During the interview, Sen. Graham asserted that the United States should build permanent military air bases in Afghanistan, creating a constant military presence in the country. He first claims that this would be of benefit to both the United States and Afghanistan “politically, economically, and militarily.” The bases, Graham claims, would ensure that the country would “never go back into the hands of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.”

However, Graham’s rhetoric soon becomes contradictory and hyperbolic. He states that building these bases would “secure our national interest” but fails to define what that interest is. He then goes on to say that “if the Afghan people want this relationship,” relationship here meaning allowing us to build permanent military installations on their soil, “they are going to have to earn it.”

First, if we are to assume that the “national interest” Graham speaks of is prohibiting terror groups from gaining haven in Afghanistan, I fail to see how a few bases would achieve that goal when some 90,000 U.S. troops have failed to establish a lasting peace. In the past three years, Improvised Explosive Device (I.E.D) attacks have skyrocketed while hostile deaths have grown as well. Moreover, permanent military bases would not be a deterrent of terrorists but rather an attraction. In such a volatile area, (Graham repeatedly mentioned Pakistan as a concern), establishing what is effectively a military hub in the Middle East would provide both a symbolic and strategic target for militants.

Perhaps the more important issue is the hubris and blatant disregard for the people of Afghanistan exhibited in Graham’s rhetoric. Stating that the Afghan people need to “earn” our trust or military is an astonishingly one-sided view of an invasion that has lasted for almost a decade. Should the women and children of Afghanistan really have to earn our trust while the United States and Coalition Forces fail to adequately protect them? What do the Afghan people stand to gain from the so-called “enduring relationship” Graham claims these bases will facilitate? Because I feel the argument could be made that life in Afghanistan is as bad now as it was ten years ago, if not worse.

Now, it would be foolish to assert that the United States and Coalition Forces are solely responsible for the deterioration of conditions in Afghanistan. An increasingly aggressive insurgency along with widespread corruption and the recent flooding have certainly hindered development. Yet, perhaps the most counter-productive measures in creating a functional, sustained society is the sheer lack of self-determination forced upon the civilians. With attacks from insurgent groups coupled with U.S. attacks that cause civilian deaths, the Afghan people have little to no recourse for their situation. While other peoples, most notably Iraqis and Palestinians, have faced similar hardships in terms of economic and political stability, the sheer lack of resources is at the heart of the problem in Afghanistan.

What seems so contradictory in Graham’s suggestion is that it goes against what has repeatedly been said as the only way to achieve success in Afghanistan. Since the conflict began, we hear time and time again that the U.S. must win the “hearts and minds” of the people. It was OUR job to show the Afghans that we were there to help assist them to build a stable government. But now, Graham and those like him seem to think that the people whose lives may have been improved marginally since the invasion owe the U.S. something.  I hardly call placing permanent military sites an attempt to win “hearts and minds”

Instead, the U.S. along with the UN should place a renewed focus on issues that plague the civilian population that can possibly remain apolitical. In the most recent UN Security General Report on Afghanistan, there is numerous mentions of the need for water purification and sanitation. Additionally, food shortages and a rise in opium and heroin use pose serious risks towards the population.

Perhaps instead of already looking at real estate and runway paving costs, our congressional leaders could focus on the needs of the people in a country where we have done little but stir animosity and increase instability.

Protesters in the United Kingdom first made headlines during a demonstration on November 10^th. With an initial parade of 50,000, the protest soon turned violent as a group of demonstrators occupied the conservative (and Prime Minister David Cameron’s own) Tory party headquarters. The protesters were eventually removed from the building by police but not before causing serious damage, smashing windows and setting off fire extinguishers.

Recent demonstrations in Italy have reached similar extremes as students organized to shut down many major roads and highways. Thousands of students poured into Rome, hurling objects at Parliament and eventually forcing riot police to barricade themselves behind their vans.

Both of these protests were sparked by recent announcements in their respective Parliaments of severe educational reforms. In the UK, students and professors alike were outraged by a proposed tuition hike. The tuition cap which mandates the maximum tuition a university can charge is posed to triple, raising costs from roughly $4,500 to $14,000.

Italian educational reforms are a bit more complex without prior knowledge of the country’s education system. Historically, the Italian government has provided for “contracted researchers.” While not officially professors, these graduate and doctorate level instructors receive monthly payments in order to conduct research and teach classes. These contracted research positions had no set term limit. The proposed reforms would limit a contracted researcher to six years.

