Fallon: Radical Islamic Leader's Aims Remain a Puzzle
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 18, 2007 – The intentions of radical Islamic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr largely remain cloudy amid the shifting sands of power politics in the new Iraq, the commander of U.S. Central Command testified at a Congressional hearing today.

"This is a guy that's pretty difficult to understand for us," Navy Adm. William J. Fallon told House Armed Services Committee members. "He holds, clearly, a large amount of influence within segments of the Iraqi population, but of late he has been absent."
Sadr is a Baghdad-based Shiite religious leader who commands the Mahdi Army militia, which has fought U.S. and Iraqi troops on many occasions.
The fiery cleric advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. But, he has mostly disappeared from public view since the mid-February start of the surge of U.S. and Iraqi forces into Baghdad and parts of western Iraq, Fallon noted.
"By all accounts he appears to be in Iran," Fallon commented on reports of Sadr's whereabouts. Yet, the cleric's "particularly nasty" militia members, he said, remain a nuisance to U.S. and coalition troops in the Baghdad area.
News reports attribute the recent resignation of six Sadr loyalists in the Iraqi Cabinet as a stunt arranged by the cleric to protest the lack of a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday during a visit to Amman, Jordan, that the cabinet resignations may prove to be advantageous to the Iraqi government. The secretary acknowledged that Sadr's motives are unclear at this point and remain, for now, "a mystery."
Fallon said not one of Sadr's many public proclamations issued since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime have been helpful to the coalition or the new Iraqi government.
Yet, Sadr's militia hasn't tried to stop the movement of U.S. and Iraqi security forces into Baghdad as the surge continues, the admiral noted.
However, the cleric's followers "are attacking our forces sporadically," Fallon said. There is currently no indication of a Mahdi Army-staged mass uprising against U.S. troops, he added.
Fallon told the House committee that most Iraqi citizens are weary of sectarian strife and bloodshed and are likely not interested in Sadr's overtures for continued violence. It's therefore important, he said, that Iraqi leaders publicly denounce the extremists at every opportunity.
The admiral took over as CENTCOM's commander March 16. Since then, he told the committee, he's traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries that come under his command's purview.
After discussions with key U.S. and Iraqi military and civilian leaders and sifting through reams of data, Fallon said he sees significant signs of a reduction in the number of murders and other kinds of sectarian violence in Iraq.

The Coming Era of Russia's Dark Rider
By Peter Zeihan

Russian opposition members rallied in Moscow's Pushkin Square on April 14. The so-called Dissenters' March was organized by Other Russia, an umbrella group that includes everyone from unrepentant communists and free-market reformers to far-right ultranationalists whose only uniting characteristic is their common opposition to the centralization of power under President Vladimir Putin's administration.

Minutes after the march began, the 2,000 or so protesters found themselves outnumbered more than four to one by security forces. They quickly dispersed the activists, beating and briefly detaining those who sought to break through the riot-control lines. Among those arrested were chess-champion-turned-political-activist Garry Kasparov and Maria Gaidar, the daughter of Russia's first post-Soviet reformist prime minister. Former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov only avoided arrest because his bodyguards helped him to escape. A Reuters crew was permitted to capture the events and disseminate them to the West. A day later, another protest, albeit far smaller, was broken up in a similar way in St. Petersburg, though Kasparov was detained before the protest even began.

What gives? The protests were insignificant in both numerical and political terms. Moreover, with all that is going on in the world right now, the last thing the Putin government needs is to attract negative attention to itself. The answer becomes apparent when one considers Russia's point in its historical cycle and the mounting pressures on Putin personally that have nothing whatsoever to do with "democracy."

The Russian Cycle

At the risk of sounding like a high school social studies teacher (or even George Friedman), history really does run in cycles. Take Europe for example. European history is a chronicle of the rise and fall of its geographic center. As Germany rises, the powers on its periphery buckle under its strength and are forced to pool resources in order to beat back Berlin. As Germany falters, the power vacuum at the middle of the Continent allows the countries on Germany's borders to rise in strength and become major powers themselves.

