A New Year's Resolution....

I made a resolution this year not to make any resolutions I would not keep. Silly, right? And some might even wonder, why have a resolution in the first place? In the past, I made resolutions on January 1 which were broken by January 5. Then I decided on the birthda logic for resolutions. You see, while January 1 is the first day of the calendar year, the first day in my calendar is sometime in the last week of February. So I'd make a resolution in January and break it after a week. Then I'd make another resolution in February, and this one usually survived until March.

So, this time around, I have made a resolution which I will keep - to dedicate an hour a weekto self-reflection. In the buzz of my life, with things in constant mutation, even sleep becomes a mental excercise. Given that I work, work out and work hard, I feel the need for silence to take stock put the day into perspective and pland ahead on how to deal with future challenges. This might not make any sense,but it certainly makes sense to me. Hope I can keep this simple resolution.

And I Stared Away...

Have you ever avoided the stare of the pauper begging for a coin at the entrance of the McDonalds on 13th street? In your haste to avoid any contact with that blighted expression of humanity’s lowliness, your barely hissing whisper “I have no change,” falls on his empty extended hand. Those words fall like an unforgiving dagger on those ungloved fingers as Mendicant trudges back to his position where it becomes OK to solicit from the next more fortunate act of fate.

After my encounter with Mendicant, I mentally justify my snobbery of his shivering tatters. “He has life and limb, shouldn’t he be looking for a job?” “Why doesn’t he step into the restaurant and apply for a job?” "Why should I support his beggarly subsistence?” Little do I realize that my puny 35 cents can barely feed my furry pet at home one meal. Of course, having never walked in those beaten down, holed shoes in the waning days of a vengeful autumn, I find my own solace and comfort in my desire to soothe my uncompassionate conscience. “At least, I have a conscience.” That is my other attempt at refuge, from my self-startling hard-heartedness, as I cross the street into Banana Republic to benefit from the largesse of fate.

For fate is the thin line which separates me from him. Fate has a compassionate hand in my hardwork, fate is the cornerstone of my drug free existence, fate is my refuge from the wild. A flip of fate would throw me out into the cold begging my way through the parsimonious trash cans of the fortunate… and the man shivering with an extended hand in the cold would be walking through the closed doors of Banana Republic, ignoring my plea for a magnanimous chance at one meal – one meal which would have to sustain me through to the next largesse of the more fortunate.

I have never exchanged a word with Mendicant and know not where he is coming from, nor where he is headed. My tussle with conscience could be eased if only I exchanged a few words with him. However, the insurmountable wall of fate below which I avoid eye contact and above which I cannot even see my own aloofness, provides the walls which around which my conscience will forever remain captive.

Aperture on the city...

Endgame Iraq!

While American politicians bicker about the definition and operationalization of US victory in Iraq, it would be invaluable to gain insights into Iraqi perspectives of "victory." After decades under the bleeding edge of Saddam's scimitar, a foreign invasion and occupation and enduring politico-sectarian dichotomies, what does VICTORY mean to an Iraqi. Of course the question would be answered differently depending on the Iraqi of whom a response is sought. During the days of the eight year long Iran-iraq war, one could imagine the a nationalistic fervor would have motivated a majority of Iraqis to envision a victory over Iran (simplistic postulation, I must admit). However, the complexity enshrouding Iraq today paints a murky mosaic of constituencies in conflict, divergent interests and countervailing means to achieve aspired ends.

A simplistic identification of constituencies in Iraq reveals sectarian differentiation - Shia, Sunni and Kurd. However, within these huge swaths of identity are polarizing group and personality dynamics. A coulple of weeks ago, the International Herald Tribune cast Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr as Iraq's potential kingmaker. Then earlier this week, former Iraqi PM, Iyad Allawi was shoed out of a mosque, purportedly by Al-Sadr's supporters. If any lesson could be drawn from the events of the last couple of weeks, it is the fact that collaboration with Allied occupiers would not sit well with the majority in a "majoritarian" Iraq.

While Allawi has put himself above sectarian politics, his interests to rule Iraq run head on into Ahmed Chalabi's agenda for Iraq. However, the real kingmaker could very well be Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader who seems to even enjoy the support of his political nemesis, Massoud Barzani. However, what is the Kurdish perception of victory in Iraq.

A majoritarian consensus of victory in Iraq would be Saddam's demise. However, with a nagging insurgency hacking at the spirit of the Iraqi people, there is the need for new perceptions of victory. It ought to be a perception of victory, which involves the United States as friend rather than the US as foe.

Pundits...

I'm not sure why it frustrates me that political "scientists" no longer emphasize the redictive component of their "science." There was once a time - 1948- when the Roper Poll committed to Dewey defeating Truman. Guess what, they even went so far as to convince the Chicago Daily Tribune to run an early headline "Dewey defeats Truman" as the vote count wore on through the night. I wasn't born then, but I relish the return of that era of prediction.

While in retrospect, the Roper Poll could be accused of sloppy polling, today's pundits, armed with instantaneous polling and news gathering technology remain prediction-shy. The political arena in the United States needs individuals who look at the numbers, the candidates, voter demographics, the issues and candidate messaging to predict winners and losers within some degree of confidence!!

November 2006 is fast approaching and the defining issues of these mid-term elections will be Iraq and the Economy. The candidates for both political parties are still emerging. The middle-ground would be more invigorated than the party bases, in an attempt to sway the vote. Races in Maryland will be pivotal (Senate replacement for Sarbanes, Democratic Party Gubernatorial primaries etc). Candidate messaging would steer clear of the negative campaigning which pervaded the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. Hence candidates will be obliged to face the issues, define them according to personal (rather than party) perspectives, and market these issues to a rapidly changing demographic structure. It promises to be an interesting political season and I look forward to making and reading predictions as the races become clearer.

Passing Bye...

Trapped in the echoes of my daily chores, the places I see become a passing blur, locked up in some vaulted memory. Then I stop to behold the sights, hear the sounds and breathe the fumes My own insanity is superceded by the mechnical accuracy surrounding me. In this moment of pause, I embrace the difference between the sights & sounds I now take for granted and the beauty of my childhood. It was a childhodd - far from pristine - yet ensconced in a bossom much closer to nature. Back then, I also took the beauty of the cattle grazing on the lush rolling summer hills for granted. It seems the heart's eternal quest to desire that which is distant rather than appreciate the present for what it is worth. In that dialectic lies the utopia of happiness in whatever present we can deal with.