For a university student or professor in the United States, it can be difficult to comprehend or sympathize with the student reactions. Higher education costs have skyrocketed in the past ten years, resulting in more student loans and a slump in enrollment from underprivileged students.  European students have had it good for so long, maybe they should suck it up and join the rest of us.

But that is, of course, the completely wrong reaction. Instead of writing off protesters as spoiled or inflammatory, we should be looking to them for guidance as to how to reform our own education crisis. While I am certainly not advocating the type of violence and destruction seen in the most recent protests, the widespread academic activism is unlike anything we have seen in the states for decades.

American university campuses in the 1960’s and 70’s were hotbeds for political and social activism. From UCLA to Columbia University, there was a pervasive consciousness among students that provided them with enough support to truly mobilize.

But despite a state-wide movement last spring, a large-scale movement in the U.S. has failed to take shape. Considering how the concerns of European and American are so similar, I find it odd that we haven’t seen a comparable movement. Students of color, many the first of their families to reach higher education, are the most likely to lose it through tuition hikes. Professors and educators have suffered staggering losses due to budget cuts, limiting courses or firing them altogether.

It may seem naïve to assert, considering the economic turmoil which has plagued the U.S. for the past four years, but shouldn’t education of all things be spared? By expanding access to education, we will have a more intelligent and, hopefully, motivated generation looking to solve problems that they themselves have experienced. We cannot simply continue on our course of shutting out promising young minds simply because of their economic or racial status.

Moreover, we must also alleviate the pressure put on professors by budget cuts. It is nearly impossible to be stimulating and responsive when you are constantly expected to prove the worth of both your abilities and your field.

What is so inspiring about the movements in Europe is that they are completely grassroots. These are not events spearheaded by politicians with constituents to please or political parties, they are a collection of very different individuals with one common goal: saving their education. In all honesty, these events are more likely to reform education simply by making it a national event. Politicians would not be able to ignore a problem when their alma mater is full of outraged students.

With the winter weather quickly descending, it will be interesting to see if European students are able to continue this momentum into the New Year. With many student groups already considering linking their protest to labor groups, the possibility for real change is there. By speaking out and making their politicians realize that education cannot be sacrificed, they provide hope that the same can happen here.

As the editorial board makes clear, work towards democracy in the Middle East is a must. Egypt has now been ruled by Hosni Mubarak for almost 30 years, a rule which will most likely continue as another fake election takes place.

But what the editors fail to present are the real reasons why democracy has been so absent from the region. It’s not the “Arab strongmen” pushing around the United States. Actually the “Arab strongmen” are a direct product of American intervention in the region, an intervention that has done much more to thwart democracy than to help it flourish.

Back in 1953 the CIA engineered a coup d’état in Iran to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq after he nationalized the country’s oil resources.

In 2006 the United States condemned the election of Hamas and shut off aid to the Palestinian Authority even though not only was the election free, it also resulted in a peaceful transfer of power. The following year the United States trained and armed Fatah forces to remove the Hamas-led government from power, which resulted in a civil war in Gaza.

The United States doesn’t care much for democracy in the Middle East. If it did, its closest allies in the region wouldn’t be the authoritarian regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. What the United States does care about is control, access to oil and a market for its weapons. And all these would be in peril if the people in the Middle East actually had a say in the workings of their governments.

How would the United States react if a democratically elected government in Saudi Arabia requested the removal of all its military bases? How about if such a government wanted to explore the possibility of outreaching to its neighbors including Iran? Who then would spend $60 billion buying American military equipment?

What would happen if Mubarak allowed free elections? Most likely a government would be elected which would not be as amenable to American control. With 80 million people, Egypt is by far the most populated Arab country as well as home to the fifth largest Muslim population in the world. Stability in such a largely populated country is a must for US control and thus the United States buys Egypt’s support of US foreign policy in the region and guarantees Mubarak remains in power.

The use of aid in the Middle East cannot be discussed without bringing up the country which receives the most US aid in the world: Israel. It is interesting to note that back in March, this same editorial board faulted Obama for choosing “to engage in an unnecessary and unwinnable public confrontation with Israel over Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

While the editors clearly call for the United States to halt its $1 billion in aid annually to Egypt, not them or any other mainstream media have made the same call to withhold the more than $3 billion in military aid Israel receives annually until it conforms to international law.

Not only that, very little critique in the mainstream has been heard of the Obama administration’s bribe to Benjamin Netanyahu to convince him to “freeze” illegal settlement expansion for three months (Israeli colonization would still continue in occupied East Jerusalem).