Since the formation of the first "Germany" in 800, this cycle has set the tempo and tenor of European affairs. A strong Germany means consolidation followed by a catastrophic war; a weak Germany creates a multilateral concert of powers and multi-state competition (often involving war, but not on nearly as large a scale). For Europe this cycle of German rise and fall has run its course three times -- the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany -- and is only now entering its fourth iteration with the reunified Germany.

Russia's cycle, however, is far less clinical than Europe's. It begins with a national catastrophe. Sometimes it manifests as a result of disastrous internal planning; sometimes it follows a foreign invasion. But always it rips up the existing social order and threatens Russia with chaos and dissolution. The most recent such catastrophe was the Soviet collapse followed by the 1998 financial crisis. Previous disasters include the crushing of Russian forces in World War I and the imposition of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk; the "Time of Troubles," whose period of internal warfare and conspiracy-laden politics are a testament to the Russian predilection for understatement; and near annihilation under the Mongol occupation.

Out of the horrors of defeat, the Russians search desperately for the second phase of the cycle -- the arrival of a white rider -- and invariably they find one. The white rider rarely encapsulates what Westerns conceive of as a savior -- someone who will bring wealth and freedom. Russian concerns after such calamities are far more basic: they want stability. But by Russian standards, the white rider is a rather optimistic fellow. He truly believes that Russia can recover from its time of trial, once a level of order is restored. So the Russian white rider sets about imposing a sense of consistency and strength, ending the free fall of Russian life. Putin is the current incarnation of Russia's white rider, which puts him in the same category as past leaders such as Vladimir Lenin and, of course, Russia's "Greats": Catherine and Peter.

Contrary to portrayals of him by many in the Western media, Putin is not a hard-nosed autocrat set upon militarization and war. He is from St. Petersburg, Russia's "window on the West," and during the Cold War one of his chief responsibilities was snagging bits of Western technology to send home. He was (and remains) fully cognizant of Russia's weaknesses and ultimately wanted to see Russia integrated as a full-fledged member of the Western family of nations.

He also is pragmatic enough to have realized that his ideal for Russia's future and Russia's actual path are two lines that will not converge. So, since November 2005, Putin has been training two potential replacements: First Deputy Prime Ministers Dmitry Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov. At this point, nearly a year before Russia's next presidential election, determining which one will take over is a matter of pure guesswork. Also unclear is what role, if any, Putin will grab for himself -- up to and including a continuation of his presidency.

The question of who takes over in March 2008 is generating much interest and debate among Kremlinologists. It clearly matters a great deal both politically and economically, though geopolitically the discussion misses the point. The real takeaway is that Russia's current white horse period is coming to an end. Putin's efforts to stabilize Russia have succeeded, but his dreams of Westernizing Russia are dead. The darkness is about to set in.

The Dark Rider

In the third phase of the Russian cycle, the white rider realizes that the challenges ahead are more formidable than he first believed and that his (relative) idealism is more a hindrance than an asset. At this point the white rider gives way to a dark one, someone not burdened by the white rider's goals and predilections, and willing to do what he feels must be done regardless of moral implications. The most famous Russian dark rider in modern times is Josef Stalin, of course, while perhaps the most consuming were the "Vasilys" of the Vasily Period, which led to the greatest civil war in Russian medieval history. In particularly gloomy periods in Russia's past (which is saying something) the white rider himself actually has shed his idealism and become the dark rider. For example, Ivan the IV began his rule by diligently regenerating Russia's fortunes, before degenerating into the psychotic madman better known to history as Ivan the Terrible.

Under the rule of the dark rider, Russia descends into an extremely strict period of internal control and external aggression, which is largely dictated by Russia's geographic weaknesses. Unlike the United States, with its deep hinterland, extensive coasts and lengthy and navigable river networks, Russia's expansive barren landscape and lack of maritime transport options make trade, development and all-around life a constant struggle. Russia also lacks any meaningful barriers to hide behind, leaving it consistently vulnerable to outside attack.