Handing Iraq Over to Insurgents? Simply Ridiculous

On “This Week” with George Stephanopolous, US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld claimed that an early US withdrawal for forces from Iraq would amount to delivering the country to Zarqawi. To this, I will borrow on of John Stassel’s “give me a break.” This is one of those Hobbesian scare tactics that the current administration artfully employs to justify its Iraq policy and steer the debate on Iraq away from real policy issues. It is a claim which is as spurious as an attempt to claim the contrary.

What lies at the end of the road in Iraq is a deep “UNKNOWN.” The void of unknowns remains compounded by regional power dynamics which will interfere with Iraqi politics. The US invasion of Iraq uprooted a vertically authoritarian politico-military structure to replace it with a horizontal representative democracy. However the only stakeholder in a sustainable Iraqi democracy seems to be the Americans, who perceive Iraq as the bedrock of a new United States foreign policy in the Middle East.

Iran, it has been proven by recent intelligence estimates, supports a Shia takeover of Iraq and the potential creation of an Islamic state along the Iranian mould.

Syria favors a predominantly Sunni Baathist return to power. Meanwhile the Turkey remains deeply suspicious of gains made by the Kurds in post-Saddam Iraq. Implications of these gains could be projected into the fight for Kurdish regional autonomy in Turkey. Hence the United States policy in Iraq is bound to run afoul against these regional security dynamics.

It would be impossible to return post-Saddam Iraq to the kind of stability status quo ante bellum because of the conduct of the military operations in Iraq. The US invasion subverted a deeply entrenched sectarian military-intelligence structure. Elements from this subverted structure, which currently form the core of the insurgency, are bound to remain antagonistic against the reconstruction of a post-Saddam military-intelligence structure.

On the political level, the end result of democratic rule in Iraq is bound to favor the numerically superior Shias. This leaves a number of options for Sunni political participation, one of which is maintaining the insurgency as a form of political expression. The response to insurgency activity would have to be the construction of a non-sectarian military-intelligence structure in Iraq to support a non-sectarian republic. The parsimony of Shia retaliation against Sunni insurgent provocation is not bound to continue after US forces exit from Iraq, hence the serious potential for civil war in Iraq.

If the Secretary of Defense looked more closely, he would and should be more worried about the potential for civil strife, than the possibility of terrorists taking over.

France Burns in the Flames of Identity.

For over two weeks, France has burnt in the flames of its colonial legacy. The violence rocking city centers has awoken ghosts from its colonial past. The pent-up embers which sustained the violence were: little bits of assimilation versus xenophobia; neo-colonialism versus independence; the old versus the new françafrique policy; economic co-optation versus independence and social discontent. France’s pursuit for a solution to the present quagmire is fraught with challenges, which are bound to reemerge, unless the right solutions are sought today. However, there is the need to start off by demystifying the current crisis. The issue at stake is at once simple and complex - IDENTITY!!

Raised on the literature of African literati like Senghor, Sembene Ousmane and Sheikh Hamidou Kane, I endured their painful narratives of protest against the systemic subordination of the assimilé. Their painful prose at once exposed the acculturating elements of assimilation, which amounted to ridding the African of his “African-ness,” and transforming him into Frenchmen- albeit, second class French men. Then their symbolic odes birthed and nurtured the concept of “negritude” which glorified the African’s African-ness. Though separated from me by two generations, their prose and poetry still ring true today as I watch France burn to the pent up frustrations of multi-generational discontent.

To address identity in France today, there is the need to accept the reality of racial discrimination, in spite of its former policy of assimilation. For, assimilation did not attempt to create co-equal lines of communication across France’s racial divide. While at an individual level peaceful coexistence across racial lines is the norm, institutionally, race remains a barrier to education access and thence, job access and mobility. Trapped in a colonial time capsule, the relational dynamics between the white French system and the assimilé, has failed to respond to changing local and global imperatives.

While Paris glitters to the glitz of the Eiffel Tower, the Louvres and the Tuilleries, its outskirts, like most French municipalities, are littered with distinct pockets of African immigrant communities. These communities might be located in Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon and Marseilles, but they retain everything African- cuisine, music, community and language. However, these pockets of vibrant discontent evidence the economic unevenness between African immigrant populations and the rest. They reflect an attempt to embrace the other, only to be rebuffed by a cold shoulder. Not even the heterogeneity of France's national soccer team (with its Bolis,Thurams, Ngottys and Makeleles) has proven that African immigrant can perform at the highest levels. If anything, it has fostered a stereotype that “black men can only play ball.”

These communities of discontent have inspired literary protest, which have not attracted policy solutions to their problems, the same solutions which violent protest will most certainly elicit from the French authorities.

In an attempt to deal with this discontent, the dichotomous positions of France’s heirs-apparent exhibit the complexity of the problem. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has outlined socio-economic policy recommendations to deal with the discontent. Meanwhile, Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister has called for the deportation of protesters despite their immigration status. In Sarkozy’s position, is the clear articulation of the discontent being expressed by the assimilé being: “No matter how long we stay in France, regardless of whether we were born here, we really do not belong here.” That is where France needs to begin its identity soul-searching. Where it ends, I am not sure, but am convinced that they would also need to explore the underlying reason behind the ever swelling ranks of immigrants from their former colonies. A foreign policy debate might follow suit, but for now, there is the need to dowse the flames of discontent by kindling flames of equal promise and opportunity.

Silence

For sure, a thin veil of silence cloaked me over the last couple of months. Enough time to take an active break from the world into the passive excitement of complacency. However, like with an addiction, which one fails to beat my fingers are buzzing with the excitement of catching up on the silence.

Over the past few months, Chief justice John Roberts has acceded to the helm of the US Supreme Court. President Bush’s vacation to Texas was punctuated by Cindy Sheehan and co. Hurricane Katrina washed ashore to expose the emperor’s stark nakedness. Iraq finally drafted a new constitution. The President’s poll numbers saw an all time dip!!

The echoes of history resonate with an eerie prediction of the future. Harriet Miers’ confirmation hearings are coming up in November. Violence on the Iraq front is not abating despite the completion ofa constitutional referendum. Hurricane Wilma dances an unpredictable pattern in the Caribbean. Mid term elections loom on the horizon. Liberians will soon have a new president.

The dull news cycle evokes the need for even more silence. Gone are the days when maverick political strategizing kept honest people on their toes wondering “what next.” In that spin zone where survival is the summum bonum of political maneuvering, backdoor negotiations could earn a candidate a place on the Supreme Court, but only a higher power would determine the tune to which Wilma will dance and the community which will meet here kiss of destruction.