As Robert Fisk recently wrote in his column “An American Bribe that Stinks of Appeasement”: “Three billion dollars for three months is one billion dollars a month to stop Israel’s colonization. That’s half a billion dollars a fortnight. That’s $500m a week. That’s $71,428,571 a day, or $2,976,190 an hour, or $49,603 a minute.”

Instead The New York Times actually praised the offer as proof that the Obama administration was “not throwing up its hands” though it did describe the package of incentives and security guarantees as “overly” generous.

Many people consider the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as aberrations brought about by a neoconservative agenda to extend American power. The reality though is these wars are only explicit manifestations of what the United States has been doing implicitly in that part of the world for decades.

Until there is a real discussion about the actual aims of foreign policy and a realization that American “interests” still trump the human rights and freedoms of Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudis and most everyone else in the region, the devastating and disastrous legacy of intervention in the Middle East will continue.

And he’s right. The expansion of Israeli settlements into East Jerusalem, which is seen by Palestinians as their future capital, does nothing but exacerbate tensions between the two states.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shrugged off the criticism, claiming the U.S. and others were blowing the expansion out of proportion. It is, in his words, a “minor issue.” The Palestinians disagree.

Chief negotiator for Palestine, Saeb Erekat has repeatedly reiterated the importance of a settlement freeze in relation to a productive peace process. In an interview last year, Erekat said a the settlement freeze is “not a precondition for negotiations, but an explicit Israeli commitment that they have to meet.”

With the settlements expanding, Erekat says it is now up to the international community to preserve East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. However, he’s less than optimistic claiming, “the international community continues to support a peace process that has nothing of peace and a lot of process.”

This most recent expansion exemplifies Israel’s stance towards the peace process. To the country’s leadership, expanding by another thirteen hundred homes is minimal, simply a few apartment buildings being built. But to the Palestinians, it is a direct refusal to acknowledge their sovereignty.

If this expansion seems minimal to you, put yourself in the situation of the Palestinians. As you can see in this map, there are a very limited number of areas within which Palestinians are welcome. Within these zones, most notably the West Bank, Palestinian civilians are essentially subjected to Israel’s every whim.

This summer there was substantial controversy regarding the Israeli blockade of Gaza that restricts materials from entering Gaza. As a result of international pressure from the infamous flotilla raids, Israel vowed to loosen the restrictions on Gaza. Five months later, little has changed.

In a recent statement to the BBC, the head of UN operations in Gaza John Ging detailed the lack of change within the territory. “There’s been no material change for the people on the ground here in terms of their status, the aid dependency, the absence of any recovery or reconstruction, no economy,” Ging said.

So, with deplorable conditions within one of the few areas where Palestinians can live and Israel expanding settlements into new areas, Palestinian frustration is an understandable, perhaps even rational reaction.

But you don’t have to be Palestinian to recognize the problem with settlement expansion. In fact, there have been an increasing number of Israelis coming out as critics of settlement building. And these aren’t just any Israelis, they’re IDF soldiers.

The Israeli Defense Forces have routinely been used to supervise and protect Israeli settlements. However, a group of soldiers have come out in protest of the occupation.

The Courage to Refuse was started by two IDF soldiers who, in 2002 after years of service, had finally had enough. In what has become known as the Combatant’s Letter, the soldiers formalized their complaints and provided a rationale for their feelings.

Within the letter, the soldiers assert that the actions of the IDF within the expanding territories have “nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people.” Moreover, the soldiers claim that the Occupation has irreparably damaged both the IDF and Israeli society.

What began as two soldiers refusing to be complicit in the systematic control of Palestinians has grown into a movement, with over six hundred signatures from Israeli soldiers. According to a survey, over 25% of Israeli citizens sympathize with the soldiers and recognize their moral obligation to refuse to serve.

Now, I am not naïve enough to believe that the signatures of some six hundred IDF soldiers will make Israel rethink its policies toward neither settlement expansion nor the subjugation of the Palestinians.  But Courage to Refuse, in addition to many other Israeli groups, serves as a reminder that the actions of Israel are not the actions of Israeli civilians. Just as I and many other Americans are disgusted by our government’s actions in the Middle East, there are Israelis who vehemently oppose their government’s policies.

I hope that in the coming weeks, Netanyahu will realize that the expansion of settlements is not a “minor issue” but is in fact indicative of many policies that prohibit true peace. If mounting international pressure and criticism, especially from their strongest ally, won’t do it I’m not sure what will.