Understanding that this geographic reality leaves Russia extremely insecure is critical to understanding Russia's dark periods. Once the dark rider takes the state's reins, he acts by any means necessary to achieve Russian security. Internal opposition is ruthlessly quashed, economic life is fully subjugated to the state's needs and Russia's armies are built furiously with the intent of securing unsecurable borders. That typically means war: As Catherine the Great famously put it: "I have no way to defend my borders except to extend them."

After a period of unification and expansion under the dark rider, Russia inevitably suffers from overextension. No land power can endlessly expand: the farther its troops are from core territories, the more expensive they are to maintain and the more vulnerable they are to counterattack by foreign forces. Similarly, the more non-Russians who are brought under the aegis of the Russian state, the less able the state is to impose its will on its population -- at least without Stalin-style brute force. This overextension just as inevitably leads to stagnation as the post-dark rider leadership attempts to come to grips with Russia's new reality, but lacks the resources to do so. Attempts at reform transform stagnation into decline. Stalin gives way to a miscalculating Nikita Khrushchev, a barely conscious Leonid Brezhnev, an outmatched Mikhail Gorbachev and a very drunk Boris Yeltsin. A new disaster eventually manifests and the cycle begins anew.

Why the Crackdown?

The April 14-15 protests occurred at an inflection point between the second and third parts of the cycle -- as the white rider is giving way to a dark rider. Past Russian protests that involved 2,500 total people at most would have been allowed simply because they did not matter. The Putin government has a majority in the rubber-stamp Duma sufficient to pass any law or constitutional change in a short afternoon of parliamentary fury. All meaningful political parties have been disbanded, criminalized or marginalized; the political system is fully under Kremlin control. The Kasparov/Kasyanov protests did not threaten Putin in any meaningful way -- yet in both Moscow and St. Petersburg a few dozen people were blocked, beaten and hauled off to court.

This development was no accident. Roughly 9,000 riot police do not spontaneously materialize anywhere, and certainly not as the result of an overenthusiastic or less-than-sober local commander. A crackdown in one city could be a misunderstanding; a crackdown in two is state policy. And one does not send hundreds of batons swinging but allow Reuters to keep filming unless the objective is to allow the world to see. Putin chose to make these protests an issue.

Putin, then, is considering various groups and rationalizing his actions in the context of Russia's historical cycle:

The West: Putin certainly does not want any Western capital to think he will take exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky's recent threats of forcible revolution lying down. Berezovsky says violence is a possibility -- a probability even -- in the future of regime change in Russia? Fine. Putin can and did quite easily demonstrate that, when it comes to the application of force in internal politics, the Russian government remains without peer.

The people: Putin knows that governance is not so much about ruling as it is about managing expectations. Russians crave stability, and Putin's ability to grant that stability has earned him significant gravitas throughout Russia as well as a grudging respect from even his most stalwart foes. He is portraying groups such as the Other Russia as troublemakers and disturbers of the peace. Such explanations make quite attractive packaging to the average Russian.

The opposition: It is one thing to oppose a wildly powerful and popular government. It is another thing when that government beats you while the people nod approvingly and the international community barely murmurs its protest. Putin has driven home the message that the opposition is not just isolated and out of touch, but that it is abandoned.

The Kremlin: Just because Putin is disappointed that his dreams are unattainable, that does not mean he wants to be tossed out the proverbial airlock. Showing any weakness during a transition period in Russian culture is tantamount to surrender -- particularly when Russia's siloviki (nationalists) are always seeking to rise to the top of the heap. Putin knows he has to be firm if he is to play any role in shaping Russia during and after the transition. After all, should Medvedev and Ivanov fail to make the grade, someone will need to rule Russia -- and the only man alive with more experience than Putin has a blood-alcohol level that precludes sound decision-making

April 18, 2007
U.S. Nigera liasion
By BARRY MEIER
LAGOS, Nigeria — For years, Andrew Young, the civil rights leader, has been deeply involved in this country through the lobbying and consulting firm he heads, GoodWorks International. Its motto is: “We do well by doing good.”