Where is Liberia Blueprint for Reconstruction?

Over the last couple of weeks, the Liberian presidential debates have gone full throttle, as the candidates rumble through a campaign which ends with voting on October 11, 2005. However, there remains parsimony in policy arguments from the candidates. Their campaign speeches to constituents, evoke the lack of a vision for the collective and the preponderance of personal political ambitions. Liberians, emerging from a protracted social conflict deserve of each presidential candidate, a blueprint for post-conflict reconstruction. This blueprint should exhibit concrete plans on “HOW” to heal Liberia and restore her to her pre-1980 greatness, catering to the political, economic and social deficiencies which forced the country into conflict in the past.

At the core of the healing process in Liberia, there is the need to negotiate a clear understanding and definition of Liberian identity. A hearty dialogue needs to assuage Americao-Liberian and indigenous dichotomies and forestall inter-religious differentiation. Negotiating Liberian identity will dissipate the lingering vestiges of polarization which could provide a catalyst to the return to conflict. It will also create a foundation upon which Liberians will see the need to commit to public and civic service, which is a prerequisite for sustainable reconstruction in Liberia. Civic participation is fundamental to the construction of a solid state, especially in the aftermath conflict. Hence the need for presidential candidates to provide a premise upon which they hope to bolster the engagement of the Liberian within the reconstruction process. A new nationalistic zeal needs to replace the religious discourse which currently pervades campaign manifestos.

The legacy of authoritarianism, which precipitated the decline into conflict in Liberia’s past needs to be addressed, through the formation and crystallization of legitimate and representative governance structures. Taking a cue from institutions of traditional authority in Liberia, there is the need for concerted consultation to create a truly independent electoral commission, a representative legislative body and an independent judiciary. There is also the need to create clear delineation between the executive, judicial and legislative wings of government. It behooves each presidential candidate to articulate how they hope to accomplish these tasks.

The role of the military and police (which in the case of the former has made wanton incursions into Liberian politics in the past), should be institutionalized at the fringes of the political landscape in the service of national security and civil defense. The incoming president will need to clearly complete the full demilitarization, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants. This DDR process should occur concurrently with the creation of an enabling environment for the safe return of both internally and externally displaced populations. These cannot be achieved without a plan.

Then there is the behemoth of the economy. It goes without saying that Liberia is a country of immense geo-strategic, natural and human wealth. This wealth needs to be extracted and managed, with the dividend going to totally rebuild social service infrastructures which we the first casualties of the war. Schools, hospitals, water and sanitation services all over Liberia’s 15 counties need to be restored to full capacity and adequately staffed.
The institutional structures for macro and micro economic management need to be supported by adequate human capacity and operational management to push towards post-conflict economic growth. Inflation would need to be stabilized and unemployment would need to be addressed. Former combatants need to be taken off the streets for transformation into productive assets. While we understand that these issues need to be addressed, the presidential candidates need to show their blueprints.

As the debate rages on, there is the dire need for Liberia’s presidential candidates to provide concrete roadmaps on “HOW” they intend to restore Liberia to its historical place in Africa. The voters would then be called to choose not by the religious fervor displayed by the candidate, not by candidate name recognition, not along ethno-religious lines; but by virtue of the plan which they think will deliver them from the vicious cycle of violence.

Opinionated Dissonance in the War on Terror

The terror attacks in London have resuscitated the debate on the best means for combating international terrorism. One group points to the attacks in London to illustrate the frivolity of Pres. Bush’s claim of “fighting the terrorists abroad,” as a deterrent to terrorism. The other group uses the absence of an attack on US soil to prove the viability of the Bush administration’s war on terror. The passionately intense debates point to varying perceptions of American hegemony as the culmination of the US war on terror. After the deafening debates, the silence returns. One thing they all seem to agree upon is that the US needs to win the war on terror. Their differences are mainly in the “how.” The emptiness fills with the absence of a “right” response to the questions – “Is there a perfect way to fight international terrorism?”

Many have advocated a journey to the root of international terrorism – addressing issues pertaining to religion, poverty and democratization in the Middle East. However, no one has sought to understand why the potent combination of Islam, poverty and authoritarianism in Africa has not produced global terrorists. Or is my perception made moot by recent assumptions that state weakness and failure in Africa would inevitably breed terrorism. Here, there is the need to delineate between the creation of sanctuary and financial channels for international terrorist organizations, and the nestling of terrorists.

State failure in Somalia points to evidence of terrorism in Africa. However, for every subjective presentation of Somalia, I will point to Nigeria, which has one of the largest Muslim populations in Africa. I would also point to the war in Algeria, which has received very little coverage in the Western media. Algeria is peculiar by the nature, duration and execution of the conflict. Despite the protracted confrontation between the fundamentalist Groupe Islamique Armee (GIA), and the Algerian government, Algeria has not become a major export for international terrorism.

Hence, eliminating the variables of Islam, poverty and authoritarianism, there is the nexus between foreign policy and domestic policy formation, which approaches the causal core of international terrorism. This touches the international governmental networks, which sustain the repressive governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These two countries provide the greatest manpower in the command and control of terror operations. They also remain terrorist sanctuaries in the Middle East.

The argument that ensues is one, which supports democratization and free society as a panacea to international terrorism. Here, the democratic end does not justify the belligerent means, which the United States has used to impose democratization in Iraq. Questions abound as to how to negotiate the entry of the Muslim Brotherhood (Gamaat al Islamiya) into mainstream Egyptian politics without ceding segments of governance to them. Governance is a complex issue. Given nascent theoretical belief in the human quest and value for freedom, not even citizens of Middle Eastern countries would opt for oppression when faced with a choice between oppression and freedom.

Through the free interaction of Islamic and secular forces in the Middle East states, an acceptable system of governance will emerge for people in the region. These countries would need to go through constitutional restructuring processes built on the interactive foundation of debate, discussion and referenda; the media landscape would need to be liberalized to accommodate dissonant voices; the economic landscape would need to be de-clientized to encourage private enterprise in service provision.

In the long run, democracy could be enabled from abroad, however it would never be imposed from abroad. Only so, would the forces of international terrorism be contained and would terrorist forces find expression, which they crave, within their respective communities.

Vacancy at the Supreme Court – It’s Gonzalez’s Time

Vacancy at the Supreme Court – It’s Gonzalez’s Time

Most pundits predict a showdown around the nomination and confirmation of the successor to Sandra Day O’Connor. However, I see it differently. President G. W. Bush has a chance to make history. . . and it is a chance he will seize. While he peruses the shortlist of potential nominees, the Political Action Committees are gearing up for what has been billed to be an epic battle. How would they react to the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez to the bench?

