He does not, at the moment, have a great deal of public support to draw on, and the level of vituperation from the extremes has reached the level it was with George W. Bush. Where Bush was accused by the extreme left of going into Iraq to increase profits for Halliburton and the oil companies, Obama is being accused by the extreme right of trying to create a socialist state. Add to this other assorted nonsense, such as the notion that Bush engineered 9/11 or that Obama is a secret Muslim, and you get the first whiff of a failed presidency. This is not because of the prospect of midterm reversals — that has happened any number of times. It is because Obama, like Bush, was off balance from the beginning.
   If Obama suffers a significant defeat in Congress in the November elections, he will not be able to move his domestic agenda. Indeed, Obama doesn’t have to lose either house to be rendered weak. The structure of Congress is such that powerful majorities are needed to get anything done. Even small majorities can paralyze a presidency.
   Under these circumstances, he would have two choices. The first is to go into opposition. Presidents go into opposition when they lose support in Congress. They run campaigns against Congress for blocking their agenda and blame Congress for any failures.Essentially, this was Bill Clinton’s strategy after his reversals in 1994, and it worked in 1996. It is a risky strategy, obviously. The other option is to shift from the weak part of the presidency to the strong part, foreign policy, where a president can generally act decisively without congressional backing. If Congress does resist, it can be painted as playing politics with national security. Since Vietnam, this has been a strategy Republican presidents have used, painting Democratic Congresses as weak on national security.
   There is a problem in Obama choosing the second strategy. For Republicans, this strategy plays to their core constituency, for whom national security is a significant issue. It also is an effective tool to reach into the center. The same isn’t true for the Democrats. Obama’s Afghanistan policy has already alienated the Democratic left wing, and the core of the Democratic Party is primarily interested in economic and social issues. The problem for Obama is that focusing on foreign policy at the expense of economic and

  

Chinese Power Play rumblings?

China: Rumors of the Central Bank Chief's Defection

August 30, 2010
   Rumors have circulated in China that People’s Bank of China (PBC) Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan may have left the country. The rumors appear to have started following reports on Aug. 28 which cited Ming Pao, a Hong Kong-based news agency, saying that because of an approximately $430 billion loss on U.S. Treasury bonds, the Chinese government may punish some individuals within PBC, including Zhou. Although Ming Pao on Aug. 30 published a report on its website indicating that the prior report was fabricated by a mainland news site that had attributed the false information to Ming Pao, rumors of Zhou’s defection have spread around China intensively, and Zhou’s name has been blocked from Internet search engines in China.
   STRATFOR has received no confirmation of the rumor, and reports by state-run Chinese media appeared to send strong indications that Zhou is in no trouble at the moment. However, the release of this rumor and its dispersion throughout the public is significant, particularly as the Communist Party of China (CPC) is preparing for a leadership transition in 2012.
   Chinese state-run media and official government websites have run several high-profile reports about Zhou, which should be seen as a move to refute the rumors. The PBC website published two articles on its homepage reporting on Zhou’s meeting with visiting Japanese Financial Services Minister Shozaburo Jimi during the third China-Japan high-level economic dialogue as well as a meeting with an Italian delegation. Xinhua news agency reported that Zhou told the PBC Party Committee Enlargement Meeting on Aug. 30 it should “continue to implement justice, and strengthen legislative work in financial system.” Prior to this news, Zhou appeared at the 2nd annual conference of the heads of the Chinese, Japanese and Korean central banks held on Aug. 3, and his most recent public appearance was Aug. 10 for China’s Financial System Anti-corruption Construction Exhibition.
    Zhou is known to have lofty political ambitions and is believed to be a close ally to former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, as well as a core figure for Jiang’s “Shanghai Gang.” There has been no shortage of rumors about Zhou’s possible dismissal in the past five years, as he is believed to be associated with several high-level financial scandals. For example, Zhou was rumored to be under “shuanggui,” a form of house arrest administered by the CPC, during the massive crackdown of Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu in 2006, which was perceived in the country as a crackdown of the Shanghai Gang and part of Hu’s effort to consolidate power ahead of the 2007 power transition. There was also a rumor that he might have been detained following the investigation and arrest of Wang Yi, the vice governor of the China Development Bank, along with several other officials in the financial circle. Currently, several financial scandals are still under investigation, and it is likely that Zhou, as PBC governor and one of the most powerful economic players in the country, could be associated with some cases. Therefore, whether or not the rumor is true at this time, the leaking of this news is very likely to be associated with a power struggle within the Communist Party’s economic hierarchy.

Courtesy of:

STRATFOR

221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701 US
http://www.stratfor.com/

. . . All The Information Available

  I Believe it is imperative that we make decisions after we have all the information available, and not just follow the crowd. Even if you believe you have made your decision on the Mosque near Ground Zero question, this article has information you possibly don't have. 
   There are only two mentions of religion in the Constitution, or the amendments thereto. The first in in Article VI of the Constitution, last paragraph:
   "The Senators and the Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution: but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
   The second mention is the first clause of Amendment I to the Constitution of The United States of America:
   "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
   What seems on the surface, to be an easy choice, is not so easy when all the facts are known. I am torn between the Constitution, which I believe affords the right to build the mosque, but whereas the same 1st Amendment gives the right to free speech, we can't, won't and don't condone someone shouting "Fire" in a crowded building. Just because the right is given by the Bill of Rights.
   I am for the peaceable worship of God via any religion. I know that already sets me against various other religions which don't believe in any god or gods, or whose ways of worship are repugnant to me, However, I acknowledge their right to worship the way they want in The United States, because of that wonderful 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I must say here, as I say often, that I don't condone radicals in any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zen, Wicca, or whatever. It is my opinion it is the radicals who cause the problems because of their overzealousness. They are the ones shouting fire.
   I set out on this dialogue to point out there are multiple sides to every question. I do not believe the building of a mosque at or near Ground Zero is shouting fire. There is a malady called Islamophobia in the United States today which should be directed at Radical Muslims, not all Muslims. In years hence we will look back at the outcome of this controversy, and only then will we really know what the answer should have been. I am a Constitutionalist, and I strongly support their right to build it there.
   Dave Skibowski

Build the Ground Zero Mosque
by Fareed Zakaria
August 06, 2010

   Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
   As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City .
   The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.
   The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.
   Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.
   The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America . Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America . It probably will.
   Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center . Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
   Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.
  

Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

Here is an article by George Friedman, expert on geopolitics & founder of STRATFOR. Dr. Friedman presents his unique perspective on the immigration issue

Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

Dr. George Friedman
August 5, 2010
   Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.
   Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.
     The Centrality of New Orleans
   The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that oceangoing ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.
   Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today’s Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.
   Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible — nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.
   Mexico’s strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.
   The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico’s original political order.
     A Temporary Resolution
   The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region’s status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region’s economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region’s accelerating economic growth.
   The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.
   The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor — and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn’t notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.
   Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.
     Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration
   Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensible to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.
   That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.
   This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward — in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.
   This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.
   The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland — the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.
   The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.
   The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona — between those who benefit from the migration and those who don’t — and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.
   Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don’t coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.
   Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement — legal and illegal — changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.
   Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona’s new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.
   Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer.
  

Read more: Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations
STRATFOR