Regarding their decision about Williams, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller explained: “Certainly you have opinions – all human beings have their personal opinions. But it is the ideal of journalism that we strive for objectivity so we can best present the positions of people around all parts of the debate to our public so the public can make their own decisions about these issues.”

Although it seems that we as Americans should prefer to have a press which holds fairness and balance as its central guiding values, in reality this emphasis on objectivity actually harms us as citizens.

Journalists in free societies are supposed to hold those we elect to power responsible. Journalists are supposed to give voice to the voiceless. And just as Schiller pointed out, journalists are supposed to provide us with the information necessary to help us make our own decisions about the issues.

It is precisely because journalists have such a unique position of directly shaping our opinions that it has become necessary for the field of journalism to reevaluate its insistence on objectivity.

A 2003 essay entitled “Re-Thinking Objectivity,” argued that the principles of objectivity made journalists “passive recipients of the news, rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it.” The prime example of this is the widespread reporting linking Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and 9/11, claims that turned out to be completely fabricated after the American occupation of Iraq.

To guarantee balance by making sure there is equal coverage of both sides, reporters spend more time ensuring they have the same number of Israeli and Palestinian quotes in their stories rather than providing an actual context of what occupation entails or the role the United States plays in perpetuating it.

To ensure fairness by providing a range of opinions, we get television programs by ABC News called Should Americans Fear Islam featuring anti-Muslim bigots like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali or a profile published by The New York Times about Pam Geller, the self-described “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” instead of an expose on the millions of dollars “experts” on Islam are making as they spread hatred.

To remain objective, our news reporting has been reduced to nothing more than presenting competing viewpoints and claims without any guidance by journalists to help people sift through all the information to come up with an in-depth understanding of the issues. Major news coverage is only a compilation of superficial details presented in a “he said, she said” framework. Differentiating between what is true and what is false is left to people who have little or no background knowledge.

By continuing to hold up this objectivity standard, mainstream American media also protects its own interests by avoiding the discussion of its role in maintaining the status quo.

FAIR- Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting- has been challenging media bias and censorship since 1986. They point out that since most media outlets are owned by for-profit corporations, they seldom provide a full range of debate. These news organizations are also under great pressure to boost ratings in order to attract advertisers and thus there is a tendency to sensationalize the news.

So media outlets focus far more attention on the protests of the Tea Party and Glen Beck in DC even though the crowds which came to these gatherings were far smaller and far more homogeneous than those which came out to the immigration reform rally back in March or the October One Nation Working Together march focusing on jobs, education and human rights issues.

Don’t be fooled by these recent high profile firings and take them as evidence that the media is doing its job because it is striving to maintain objectivity. The concept of objectivity not only diminishes the responsibilities of journalists and encourages lazy reporting; it also deflects attention from the structural changes that need to take place in media outlets.

We need to say enough is enough and demand our journalists not only seek truth and report it, but also be accountable to us: their readers, listeners and viewers.

This summer a report filed by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health detailed an astounding health crisis in the aftermath of the 2004 U.S. attack on Fallujah. The results of the investigation show a sharp increase in cancer, infant mortality, and birth defect rates in the six years since the invasion.

The effects of environmental contamination, in the cases of wartime and disaster, are well documented. From Nagasaki to Chernobyl to the Balkans, the spike of birth defects and health issues all coincide with the environmental degradation experienced in those areas. According to the report, the situation in Fallujah could be worse than all three of those cases.

The details of the investigation are bleak. After surveying nearly eight hundred households, investigators found staggering anecdotal evidence. Both cancer and infant mortality rates in Fallujah are “more than 4 times the rate in Egypt and in Jordan and some 9 times the rate in Kuwait.”

While the report does not specifically detail what munitions have caused this increase, I find that to be the less important matter at this point. Fallujah has remained a reference point for the horrors of the occupation of Iraq. If the crisis occurring in that area was not bad enough before this report, it is now apparent that something must be done.

The World Health Organization is currently spearheading an investigation into the crisis but conditions in Fallujah remain abhorrent. With most citizens lacking access to medical treatment or sanitary conditions, we may see infant mortality and birth defect rates continue to increase.

Perhaps what I find most frustrating about this story is that no one is talking about it. It wasn’t until I was reading an interview with Noam Chomsky that I became aware of the report. As Chomsky states in the interview, this is a huge story that has gone largely unreported in Western media.

In the age of 24 hour news networks, up-to-the-minute websites, and print journalism struggling to stay afloat, it seems like no story would be overlooked. It is in the best interest of these institutions, vying for readership in an increasingly diverse and expansive media market, to provide relevant breaking news.