Many Political Action Committees to the left would bring up the memos exposed by Seymour Hersch from the office of the White House Counsel purporting to support the use of torture in detention facilities under the control of coalition authorities. This is a claim they would interpret as reflecting on the importance of human rights and freedoms on the Bush agenda. They would try to frame Gonzalez as an opponent to individual human rights and freedoms. However, how much validity is there to this claim?

The response from the PACs to the right will be blistering. They will laud Gonzalez record and play the race card. Their messages would try to link the liberal PACs to the Democratic Party, thereby questioning the respect for minorities within the Democratic party. This sets a complicated stage for the mid-term elections, where the Democrats are seeking to capitalize on the slipping popularity of an increasingly lame duck president.

The response from the Democratic party itself would have to be resolute. As Sen. Minority leader, Harry Reid (D- Nev.) has noted over the last week, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez would be a remarkable nominee to the Supreme Court. By endorsing Mr. Gonzalez candidacy, the Dems would show that they can rise above political wrangling and look at an individual’s credentials and track record. This would give them increasing credibility in any future fight, which may be created by the resignation of Chief Justice Renqhuist. Realistically, within the Bush camp, Alberto Gonzalez is the best bet for a supreme court nominee. It's all hypothetical right.

African Politics in the Diaspora - Liberia

For a while I have been trapped in a fog of ideas – caught between the steady stream of exciting events and my interpretation of these events. On Saturday, June 25, 2005, I attended a cookout for a Liberian presidential candidate, Mr. Charles Brumskine. After reading a Washington Post weekend feature on Mr. Brumskine about a month ago, I was curious as to why this one candidate had caught the attention of the Washington Post, a newspaper which has failed to take an editorial stand on issues of life and death in Africa.

I came to the event to see the candidate, hear his message, see his following and ponder his “electability.” I came to the event CURIOUS!!! The Wheaton regional park’s somber and reflective atmosphere proved an elegant backdrop for the hugs, kisses, chest butts and handshakes the candidate exchanged with his potential constituency. The simmering chicken and pork chops on the grills kept people busy between bites, smiles and tidbits. Basins laden with beverages stood at the center of the gazebo, to counteract the scorching heat of a thirst-inducing afternoon.

As I walked into the shade of the gazebo, I saw an elegant graying man in a white African lace “jumper” sitting in on a park bench in the shade of a tree in intense consultation with a woman who had the aura of a political operative. My Liberian friend, EVB, nudged me on the elbow and whispered, “There is no way he will talk with anyone that long if she is not a serious donor to his campaign or if she is not a big wig.”

I attended the event with EVB so he could help deconstruct the event’s verbal and nonverbal messaging. Then it was the candidate’s turn to speak. He welcomed his mother’s first outing to a political event, before plunging into his believed God-ordained mission to lead the post-Taylor Liberia. Reminiscent of contemporary African politics, Mr. Brumskine spoke for 10 minutes without mentioning the policy implications of his candidacy for the Liberia Yekepa, Harbel, Buchanan or Monrovia. His elocution reverberated the empty aspirations of an individually driven quest for political power. His promises were devoid of the substance needed to steer Liberia towards a sustainable peace. The difference he perceived between the other candidates and himself – his Love for Liberia.

I turned to a Liberian Washington lobbyist and asked why he had decided to jump on the Brumskine bandwagon. I could read the “greens” in his eyes as he explained the tenuous past relationship between Taylor and Brumskine to prove that Brumskine could stand up to Taylor again, if the case arose. This lobbyist, JLJ, claimed that the US government had reviewed all the candidates in the Liberian presidential elections. After careful consideration the Washington’s realpolitik computation made Brumskine the most feasible and effective candidate to support in this pivotal election in Liberia.

Mr. Brumskine could perceive himself as God’s gift to Liberia. He may even perceive himself as the most deserving Liberian, because of his previous altercations with Taylor. However, those two issues exclusively do not a president make. It is time to elevate the discourse and treat the electorate as a thinking entity capable of identifying issues and not just candidates within the political process. I came out of my first encounter with Mr. Brumskine without the slightest idea as to why he should be Liberia’s next president.

For 15 years, Liberia was embroiled in civil war. In the shadow of these elections, Charles Taylor lurks in exile in Nigeria. These elections will deliver Liberia to a candidate who would lead Liberia over the next 6 years. In post-conflict reconstruction, this is the most important temporal space for building a sound foundation for a sustainable peace. Liberians need to seize the opportunity, read the tea leaves and vote for peace and not a return to war.

When Will the Mission be Accomplished?

The GOP chorus has been incessant in response to recent calls for a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. That chorus has chanted “Whether you were for or against the war isn’t important today. The important issue is that our men and women in uniform accomplish the mission in Iraq.” Does that translate into the absence of an exit strategy in the Iraq engagement? If it is so, what are the potential consequences of a protracted large scale US presence in Iraq on politics at home and within the Middle East region?

The murky field of counter-insurgency places a premium on the availability of human intelligence sources to weed out insurgent actors from populations. Hence the reason why defeating the insurgency movement would need to be taken on more seriously by the nascent post-Saddam military and intel establishment. While some US policy advocates propose a presence in Iraq until the elusive “Mission Accomplished” is satisfied, this evidently is the road to even longer confrontation. For a number of reasons:

• The rationale for democratization is going to polarize the Iraqi society for a long time. This polarization is harnessed by the primacy of ethnicity in the interpretation of the post-Saddam political evolution in Iraq. In the attempt to create a post-Saddam nation, Iraq’s political class has devolved to the same methods which maintained Saddam in power – seeking support from and forming coalitions along ethnic lines.
• So long as a dominant American military presence is seen as propping a puppet regime in Baghdad, the insurgency would linger on. The newly elected Iraqi leadership needs to redefine the meaning of Iraqi national security.
• The redefinition of Iraqi national security needs to emphasize the threats from neighboring states, the government’s right to protect the Iraqi people from foreign fighters and the need to develop a well-trained and capable fighting force.
• The new elite Iraqi military unit would be the visible abrasive weapon against the insurgency. Meanwhile a newly well-trained intelligence operation would have to cultivate human intelligence within all of Iraq’s highly polarized ethnic communities.
• It need be noted that most of the insurgents are foreign fighters, who have crossed the border to make of Iraq, the new battleground in the war on terror. Like the Al Qaeda movement has shown in its resiliency, such fundamentalists never give up. Hence there is a bull’s eye on every US military convoy in Iraq and on military personnel. It is time for the Iraqi government to announce that the party is over and it is time for the insurgents to go home.
  