But the question of what exactly GoodWorks is or is not doing here has turned Mr. Young and his firm into something of a lightning rod, as Nigerians prepare to elect a successor Saturday to this country’s president, Olusegun Obasanjo, whom Mr. Young has known for 30 years.

“We believe that the relationship between GoodWorks International and Nigeria is foisted on juicy financial benefits to the former,” said an editorial earlier this year in a newspaper here, This Day.

For his part, Mr. Young, the former congressman, United Nations ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, dismissed such comments as sniping by opponents of Mr. Obasanjo’s party, which is expected to win the weekend election.

But there is also little question that Nigeria has been very good for GoodWorks; thanks in part to Mr. Young’s long ties to Mr. Obasanjo, his firm in Atlanta has earned millions of dollars here over the years through a network of business dealings that extend far beyond lobbying.

As business has gone increasingly global, many consulting firms based in the United States, like GoodWorks, have increased their operations abroad, taking on assignments in developing nations like Nigeria where power and wealth are frequently concentrated in a few hands. And consulting experts say it is common for United States firms that lobby for foreign governments in Washington to also have business interests in those countries.

A look at GoodWorks’ activities in Nigeria, based on interviews and documents, provides a window into how embedded such lobbyists can become in developing economies.

Along with lobbying for Nigeria, for example, GoodWorks is paid to represent many major companies like Chevron, General Electric and Motorola that seek big contracts from the Nigerian government.

In addition, executives of GoodWorks have stakes in Nigeria’s oil industry, the country’s main source of wealth. And several years ago, the firm’s chief executive, Carlton A. Masters, started an American company with close relatives of President Obasanjo that bought an expensive Miami property with Mr. Masters’s money, Florida records show.

It is not illegal for lobbyists simultaneously to represent foreign countries and companies seeking business from them. And they are not barred from having business interests in countries they represent in Washington.

Mr. Young and Mr. Masters also said in recent interviews that they had been scrupulous in avoiding conflicts between their governmental and corporate clients. They added that their clients who have won contracts in Nigeria have done so fairly, by outbidding competitors.

“We don’t pay anyone under the table, and we don’t accept any kind of questionable payments or relationships,” Mr. Young said. “We don’t work with people where there are questions of integrity involved.”

For Mr. Young, the involvement of GoodWorks in Nigeria is also one of the lesser-known chapters in a long, celebrated and at times controversial career.

Last year, for example, Mr. Young, who first became known as a top aide to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., resigned as a consultant to Wal-Mart after he said that Jewish, Arab and Korean store owners had “ripped off” black communities by “selling us stale bread and bad meat.” He subsequently apologized for the remarks.

GoodWorks has also generated controversy here. Two years ago, for instance, one local activist filed a complaint that, among other things, criticized Mr. Masters for his role in fund-raising for a $50 million, American-style presidential library named after Mr. Obasanjo that is being built in his hometown north of this chaotic and desperately poor city.

Also in 2005, the Nigerian leader was the host for Mr. Masters’s wedding at the official presidential banquet hall, an event that drew outcries from Mr. Obasanjo’s critics.

Several activists in Nigeria said in recent interviews that they believed that Mr. Young had decided simply to profit here from his legacy rather than use it to help a country that remains beset by problems of political corruption, crumbling infrastructure and failed school systems.

“Andrew Young has never been interested in these issues,” said Femi Falana, a human rights lawyer who is also president of the West African Bar Association. “He is just here making money.”

Mr. Young said that while some people still viewed him as an “activist trapped in the ’60s,” he had decided long ago that he could effect more change by attracting private investment to places like Nigeria that needed it.

He also said that the Obasanjo library, which is being underwritten by donations from local politicians and companies, would benefit all Nigerians by serving as a conference center.

“For 40 years of my life, I was on the outside seeking change,” he said. “I realized that I could be more effective being on the inside implementing it.”