Unfortunately, Western media has taken a different approach. Instead we are given countless reiterations of the same story until it is no longer deemed “newsworthy.” Intersect this selected coverage with an overreliance on punditry and performance and you have a vacuous cycle of misinformation.

I feel the lack of coverage of this story is a perfect example of the crisis of Western journalism. A corporate culture once reserved for investment bankers and stock brokers has infiltrated the news media with alarming speed. This motivation for constantly increasing profits completely goes against the role journalism is supposed to play within democracy.

As media conglomerates like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. or Time Warner continue to acquire more news-based stations and papers, the integrity of the journalism is lost. This is a shame for I feel that many journalists, naively or otherwise, truly value their profession. But as corporatism has spread, an individual journalist can do very little in comparison to a Board of Directors.

As a journalism student, I was constantly instilled with the ethical and moral principles that have driven the profession for years. First and foremost among these principles is the notion that as a journalist, I have the duty to report objectively and fairly. But we were also shown the importance of reporting stories that needed to be told, not stories that sold well. I was exposed to the journalistic icons and their achievements, which often criticized and countered the government’s rhetoric.

Edward R. Murrow’s heroic investigation and report on the Red Scare and McCarthyism put him and his team in serious political danger at the time. Now it is regarded as one of the shining examples of American journalism.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s investigation into the Watergate break-ins revealed one of the most startling examples of abuse of  power and brought down a President. Bernstein would later report on the CIA’s use of journalists as spies throughout the 1950’s and 60’s.

More recently, even non-journalists have critically evaluated our government’s policies, offering undesirable conclusions. Joseph C. Wilson wrote in his now infamous 2003 New York Time’s Op-Ed that the Bush Administration had exaggerated evidence of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program in order to invade Iraq. A political firestorm ensued, ending with Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA operative.

While the role of a journalist is to remain politically objective in their reporting, this does not mean that they are not allowed to investigate our government. In fact, as we have seen through history, it is often journalists who are responsible for bringing important issues to light. Without the investigational expertise and commitment to facts, many of these stories would have gone untold.

So where do we go from here? Well, I feel there are many reporters and writers in the media, either in print, web or radio, who are doing great work. Unfortunately, these people are not the ones in charge of the networks or who decide what gets covered. Ultimately, I feel it is either going to take a sea change in how media outlets are owned and operated or enough good journalists to leave corporate media and seek jobs elsewhere. I hope for the integrity of the profession that the ones doing the writing will decide what gets published.

The Hadith is a collection of eye witness accounts to events occurring at the time of the prophet (pbuh).  Both can be found in any book store across America, and are often given away at Mosques.  They’re just as accessible as any other book so you should have no problem getting one.  We are not hiding them and they are not forbidden for you to touch.

I’ve had people ask me questions simply to provide an opportunity to argue with me and prove me wrong, going so far as to change the angle or entire point of their argument when they find themselves losing ground.  If I give an answer that contradicts their incorrect perceptions of Islam, either they assume I’m lying, trying to hide something, or are somehow inexplicably less informed about my own religion.

If you are unwilling to accept the answers I give or “you can’t handle the truth” (I’ve always wanted to say that), then don’t ask the questions.  I’ve actually been “corrected” on issues by people who said they “read it in a book once,” written by a non-Muslim of course.

Some people are just determined to hate whatever the cost and for any reason they can muster. They will go to great lengths to conjure a reason for their hatred if I am unable to supply them with one.  I must admit though, they do come up with some really creative ways to twist the truth and manipulate the meaning of words.  Perhaps they could find lucrative employment in the marketing or public relations industries…or the news media.

The twisting and manipulating has become so out of control that even the people who have been doing it, are seeing it come back on them.  A politician denouncing her status as a witch, and expressing that she is “nothing you’ve heard” and that she is one of us. Another politician has his words blatantly taken out of context and repeated alongside references to a terrorist organization.

We can see that even those who believed themselves insulated from such media manipulation are just as vulnerable as the rest of us.  Perhaps they now understand how it feels to be a victim of hate propaganda.  Perhaps they will have learned a lesson about projecting that type of propaganda on others  just to gain ground in a political campaign. Then again they probably won’t.

The biggest threat to America is the lack of truth in the media. In a nation that is “by the people,” the only way to gain power is to gain control over people’s perceptions.  People who perceive themselves free won’t resist their manipulation.