  Listening to the Deputy Iraqi Ambassador to the UN yesterday on NPR, I sensed a lack of confidence in the ability of Iraqis to cater to Iraq’s own security. While some are quick to contend that only a political solution can bring an end to the insurgency in Iraq, it is evident that only a concerted political and military effort spearheaded by the new Iraqi government will dowse the flame of the insurgency in Iraq.
  
  So you must get my drift by now – the mission has been accomplished. Saddam is gone, a new Iraqi government was elected in January and the US can work with Iraqis as partners in the reconstruction effort...or is there some other reason to stay? The Iraqis should be able to deal with mopping up the insurgency.

Has the Media Reached a Verdict?

Ever since the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Trial was remanded to the jury, the media changed coverage from an assessment of the day’s court performances to its crystal-ball-gazing ritual of making predictions. The media is stunned by the verdict, with Fox News calling it “Shocking,” while CNN released a new CNN/Gallup poll which showed 48% of respondents disagreed, while 37% agreed with the verdict. The missing link between the verdict and the respondents (which was absent from the poll’s findings) is the role the media played in framing a guilty verdict and hanging it around MJ’s neck.

Most US legal “pawndits” staked their credibility on a guilty verdict, while the jury was in session. For a jury which was not sequestered, the post-verdict media reaction is only rational – shock and outrage. The media failed to address the 10 counts against MJ. They failed to see a wide net cast against an individual being pursued for over 12 years by an overzealous DA (wow am I beginning to sound like one of the media professionals). Well let’s scratch the word “overzealous” out, the man was simply doing his job – trying to convict an innocent man of pedophilia. Of all the many possibly outcomes in the case, they failed to present the other probability – that of MJ’s possible innocence. Is it because of the “yuk factor” Cynthia McFadden was talking about in the possible innocence of a pre-verdict pedophile?

One day after the verdict, the legal minds scratch their heads, surprised at their inability of their predictions to influence the jury pool and surmising the reasons behind the “NOT GUILTY” verdict. These pundits who have a cumulative legal experience of over 750 years all came out calling the case for the prosecution …and to further impugn the American legal system, I heard one of them say “the prosecution lost the case, the defense did not win it.”

I am not an MJ fan although I once was as a 7 year old kid growing up in faraway Cameroon. I am just an individual who seeks to believe in the standards set by the American legal system. I would like to hope and believe that the tenet “innocent until proven guilty” would hold true, even for celebrities. However, when guilty is the call from the start of a case, a miracle like the one Tom Mersereau Jr. accomplished will be studied as a case in law schools around the country for a long time.

Now, the question on every news anchor’s lips is “what next for MJ?” Why do they care? They had expected to cover the first day of his 20 year term in jail. Alas, they’re scurrying for the jurors and trying to predict MJ’s next move. The man has had his day in court, it is time to move on…

The Democratic Party Suicide Watch...

Over the past couple of days, they have lined up in front of the microphones to denounce their party chairperson. Gov. Richardson. Sen. Biden etc. Puzzling it is, when party leaders, who voted in a national party chairperson seek to distance themselves from him by asserting that he is the party spokesperson. Simply because he spoke his mind devoid of the political doubletalk reminiscent of traditional beltway politics. What are some of Gov. Dean’s indiscretions which have so earned him the “ugly swan” status within his own party?

• After Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed, he claimed that the GOP leaders (who had contested the court’s decision to have the tube removed) were brain dead. Other Dem leaders claim insensitivity.
  
• He claimed that at the opportune time, the Dem party will use the Schiavo case to prove the extremism of the compassionate conservative agenda.
  
• He said that Tom Delay was a criminal, without expressing his point as an allegation. He was unable to tell Tim Russert of what crime Delay was guilty.

As the mid-term elections draw nigh, once again, the Dem party is holding a gun to its own head, with multiple fingers on the trigger. This attempt at political suicide exhibits the disjointed nature of the party’s operational structures. The governors do not seen to talk to the senators, the senators do not seem to talk with the Democratic National Committee.

There seems to be an absence of a command and control unit which seeks to understand and meet the needs of the electorate. The bridge between the Dem electorate and the elected officials seems to have been flooded in the recent political storms brewed by the GOP. What happened to the Dem Party which was a party for minorities, a party for women, a party for all individual rights, a party for the poor and middle class, a party for the progressives?

In the face of democratic loses in the past two presidential elections and with the GOP control of both houses of the legislature, the Dem party has drifted away from representing its base to seek a pseudo-GOP image. In so doing, they make Ken Mehlman look like a political zeus and the GOP look like the party of the future. They make the DNC chairperson, Gov. Howard Dean look like a political Lilliputian and their party an orchestra in great need to a practice session prior to the great concerto. It is time to either take a vote of confidence against Chairman Howard Dean or find a way to strengthen the DNC, which is a salient piece in any attempt to capture the White House in 2008. What will the democrats do? I’d say shoot themselves in the head!!

Is a Champ Really Born?

The week-end is around the corner. For aficionados of pro tennis, another star seems to be born. At this point where the choice is between two, I guess the odds are even greater to bet on a winner than when the field had 32 contenders. Nadal has brought a splash of passion an color to the game which have been missing since the days of Mats Wilander, Michael Chang, Jim Courier and the heyday of Andre Agassi. I know that those who love Pete Sampras think I am doing disservice to the maestro for not including him in the list. Of course I just called him the maestro, am I exonerated now.

I hope Nadal wins against Mariano Puerta. However, at the rate at which Nadal is going, God save his knees. His defensive style of play will not hold muster at Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows or Australia. So a star is born only for the moment. I still love Andy Roddick for the future. Enjoy the games people.

Egeland Speaks on Niger's Famine

Listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning, Jan Egeland, United Nations Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs, made a heart-breaking appeal for humanitarian aid to Niger. This international appeal for a meager US$16 million to bring relief to 25% of Niger’s population affected by famine, is two weeks and the response his been mute. Not a dime from any governmental entity to bring emergency relief to northern parts of Niger beleaguered by locusts and then flattened by droughts.