GoodWorks, which Mr. Young and Mr. Masters helped found in 1996, has also lobbied in the United States for Rwanda and Turks and Caicos Islands. Mr. Young declined to disclose the firm’s revenue but said that the vast bulk of it came from its operations here.

A spokesman for Mr. Obasanjo, Uba Sani, said that the Nigerian government was pleased with GoodWorks’ performance, describing the firm as “good friends of Nigeria.” And Mr. Masters said much of the recent criticism of GoodWorks was coming from those who did not want to see the firm’s lobbying contract, which expired in April, renewed by Nigeria’s next president. After eight consecutive years as president, Mr. Obasanjo is barred from running again.

GoodWorks’ dealings in Nigeria reflect Mr. Young’s relationship over three decades with Mr. Obasanjo. And like much else in Mr. Young’s life, it is a relationship filled with a mix of drama, ideals and opportunism.

The two men met in the late 1970s, when Mr. Obasanjo, then a general, first served as this country’s president, one in a long line of military figures who ruled Nigeria.

“Obasanjo and I kind of hit it off immediately,” said Mr. Young, who was the United States ambassador to the United Nations at the time. “We were mainly concerned with democracy.”

Two decades later, the names of Mr. Young and Mr. Obasanjo, who was no longer in public office, appeared together in a United States Senate report about the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the rogue financial institution.

The report criticized Mr. Young for, among other things, trying to obtain a bank loan to help Mr. Obasanjo start a farm equipment company for which he would have worked as a consultant.

That deal never went forward. But in the mid-1990s, Mr. Young found himself urging Gen. Sani Abacha, then Nigeria’s president, to release a number of political opponents he had jailed, including Mr. Obasanjo. In 1999, the year after his release, Mr. Obasanjo was voted president in democratic elections.

Mr. Young said he believed that his old ally had since reshaped the country for the better by eliminating entrenched corruption and raising the quality of life.

“There isn’t anything that’s happened in Africa worthwhile, almost since 1960, that he hasn’t been involved in,” Mr. Young said.

Some activists credit Mr. Obasanjo for certain improvements, like taking some steps to increase the transparency of how this country’s oil wealth is distributed. But they added that he has allowed Nigeria’s infrastructure to disintegrate further while a small group of insiders has grown richer; electrical blackouts are routine and highways are so bad that short journeys can take hours.

Mr. Masters said that GoodWorks, which became Nigeria’s lobbyist in 2001, had worked with officials there to reduce the country’s international debts. But unlike some lobbyists for foreign governments, the firm appears to have done little to influence American policy toward its client. For instance, GoodWorks said that it had “no recollection” of a single instance in which it represented Nigeria in talks with any federal overseas development agencies.

Instead, the firm, apparently in keeping with Mr. Young’s philosophy, has focused its energies on business development in Nigeria and representing companies before Mr. Obasanjo’s government.

Mr. Masters said that GoodWorks typically received a “success fee” equal to 1 ½ percent of a contract’s value, a fee that can lead to big payouts. In 2005, for example, G.E. Energy, a GoodWorks client, won a $400 million contract to supply generating turbines in Nigeria.

The company, a subsidiary of General Electric, said in a statement that it had a “standard sales representative agreement” with GoodWorks, but declined to elaborate.

Mr. Young said that GoodWorks has started small companies here that employ Nigerians. But the company also has other local business interests. For example, the head of the company’s Nigerian office is the major shareholder in a local energy company, Suntrust Oil, which won a lease during a 2002 government auction of offshore fields that did not interest major energy companies.

While Mr. Young, 75, still serves as the firm’s public face, it is Mr. Masters, in his late 50s, who spends much of his time traveling through Africa and the Caribbean. Along the way he has made his own connections.

In 2001, for instance, Mr. Masters formed a Florida company, Sunscope Investments, with Mr. Obasanjo’s brother-in-law and his wife, that purchased a Miami condominium for about $750,000, Florida public records indicate.