If you honestly seek the truth about Islam and Muslims, just pick up and read the books written by Muslims, not the ones written about Muslims.  Get your information from the horse’s mouth, not the other end.  If I want to know Christianity, I read the Bible.  If I want to know Judaism, I read the Torah/Old Testament.

It’s the responsibility of every American to get the truth on issues from their sources, not from biased, twisted, manipulated media outlets that sell news as entertainment rather than information.  After all, it’s the “shock and awe” that sells and lately they’ve been raking it in.

After the 9/11 attacks, the phrase “Never Forget” popped up everywhere, and continues to be associated with that day.  However, I recall another time when that phrase was used; following WWII, when millions of Jews, were slaughtered as a result of the hate speech spewed by manipulative politicians and media. This was at a time when the German people were suffering economic hardship and political mayhem, creating an “us vs. them” mentality.  Sound familiar?  That hate speech spread like wildfire to engulf the world, causing many deaths of Muslims, Catholics, and really anyone who wasn’t part of the “us” group, and eventually…divided they fell.

We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated like puppets by the hate speech of today’s politicians and media propaganda, or we will have failed to “Never Forget.”

So, after you’ve educated yourself a bit, and are willing to accept the answers I give about my own beliefs, come “set a spell,” talk with me, and ask me anything you like.  We’ll have a hot cup, and a thick slice, and perhaps become friends.  I’ll be waiting, and I’ll even “leave the light on for you.”

O’Reilly of course is not the only public figure sounding the alarm; Michael Mandelbaum, one of America’s leading foreign policy experts, also claims in his new book The Frugal Superpower “the major test for America to sustain its role” will come from the Middle East and he cites Iran as the most serious, but by no means the only, challenge in this regard.  Mandelbaum’s solution? Reduce our dependency on oil in a time of economic scarcity.  Thomas Friedman, one of our most influential neo-Liberals, agrees with the neo-Con Mandelbaum. So, let’s indulge the question and look at the Muslim world and see if there is indeed a “Muslim problem.”

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is one of America’s staunchest allies and is one of the few countries in the world designated as having a “special relationship” with the United States.  The kingdom has enjoyed close ties with the United States since 1945 when President F.D. Roosevelt met with Kind Abdul-Aziz.  For the last 65 years, the Saudis have played a crucial role in sustaining American interests in the region: For example, stabilizing oil prices during risky and turbulent times in the region, often caused by our own US policies.

The current King of Arabia, Abdullah, offered to deliver the entire Arab world in a peace treaty with Israel if Israel would accept the 1967 borders, which would put Israel back in compliance with international law at least on that issue. This bold offer was refused, of course, by Israel.

The Saudis have also backed the American sponsored Ayad Allawi in Iraq. In fact, it is the Saudis staunch pro-Americanism that makes them a target of al-Qaeda.  So the Saudis have the “same enemy” as the Americans.

Pakistan:  Over the last thirty years Pakistan has done more than any other American ally in combating both communism and terrorism.  In the 1980’s it was Pakistan, under the aegis of the military dictator Zia al-Haqq that took on a decisive role in the Cold War.  Pakistan facilitated the deep American presence in Afghanistan and helped set the stage for the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union.  Many analysts would argue it was the eventual triumph of the Afghans that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

Since 9/11, Pakistan has bore the brunt of the so-called “War on Terror” on behalf of the United States and now the same forces that have targeted America are now targeting the central government of Pakistan, thus the Pakistani government, like the Saudis, have the “same enemy” as America.

Why do Mandelbaum, O’Reilly or Friedman continually refer to a Muslim problem coming from either regimes or peoples when such regimes and peoples are actually and factually in alliance with America?

Iran:  This is everyone’s favorite choice as “evidence” of the “Muslim Problem.” On Tuesday 9/11/01, the United States was attacked by terrorists who happened to be Muslim.  On Friday, 09/14/2001, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei decried “Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned” he said “wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be”.  Iranians were in the streets holding candlelight vigils on behalf of the victims.

Subsequently, Iran worked has with the US in Afghanistan and has held diplomatic talks with the US on Iraq.  You may cite Iran’s support for Hezbollah.  Well Hezbollah likewise condemned the 9/11 attacks on American civilians and its late spiritual leader Sheikh Muhammad Fadlallah was a vociferous critic of terrorism.  This is the same Sheikh Fadlallah that Octavia Nasr was fired for by CNN, when she noted that she personally admired his moderation and nuance.  For Mandelbaum, Iran’s ambitions for nuclear weapons is really the biggest threat.