Egeland described death by starvation as a slow and painful process, which should elicit greater international benevolence, in comparison to the Tsunami. Despite that "misplaced comparison," the absence of aid seems to lie in geography. Niger is in Africa. Niger is not any global power’s strategic radar sreens (despite Pres. Bush’s claim in his Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”) That country he was falsely referring to was Niger. Niger's inherent weakness and proximity to Libya and Algeria make it a potential outpost for international terrorism (check out the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence questioning of CIA Director, Porter Goss by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV on Somalia the last week). Many of the arguments about Somalia will also hold for Niger, except for the fact that Niger is off any radar screens, making it an even more appealing sleeper base for international terrorists. Does that make a case for humanitarian assistance. Definitely. It falls in line with the same imperatives which defined concerted humanitarian relief efforts for Indonesia post-Tsunami. While the timing may the different and the circumstances even more so, I think Niger deserves more than the hollow echoes of silence to a call for humanitarian assistance.

Niger’s is the heart-breaking tale of humanitarian assistance in Africa. What surprises me though is that, despite President Mbeki’s appeals for African solutions to African problems, the African Union has not made the drought in Niger a priority. Neither has the AU called for international attention to the impending refugee crises in Benin. When I thought the Au was supposed to be a more active replacement of the moribund OAU… or was I simply having ill-conceived illusions?

Ford Jr. vs. Blackburn…

…the political spotlights will turn to Tennessee in Fall 2008 to highlight the race for senate successor to Bill Frist. This is a must-win race Democrats, as it holds a stake in the uphill battle to regain Democratic control of the Senate. The full armada of the party will need to prop Rep. Harold Ford Jr., despite his tendency to err on the side of values, which would best be described as progressive liberal. Hey who said Dems. could not coin an oxymoron reminiscent of the GOP passionate conservatives? Ford Jr. might just represent the diversified face of the democratic party Antinio Villaraigosa was talking about while addressing a rally for the Campaign for America’s Future yesterday.

Ford Jr.’ s chances cannot be written off, simply because he is a Dem. running in a GOP stronghold. He has a worthy opponent in Rep. Marsha Blackburn. However, he was elected to congress straight out of Law School at the University of Michigan in 1996. At 35 years old, he has become a savvy Washington insider, who needs to be watched closely in the run-up to the senatorial elections.

This race presents a Herculean challenge for newly minted Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. It presents the fence mending opportunity for former veep Al Gore in TN. TN does not feature on the list of "Red" states in which the DNC is investing $1 million to rebuild Democratic Party structures. MISTAKE. This race gives the Democratic party to make a dent in the Red South, which could be the key to clinching the 2008 Presidential elections. This is a race whose results are hinged on a number of extraneous factors to the candidates. However, I think the Democrats need to start early trying to make this the race to win and give Bill Frist something to think about as he relinquishes his seat for a White House run.

There is no need to bicker on the stances taken by Sen. Ford on the social security issue. The end will justify the means and when it matters most, his vote will make an additional difference in the Senate and strengthen the party when that strength is most necessary.

Côte d’Ivoire’s Untenable Peace

A few days ago, I was talking with a friend about the precarious nature of the peace in Côte d’Ivoire. It’s as simple as this: when a peace process is predicated upon personalities prior to addressing group interests and positional dynamics, it is bound to collapse in the long run. This unless, the personalities give up the cause they feel they have a legitimate claim to pursue. Hence the countervailing responsibility between groups and their leaders, and vice versa, in times of conflict. Experience from protracted social conflicts lend credence to this claim – Angola, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka etc.

This morning, renewed violence in Duekoue, points to the fragility of the Pretoria Accords. However, the watershed for renewed and sustained violence is the October 2005 Presidential election. Take a look at the October 2005 electoral scenario. It is a one-shot election. Alasane Dramane Ouattara’s (ADO) candidacy has been accepted, not based upon the “nationality clause” but based on “special presidential decree.” Hence, the “ivoirite” concept is still very much alive. Soro Guillaume’s Forces Nouvelles are convinced that ADO would win an election against Henri Konan Bedie (HKB) or Laurent Koudou Gbagbo (LKG). Doesn’t one love Côte d’Ivoire’s presidential acronyms? To fully capture the precarious nature of the peace in Côte d’Ivoire, it becomes necessary to explore the scenario of potential outcomes. Since that could come at a later time, at the moment, it is important to explore the weaknesses in the Pretoria Accords.

What the Pretoria Accords succeeded in doing was to procrastinate fissures in Côte d’Ivoire. Here’s how:

• Accepting that ADO present his candidacy for the elections, does not guarantee its fairness.
  What if ADO wins? What if LKG wins? What if HKB wins? How would the FN react?
• In case there is any contest in the elections, the battle lines are already drawn between North and South for renewed conflict.
• There is a misplaced faith in the electoral process as a consensus-building process. However, we all know how polarizing elections could be even in the most democratically entrenched traditions.
• The demilitarization process thus far is slow and suspicious, precluding any kind of trust-building between the contending parties.
• The accords did not create the requisite platform for peace-building.
  

Based on all these factors, I will bet on renewed violence in Côte d’Ivoire, post-election. I am not merely being afro-pessimistic here, I would hope that there are more positive outcomes, but let’s look into the past to attempt this projection into the future, four months down the road.

Khodorkovsky's Guilty Verdict...

I awoke this morning to the news of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s (42 years old) conviction to 9 years in jail for 6 charges including tax evasion, embezzlement, and other financial indiscretions. He ranks at the top of the class of post-Soviet Russian oligarchs with a net worth over $8 billion. His true guilt stems from bankrolling soviet opposition to Putin. Was it any surprise then that a court found him guilty of crimes which he committed in cahoots with the same occupants of the Kremlin?

What a damper to the simplistically optimistic assertions of Sharansky who wrote: “Compared to a Soviet Union in which millions worked for the KGB, millions were in prison, tens of millions lost their lives, and hundreds of millions lived in fear, present day Russia is a bastion of freedom,” page 28. For an author who seems to see no compromise in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, that assertion is a chilling relapse to realistic shades of grey which pervade political reality. However, when a “democracy” is built on a political entente between oligarchs and an oppressive political leadership to respect and steer clear of each others’ spheres, how sustainable can that democracy actually be? Basic question, would anyone even consider Russia a democracy?

In the shadow of today’s headline, however, remains... the uncertain story of Vladimir Guzinsky (media magnate, chased around the world for daring to oppose Yeltsin and later, Putin)…the more certain allegiance of Roman Abramovic (who has stealthily moved into investment in soccer and maintained close ties with Putin’s chief of staff Alexander Voloshin)…the escaped Boris Berezovsky (now staging an Anti-Putin campaign from exile)…the silent Oleg Deripaska (who maintains a low key business role at the helm of Russian aluminum exports.