Asked about the issue, Mr. Masters said in a written statement that he had put up the money that Sunscope used to buy the property. He added, however, that Mr. Obasanjo’s relatives had quickly lost interest in the venture and had not profited from it in any way.

Florida records indicate that Mr. Obasanjo’s sister-in-law, Yamisi Abebe, remained an officer of Sunscope until last year, when the company was dissolved and transferred its interest in the condominium to Mr. Masters for a nominal sum.

One lobbying expert, Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan group in Washington that monitors lobbying, said that given Mr. Masters’s multiple lobbying roles in Nigeria, his decision to involve President Obasanjo’s relatives in his business dealings was troubling.

“It looks like hell,” Mr. Lewis said.

Mr. Masters stated he had done nothing wrong.

This weekend’s election will decide whether Umaru Yar’Adua, the candidate of Mr. Obasanjo’s party, will succeed him. If he does, it is far more likely that GoodWorks will remain Nigeria’s lobbyist than if one of the opposing parties is elected.

“We’ve never gotten involved in politics,” Mr. Young said earlier this year. “We’ve tried to stay friendly with everyone.”

By Adrian Morgan
FamilySecurityMatters.org | April 17, 2007

[This article first appeared at FamilySecurityMatters.org]

The First Amendment to the US federal constitution was written in 1789, and was ratified by the States in 1791. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The interpretation of the First Amendment and in particular its first clause, referred to as the "Establishment of Religion" or "Establishment" clause, has a direct bearing on how federally- funded public schools can teach religion. Alan Brownstein, a constitutional law expert from the University of California at Davis' School of Law states: "From a constitutional perspective, schools can't teach the truth or falsity of religious belief, and atheism would fall in that parameter."

Public schools can teach about religions, but can neither denigrate one religion nor promote another. When 9/11 happened, children were confronted with the spectacle of Muslim terrorism on their TV screens. Sadly, for children growing up in America, their understanding of why Islamic terrorism takes place is not likely to be explained at school. There are "problematic" verses in the Koran, advocating violence against "unbelievers". These include Sura 8:12: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Sura 3:151 states: "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" Sura 9:25 declares: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Sura 9:29 states: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Jizya was a tax which non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords).

The First Amendment was originally designed to prevent the conflicts which (Christian) religion had caused in Europe. Now, it is being employed by the politically correct to present an anodyne and inaccurate portrayal of Islam in US public schools. Sura 4:34 specifically states that a husband has the right to beat his wife if she is not submissive. Problematic Suras such as this are not likely to even be mentioned in public schools, for fear of being seen to break the terms of the First Amendment by "denigrating" Islam.

Already schools in America are being taken to task by Muslim activists who perceive that their religion is not treated with enough "respect". In December 2006 Baltimore County School Board in Maryland was accused of inaccuracy in its teaching of Islam. The claim was made by Bash Pharoan, who is president of the local American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and head of Baltimore County Muslim Council.

Pharoan was complaining about resource sheets given to students in seventh and tenth grade. He has been whining for three years that the sheets do not show respect to Mohammed, founder of Islam, because they merely call him "Mohammed." "Omitting the word prophet is disrespectful", Pharoan claimed.

He also objected to the description in the resource sheets of "jihad". He accepted that the sheets refer to its meaning as "struggle" but objected to the statement: "Muhammad justified his attacks to his followers by explaining that to weaken those who opposed the spread of God's word was a virtue, and that those who fell in battle would be rewarded in heaven. Thus the idea of the jihad became the holy war of the Muslims against 'the unbelievers."

The issue of how Islam is taught in schools has become a political hot potato. In California one school, the Excelsior Elementary, took its teaching of Islam to seventh graders to extremes. School pupils were made to dress up in Islamic clothing, to memorize Koranic verses and even to fast during their lunch hour to mimic Muslim behavior during Ramadan. The Five Pillars of Islam were to be learned, pupils were encouraged to say "Allahu Ackbar" and using dice, the children played a "jihad game". The materials employed at the school stated: "From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims."