Yet, Iran has remained in total compliance with international law in this regard.  No, the only country in the region to be in violation of international norms and hopes in this respect is Israel.  Israel’s possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons has instigated an arms race in the region, one that Iran may or may not be partaking in.

Should I go on?  Egypt?  Crucial to Israel’s existence.  Turkey?  A modernizing, secular force that is a bridge between east and west.  Morocco?  The first country to ever recognize the United States. Syria?  An ally to the US during the first Gulf War and explicitly open to peace with Israel.  What Muslim problem?  There is no Muslim problem.

Terrorism is not a “Muslim problem.”  It is a sociological phenomenon that occurs in certain settings as has been demonstrated time and time again by scholars like Robert Pape. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East are not a “Muslim problem.” They are a Zionist problem. There is absolutely no Muslim problem, in fact Muslims are some of the US’s staunchest allies and we would not be where we are in the world today without Muslim alliances. But neo-Cons and neo-Liberals are more interested in promoting war against the entire Muslim world and our own interests for inexplicable reasons.

I am neither proud nor disturbed by the Muslim world’s disposition to do America’s bidding.  It is not my point. My point is only this: If we are going to talk about “the Muslim problem,” fine, but the facts are clear and unambiguous, Muslims constitute the single most important ally in American affairs when it comes to oil or terrorism. Perhaps the current undoing of this alliance is facilitating America’s decline: It certainly has cost us billions in the so-called “War on Terror” and affected the lives of thousands of Americans and Middle Easterners.

Yet, Mandelbaum, Friedman, and O’Reilly have continued this line of thinking for ten disastrous years and have yet to learn from the consequences of our two wars and countless diplomatic blunders. But, perhaps, intellectual stagnation is the principal characteristic of any nation’s decline.

John McCain, one of DADT’s most ardent supporters, asserts that repealing the policy could have an “impact on morale and effectiveness.” Which would seem like a reasonable concern, except that most troops don’t actually care.

Jim Miklaszewski, NBC’s Pentagon reporter said in an interview Thursday that he has “never heard a service member anywhere, either here in Washington or out there in a war zone, talk to me ever about gays openly serving in the military. It just does not seem to be an issue for them.”

If the soldiers don’t care, allowing openly gay soldiers into the military would have no effect on morale. In terms of effectiveness, I seriously doubt anyone could contend that one’s sexual orientation limits their physical or psychological capabilities.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the DADT debate, and the whole controversy really, is that far more pressing matters are being ignored. At the forefront of these matters is the military’s increasing reliance on private security forces.

In a government report published in July, it was revealed that over half of the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are private contractors. If that wasn’t disturbing enough, the Christian Science Monitor reported this week that these contractors are operating with little to no oversight from the Pentagon creating “a threat that is almost as great as the insurgency.”

The contractors, a mixture of U.S. and Afghan firms, perform various duties from the delivering of supplies to protecting NATO compounds. However, there are no quality control measures to ensure the work is being done, that the contractors are not using corrupt tactics, or worse that they are committing war crimes.

The most notable story of contractor abuse is the infamous Blackwater Security case. In 2007, employees of Blackwater Securities, a U.S.-based private security force, killed 17 Iraqi civilians in a mass shooting. The five men who perpetrated the killings were charged with manslaughter.

The trial of the men was set for early 2010, until a judge dismissed the charges claiming that prosecutors violated the defendant’s 5^th Amendment rights. All five men walked, Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services and was recently given a $100 million dollar contract with the CIA.

The fact that this case did not even go to trial, much less result in convictions, seems to assert that these private contractors are untouchable. The Iraqi government has sought to bring charges against the men, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

While the issue of DADT and private security contracting may initially seem disconnected, their relationship speaks volumes about matters of intent and how our government chooses to wage war. The Pentagon prefers profit-driven contractors to homosexuals who voluntary choose to serve our country. There is no oversight for the actions of the contractors, while Senators and military officials alike seem to being doing their damndest to prevent gays from serving.

Now, I put this question to you: who would you rather have fighting in your name? A gay man or woman who enlisted to serve the country or a team of corporate mercenaries who have no threat of punishment?

Although many are disappointed with the President’s seemingly complacent, or slow approach to repealing DADT, the fault does not lie squarely with him. It would be inappropriate to issue an executive order on this measure. In fact, as Max Fisher wrote in the Atlantic, his focus on repealing the policy through Congress is the right thing to do. For despite the frustration of allowing this policy to continue, the separation of powers and rule of law must be respected.