Okay considering time already spent, Khodorkovsky will spend approx. 7.5 years in jail. However, Russia is fashioning itself into a post-polar bastion of personality driven politics and economics in the face of the declining well-being of its populations.

Partially Reviewing Sharansky…

I hail from a country which still lives with the vestiges of a neo-colonial past. Whether illusory or real, the pervasive influence of France through the entire economic and political structure in Cameroon is evident. Even after a review of the “françafrique” (a term which harkens to the neo-colonial legacy) in the mid-1990s, those influences remain. These are the same influences which are said to account (to some extent) to the persistence of the monolithic Biya regime in power. So I know something about living in a “fear Society.” So much for the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and oppression.

After reading over 4 of 7 chapters of Natan Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror,” I understand why he is one of President Bush’s favorite authors. He was extensively quoted in G.W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural address. Sharansky presents a simplistically selective case for democracy and freedom in the Middle East, based almost entirely upon his experience, living in totalitarian Russia. I have not read the entire book yet. However, as one inclined to the objective presentation of fact, the first chapter of the book sounded like a propagandistic justification of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a quest to spread freedoms and democracy.

Sharansky’s simplistic quest for moral clarity based on dichotomization between “free” and “fear” societies and "democracy" and “tyranny,” fails to account for the majority of countries around the globe which have opted for a middle ground between totalitarianism and democracy, which Carothers will label as “pseudo-democracies.” While I agree with his perception that “an election does not a democracy make,” very little value is found in his attempt to delineate interest-defined and morally defined foreign policy decision making. The invasion of Iraq was as much about natural resources as it was about the geo-strategic remapping of the Middle East. The invasion of Afghanistan was as much a national security imperative as it was a firm response to international terrorism. It was a response to international terrorism short of taking action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which appears as accountable for spawning Wahabism as Afghanistan was for providing a staging ground for Al Qaeda activity.

Hence for Sharansky to praise the Bush administration for its pursuit of freedoms, while blatantly dismissing the interest-driven imperative underlying this quest, is to devolve to the same simplistic explication of far more complex foreign policy decision-making issues. Furthermore, Sharansky makes a case for democracy without prescribing a methodology for the global spread of democracy and freedoms. Full of contradictions, Sharansky emphasizes the role of the Soviet Jewry as an internal force pushing for freedoms in the former Soviet Union. At the same time he does not propose a specific construct for the fusion of internal forces and external forces to dislodge hegemonic monoliths from power.

Does that imply the primacy of war as the most persuasive option in societal transformation of totalitarian states into democratic states? I read a much better case for democracy in Fareed Zakaria’s “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.” If you intend to make a case for democracy in the future. I'd propose youuse Zakaria and not Sharansky.

“GAGGED” in the Republic of South Africa?

This story begins with a personal anecdotal flashback. As a young journalism student in Cameroon, my internship with The Herald, the leading Anglophone newspaper in the country, ushered me into the corridors of the political affairs unit (PAU) at the Ministry of Territorial Administration (MINAT). If one has ever lived in an oppressive society, in which the politics of fear, mistrust and uncertainty trump over the politics of candor, openness and dialogue, they would certainly recognize the role of the PAU. This is where papers underwent the test of compliance with the art of authoritarian flattery. The Herald went to MINAT at the same time as it went to press, because of the deadline constraints in publishing a tri-weekly newspaper, within a pseudo-democratic context. There were times when a news story was censored while it was on the presses. So it came to the reader with black streaks running diagonally from top-right to bottom-left of the page. That was a time which has fed my indelible passion for legitimate, accountable and representative leadership in Africa.

Those memories flooded me, when I saw the image of the Mail & Guardian Newspaper in the Republic of South Africa with a red band labeled “GAGGED” across the story. The injunction came down from the J’burg High Court Thursday, after the paper had already gone to press.

What was at issue with the story? Last week, the Mail & Guardian published a story now infamously referred to as “Oilgate.” In this story, they allege that the oil management company Imvume, paid the leading African National Congress R-11 million (approx. US$1.7 million) of taxpayer’s money, before last year’s elections. Judge Vas Soni ruled that Imvume, and its boss Sandi Majali’s right to privacy, dignity and reputation, trumped both freedom of expression and the public’s right to know about the conduct of their elected government. Hence the issue was not the veracity of the information, but the privacy in the economic dealings of private corporation and a public official entity. I am not sure what South Africa law says about this. If it provides blanket protection to the publicly elected official, then only the electorate can be called upon to sanction him.

Nevertheless, the ruling sets a troubling precedent in a South Africa still trying to shake off the vestiges of over a century of oppressive and divisive leadership. In the interest of accountability and disclosure in the democratic process, the ANC should be urged to come clean on the charges. Within a democratic context, such charges are bound to affect governmental credibility, which is a cornerstone of good governance. It may also be time for campaign finance reform in South Africa.

Eyadema II: Oppression Continues…

No – elections do not a legitimate leader make. When Gnassingbe Eyadema died on February 5, 2005, the monthly Afrique Asie ran a cover story titled, “Togo: The End of the Eyadema Empire.” That cover story could not have been farther from the truth in its failure to analyze the role of Eyadema’s two sons, Commander Rock Gnassingbe and Faure Eyadema, in the politico-military future of the country. After a shot gun paternal succession process, the amorphous “international community” expressed its outrage and called for immediate elections.

The quality of the elections seemed unimportant, so long as they were held immediately. The electoral process was a dog and pony show. The electoral law remained ambiguous as to candidate eligibility until a month before the April elections. Then, Eyadema II’s main opponent, Gilchrist Olympio, was not allowed to submit his candidacy for the presidency. (It would have been fun to see 2 sons tussle for a presidency once occupied by their daddies ;-).

Now all eyes are averted from Lome, where the Togolese people are responding to police and military brutality with displacement to Benin. As Togo’s political polarities failed to bridge their differences in Abuja a week ago, the future of the nation hangs in a balance.

Despite Eyadema II’s pledge to for a single term of political and economic reform in Togo, his lack of control over the forces of oppression is evident. Sporadic voices have emerged calling for a resort to arms against government sanctioned politically motivated assassinations, mass disappearances and rape.

A nation with 6 million inhabitants, Togo straddles two emerging African democracies, Ghana – to the west and Benin – to the right. However, the tendency has been for fleeing populations to flee towards Benin, because of the shared francophone linguistic heritage. The situation in Togo presents a security risk for an already precarious West African region. The Eyadema Empire stroked back.

