Bomb Hits Jerusalem After Several Years of Quite

Two days ago (March 23) a bomb exploded across from the central bus station in Jerusalem. This marks the first attack of this kind in many years. One person was killed and many dozens were injured as a result. This horrific event brings back images of the unrelenting terror attacks of the Second Intifada. For me this atrocity strikes home because last year I frequented that bus stop and I stopped to catch a bus there just a few weeks ago.  I find myself asking several  critical questions: who is responsible and why attack now?

While no terror organization has claimed responsibility at this time, I believe the perpetrators to be the  Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Several factors point to the PIJ as the culprits. First, the only other group that is likely to carry out this kind of attack in Jerusalem is Hamas. It is unlikely, that Hamas is responsible, because Hamas normally claims responsibility and more recently has been trying to gain international legitimacy and has limited itself to rocket and mortar attack from within Gaza (this week they have dramatically increased these artillery attacks). In contrast, the PIJ prefers to act behind the scenes and does not always claim responsibility for attacks.

When answering the question of why, I have several feasible answers. Recently there has been competition between Hamas and PIJ (Over, who is the more viable Palestinian organization in Gaza) and this recent attack may be PIJ asserting its influence and ability to attack Israel. Another alternative explanation is Iranian Influence. PIJ receives the majority of its funding from Iran and from time to time Iran seeks to directly influence PIJ operations in order to forward Iranian regional goals. A terror attack in Israel may do two things for Iran. First, it places stress on the Israeli security apparatus and may start another Israel military operation in Gaza. This will distract Israel from the pending Iranian nuclear threat. Second, if attacks continue or Israel responds with too much violence or kills civilians, it may lead to a third intifada. A third intifada would destabilize the entire region more than it already is. Iran is already capitalizing tremendously from the unrest in the Middle East and is gaining influence as Shia Muslims stage protests and open revolts (against Sunni regimes).

Whatever the reason or motive for the bombing, I hope this horrific and tragic event is isolated and that will not lead to more terrorism and violence. The best thing the the Israelis can do is attempt to find the perpetrators and continue to damage both Hamas and PIJ ability to conduct terror operations. However, overreaction or rash decisions by the Israeli government or IDF could escalate of violence and renew terror attacks (For example, in response to Hamas mortar attacks in southern Israel yesterday, the IDF hastily conducted a retaliatory mortar strike which killed four Palestinian civilians). At this point proceeding only with good intelligence and caution is best.

Be sure to check out the poll I am conducting on the current unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page.

Wisdom or Weakness: Libya, Obama & and the Next Steps

We are now entering the third day of the US intervention in Libya. Some are saying that the US is doing too little and acted too slowly, others claim any intervention is unwise and doomed to failure. Obama has come under fire in the past weeks and many have claimed he is showing weakness in his response to the civil war in Libya, and that he is following the women (Hillary Clinton) to war.Despite the rhetoric several things are sure. First the United States has opened up a third war front that happens to be in a Muslin majority country. Second, inaction by the United States and our allies would have result in the slaughter of innocent Libyans and an even more dangerous and delusional Gaddafi. I would like to argue that Obama is not displaying either weakness at this point and that is remains to be seen if he will display wisdom, but rather indecision and lack of a clear plan. He fault has been allowing himself to be pushed by others. Compounding this is his indecision which may have had the same result as weakness (innocent people dead). Lastly, if the US is to be involved in Libya there are certain guidelines that we should abide by.

When the UK and France pushed for military intervention in Libya I could not have been more happy. It is true that the US is the leader of the free world, but we are not, nor do we have the resources be to, the sole protector of liberty and democracy in the world. It is great to see some European powers stepping up and being willing to shed some blood to uphold and protect innocent lives. It is true that both the UK and France have vendettas against Gaddafi, but who doesn't? I believe that Obama's decision to let the US take a more support role is wise (fueling planes, using navel batteries etc...). To be sure the role of the American military has been huge, but limited in nature. The President has assured us that no boots will be on the ground and this will hopefully be the case. See above video .... There is a difference between weakness and knowing ones limitations. However, the President should have been clear on his stance and should now put a time limit on US involvement. Also, by continually stating that "Gaddafi must go..." he may be committing the US more than he really wants to.The US needs to be clear that it will not be pushed into playing a larger role than is wise. This is up to Obama and time will tell if he will be the strong leader we hope he will be.

Nation building is something the international community has not got a clue about, the US included. The wars and Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the complications of failed states and attempts to rebuild them. At the end of the day the US is writing the how-to manual as we go, and there is no guarantee of success. The costs of putting US soldiers on the ground in Libya or even intervening longer than a few months in a support role are huge. Billions would be needed and the US simply cannot afford that right now. Let the UK and France put people on the ground instead of letting them hid behind the US or as most recently suggest behind NATO. Lastly, there is no legal ground for a ground invasion and if one happens we can expect tribal insurgency from Gaddafi's tribe and supporters, and more than likely terrorism as a tactic.

I support the decision for an American intervention in Libya. Gaddafi is a murdering sociopath and the Us should not stand by and let him massacre his own civilians with 21 century weapons. That being said there are certain guidelines that the US needs to stick to or we may find ourselves in another war with unpredictable long-term consequences. First the US needs to only play a support role.That means letting other nations or the international coalition take the lead. I know it goes against the American mentality to follow anyone, but let's face it, is just a matter of pride and everyone knows that America can wipe out any military on the planet. Second the US needs to stick to having "no boots on the ground." Thirdly, we need a clear exit strategy and some kind of time line.  Lastly, no matter how much we may want to we really need to not take a leading role and we need to limit ourselves to preventing Gaddafi from killing people and to destroying his army so the rebels have a chance. If we become more involved we risk entanglement and undercutting the grassroots revolt.

This support role is on the strategic level. On the tactical level it should involve much of what we are currently doing: using navel batteries, fueling planes and supplying technological and logistical support such as satellites. I would  also issue a world of caution on the use of to many American combat aircraft operating in Libya. Yesterday an American F15 cash-landed as a result of technical issues. Both pilots ejected and are okay. However, we should think about two things. One, even though it may be nitpicking we already have American boots on the ground as a result of this crash. Two, captured American pilots could be a disaster and would certainly result in American ground forces entering Libya. For those of you who are familiar with the American intervention in Somalia you know what I mean.

In conclusion, I believe the US intervention in Libya along with our allies was the right thing to do. Whether or no Gaddafi lives through this is not a concern of mine. If he is killed, good riddance, at least the chances of us getting someone worse are about nil. Right now the US needs to play its cards well and not get entangled in a protracted conflict. We can be sure the rebel army will try to entangle us as it is in their best interest. Having a very limited and clear mission is key. I pray for the safely of our troops and God Bless America!

Remember to check out my poll on the unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page!

Hey Everyone

Hey everyone! I will be periodically posting my thoughts, observations and analysis on US politics and world affairs. My studies and time abroad have given me unique insights on current affairs which I wish to share. Sometimes current international and domestic issues are quite black and white, but I have found that most of the time they come in shades of grey, hence the name of the blog. I am still in the process of getting the blog ready so bear with me. Right now check out the poll I am conducting on the current unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page. Also I have set up relevant news headlines on the bottom of the page as well. Please follow my blog and recommend me to your friends that you think may be interested. Thanks!