As the tenth largest economy in the world, India has grown tremendously and is working vehemently to mark its place as a top global economic presence. At the same time, I felt that India needed to demonstrate that it could be an active member in the global community. By correctly and efficiently planning and executing a ten day sporting event that featured about 8,000 athletes and officials from 71 nations, India could really show that – beyond industry and being an outsourcing destination – the country had great potential. Ever since China hosted the Olympics, India has been waiting for its turn to show the world its worth.

What I failed to recognize was the alleged corruption and scandals that are prevalent throughout India that ultimately delayed the event. The shoddy preparations and missed deadlines contributed to the event’s ever growing budget. The 2006 Commonwealth Games, held in Melbourne, Australia, cost $1.444 billion as per the audited statements of the Government of Victoria, a mere $0.002 billion above the original government estimate of $1.442 billion. India’s initial bid on the 2010 Commonwealth games was roughly half a billion dollars. However, after improvements to the Indira Gandhi International Airport, the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, the highway and public transportation system, as well as other event costs and infrastructure and beautification projects, India is unofficially reported to have spent well over $6 billion, $5.5 above the Indian government’s original estimate.

What a waste. I am appalled, not by India’s desire to host the Commonwealth Games, but more so in the billions in excess dollars being wasted. Anyone who knows Delhi or other big Indian cities could have told the Commonwealth Games Federation that, when it comes to corruption, Indian planners and contractors are all gold medal winners. They are the kings of dodgy contracts, cutting corners and inadequate utilities. The energies of the Indian government and billions of dollars that India spent towards this endeavor should have been spent tackling a much more serious problem, India’s people.

Over 40% of the total Indian population – Word Bank estimates of 450 million Indians – lives under the global poverty line of $1.25 a day. I doubt there are many people in the United States who could fathom surviving off of $8.75 a week. A burrito and a medium soft drink from Chipotle costs more than that. But even scarier than the poverty levels is that, according to a 2008 UNICEF Report, only 88% of Indians had access to improved water supplies while only 31% had access to improved sanitation. While India has made efforts to improve access to these basic services since the early 1990s, India’s booming economy means nothing in the hopeless slum areas of Delhi except that, instead of improving the lives of the poor, India is forcibly removing them from their homes to provide a temporary arena for international athletes.

But I sit and wonder why India spent billions of dollars on providing five-star accommodations for 8000 athletes and officials when hundreds of millions of Indian people do not have access to the most basic of bathrooms? Despite the many reasons, including overpopulation, behind the poverty and the poor conditions that the Indian poor face, India should not have wasted so much money on the Commonwealth Games but reinvested those funds to help alleviate these problems. This prestige, that India so desperately seeks, means nothing if the Indian people are continuously neglected.

Why is this disparity tolerated? Why, I ask, do the elite of India ignore the majority and watch from their ivory towers the hundreds of millions of people living in shanties, near absolute starvation? With India’s rapid economic growth, the middle class becomes richer than ever expected while the poor remain poor. According to the latest U.N. Development Reports, half of Indian children are undernourished. Bangladesh, who has an economy less than one-tenth the size of India’s, is doing better than India in many measures of human development, including school enrollment and infant mortality. Despite India’s faster economic growth, Bangladesh is progressing quicker in health and nutrition indicators: India has an infant mortality rate of 50.78 per 1000 live births, compared to 60 in Bangladesh. The gains of faster growth have been largely captured by the privileged. The poor, for their part, barely manage to survive in their miserable living conditions.

So I ask Indian officials if the massive sum they spent on the 2010 Commonwealth games was justified. Was it worth it to take such drastic measures in raising the bar and improving the image of India? If that was the rationale – was it worth it? On moral grounds, this sort of extravagance should not at all be justified. However, many would argue that the money spent would not have much impact if distributed among India’s poor. According to the numbers above we are looking at about $10 – $15 to every person below the international poverty line, a sum that would not assist much in the long run. Many more would argue that the money would pass through the pockets of India’s alleged unethical and corrupt officials. Yet, The World Bank has loaned billions of dollars to India with the aims of improving those very needs, projects that are slowly improving the sanitation and water conditions in India. Think about how much more could be done if instead of hosting the Commonwealth Games, India raised the same amount of money and doubled their efforts on improving the lives of the Indian under-privileged.

The truth is that international sports have become so bloated by national pride and celebrity as to lose all sense of proportion. A country should first set aside its public image and concentrate on its poor, hungry and homeless. India’s most important needs are to feed, clothe, educate and care for its people. Let go of your ego, India. Do not forget your people.