Pretoria to Tshwane: What lies in a name?

Honestly, not a great deal is locked in a name. When the late Joseph Desire Mobutu changed his names to Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Gbendu Wazabanga and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Zaire, he was unleashing nationalistic zeal into Zaire’s politically ideational redefinition. His attempt represented a break from a colonial past into a more indigenous present. However, that indigenous present failed to translate into a secure future for most Zairois. Today, the Congolese from Kinshasa take offense at being referred to as Zairois. Once again, a name is used to break with a nauseous past, while still predicting an uncertain future.

However, with SA still seething in the racial legacy of the Apartheid era, the move from Pretoria to Tshwane might be more than just a name change…it might be an attempt to reclaim the city from its colonial past and recast the city underneath its pre-colonial shadow. You wish….:-) Long Live Tshwane...but is it time for a name change in Baghdad?

Extraditing Taylor: A Security Dilemma

To extradite or not to extradite – that’s the question. Almost 2 years since he was cajoled out of power in Liberia and into asylum in Nigeria, Charles Taylor still looms large over the prospects of a sustainable peace in West Africa. The most recent controversy surrounding Charles Taylor is his extradition to Sierra Leone to face the charge of crimes against humanity. The line in the sand has been drawn. It epitomizes the debate which cuts in the middle of inherent dichotomies between legal and reconciliatory conflict resolution methodologies.

Charles Taylor escaped Liberia through a politically construed Machiavellian deal – a deal which favored the lesser of two evil options as the most tenable option for conflict de-escalation. The deal made nonsense of the atrocities committed by Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia militia and the NPFL-supported Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone.

The Sierra Leone conflict led lasted 8 years, ending in over 50,000 casualties and over 2 million internally and externally displaced individuals. The spiraling conflict collapsed an already fragile economy (plumetting to a growth rate of -8% between 1991-1997) and destroyed the meager infrastructure Sierra Leone had mustered through 30 years of independence.

At stake here present in an individual, is a security dilemma, with far-reaching consequences on future peace agreements in Africa. Opponents to Taylor’s extradition point to the internationally-brokered Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, Ghana on August 18, 2003 as his statute of refuge. This deal guaranteed an exit for Charles Taylor in exchange for the cessation of hostilities between the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia and the Government of Liberia (or whatever was rest of it after 14 years of civil war - 1989-2003).

However, they forget that the deal did not make mention of the atrocities committed by Taylor-supported RUF forces in Sierra Leone. When international leaders speak against Taylor’s extradition, they condone the wanton killing of civilian populations in times of conflict. They promote rebel leaders holding out long enough to make deals which would give them a blank protection from prosecution. They set a nefarious precedent in an international legal framework which fails to explicitly protect civilian populations in times of intra-state conflict.

It is as simple as this: Charles Taylor is not above international humanitarian law. He needs to be held accountable for his actions in Sierra Leone, even if he has been left off the hook in Liberia. While totally aware of the potential resurgence of conflict which may arise from Taylor supporters in the event of his prosecution by the International Criminal Tribunal for Sierra Leone (ICTSL), such violence remains until then, only HYPOTHETICAL.

The Filibuster: Exposing GOP 2008 Presidential Hopefuls

Never a dull moment in Washington D.C. The truce reached by a bi-partisan Senate cohort to save the filibuster, protected the American legislative process from future logjams. However, it fell far short of providing a long term solution to the partisan wrangling over the appointment and confirmation of nominees into lifetime judicial positions. The implications of the debate on the American legal system were lost in the vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations which pervaded the filibuster process. Meanwhile some senators came out looking very presidential as they jockeyed for positioning in the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls (which include some good-looking gubernatorial hopefuls).

The media has been quick to declare a GOP Armageddon opposing the “centrists” and the “Christian conservatives.” (Whatever those clichés mean). Reading through the pages of a reputed newspaper, I think I even saw something about the “McCainists.” These would be the supporters of Sen. John McCain, one of the architects of the bi-partisan truce to save the filibuster. This same plan led to the recent Senate confirmation of Justice Owen and the possible Senate confirmation of Justice Rogers Brown of California and Judge Pryor of Alabama.

However, this truce segued right into the agenda of Sen. Bill Frist, who is purported to represent the “Christian conservative” wing of the GOP. Sen. McCain emerged as a consensus building legislator. Sen. Frist emerged as a steadfast advocate of his cause.

A few weeks ago, Sen. Frist took the hard line, making his case in a televised address to a huge chunk of the GOP base – “Christian Conservatives.” I spoke with a registered GOP friend about this appearance, and she made me understand that Sen. Frist was “nuts,” in putting himself out there. What she seemed to forget that he was a man on a mission. There are two tiebreakers in Fall of 2007. The first tiebreaker is an individual the outgoing president George W. Bush (of course, depending on his approval rating at the end of his lame duck season). The second tiebreaker will be the party’s base (which counts for a lot given the highly polarized nature of the contemporary political landscape).

In earning the confirmation vote on three federal judgeships, which have evoked riotous contention for 4 years, Sen. Frist has put the President and the Christian Conservative base in debt. That is a debt which will come in handy when the decks are stacked in a potentially tight field of the GOP’s primaries.

Sen. Frist emerged from the filibuster showing evidence of character, conviction and courage to stay the course. Through the entire process, he sounded more like a caring doctor tending to the inherent frailties within the legislative patient. Two days after the “Filibuster Truce,” he got his first wish, the senate confirmation of Justice Priscilla Owen to the US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit. In the coming days, he will win the confirmation of Juctice Rogers Brown and Judge Pryor and then, he will push for more. What does all this mean for the Democrats (Dems)? How do these mutations affect their chances in the mid-term elections? All these questions are definitely for another blog and in another thought. In the meantime, Sen. Frist is one up ahead of the pack.

To avoid another major defeat in the mid-term elections, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board after delivering a solid victory to the GOP base. Within a game theoretical dynamic, the truce which ended the Filibuster Showdown amounts to a lose-lose situation for the Dems (I know many who contest this assertion, which will only gain acceptance in hindsight). The GOP threat to eliminate the filibuster led to a deal which saved the filibuster and lead to the possible Senate confirmation of 3 ultra-conservative and polarizing judges. The GOP makes no apologies of polarizing the American electorate to strengthen its base. Looking down the pike, there is bound to be many more showdowns, many more threats and many more concessions to be made.

The fitting end to this commentary is “…to be continued.”

That's me!!