The games were neither new, nor exclusive to Excelsior. In 1994 the Joseph Kerr Junior High School in Elk Grove, California displayed a banner stating "There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" while children ran around in Islamic garb. In summer of 2002, Byron Union School District, which governs Excelsior, became subject of a lawsuit. This suit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center said of the Islamic sessions at Excelsior: "No federal court would have permitted a class where public school students were taught to 'become Catholics' for three weeks, selected a saint's name, wore identification tags that displayed their new name and a Crucifix, and engaged in Catholic religious practices. Here, however, students were subjected to Islamic religious indoctrination and propaganda and the courts turned a blind eye. The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to demonstrate that the Establishment Clause is to be applied the same to all religions and is not just a weapon to be used only against Christians."

On 10 December 2003 U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued a 22 page ruling which claimed that Excelsior was not violating the constitution as it was not indoctrinating students into Islam. TMLC pointed out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional in 2002.

The simulations of Islam as practiced by Excelsior Elementary School were recommended in a textbook published by Houghton Mifflin, entitled "Across the Centuries". The publishers have defended this book, claiming one major critic had not read the book. William J. Bennetta of the Textbook League has read the book, and still condemns it. "Across the Centuries" is one of several controversial text books available in US schools.

The book "Across the Centuries" was republished after it was reviewed by Susan L. Douglass, an American-born Muslim who works for the Council of Islamic Education (CIE) which was founded in 1990. She is also associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, whose president declared that jihad was the only way to liberate Palestine.

CIE describes Douglass as "an American-born Muslim social studies educator and author, with experience in teaching, curriculum and instructional design. She has a Master’s Degree in Arab Studies (History) from Georgetown University and a B.A. in History from the University of Rochester. Ms. Douglass is an independent consultant who has served as CIE’s principal researcher and writer, contributing to projects involving textbook review, analysis of curriculum and standards, teacher training, and development of supplementary materials."

For nearly a decade, up until 2003, Douglass taught at the Saudi-funded Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia. In 1993 the Islamic Assembly published "Answers to Common Questions to New Muslims." In this a question was posed: "Now that I am Muslim, can I keep my non-Muslim friends that I have known all my life?" The answer was given: "You should try to remain away from mixing with non-Muslims because mixing with them removes your religious zealousness and pride from your heart and may lead you to having love and compassion in your heart for them. ...it is obligatory upon a Muslim to be free of the people of infidelity and to hate them for the sake of Allah."

The agendas of those who maintain that religions are discriminated against should always be examined. Bash Pharoan, who maintains that Baltimore County School Board is not respectful of Islam, has demanded that Jewish school holidays be banned. This move was made in June 2006 after his three-year campaigns to have the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha introduced into school calendars was not accepted. He described his vindictive proposal thus: "This issue is about equality, about equity."

On June 13, 2006, the school board ruled that there would not be official Muslim holidays. The reasons were purely financial. There are very few Muslim students and teachers, and the Baltimore County School Board already allows these to stay at home on their holidays. Only when more teachers in the county were taking Muslim holidays (with substitute teachers costing $59.66 to $103.05 per day) would these holidays become universal. Bash Pharoan, unable to get his own way, then argued that there should be no religious holidays for anyone.

A similar situation arose in 2005 in Hillsborough county in Florida. Here the politicking was manipulated by Ahmed Bedier of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). In October 2005, Hillsborough County School Board approved a calendar for 2006 to 2007 which had removed holidays for Yom Kippur and Good Friday. Since December 2004, Bedier had argued that Eid al-Fitr should be included as an official school holiday. On November 8, the school board took another vote, and religious holidays were reinstated, though with no Eid holiday. Bedier said: "I'm disappointed but I'm satisfied. We're back at square one. If others are getting their holidays, it gives us hope we'll get ours as well someday."

Issues of holidays are trivial compared to the material which purports to educate students about Islam. If such material is of itself biased, then the primary duty of education is undermined. In 2004, Georgetown University hosted a seminar for teachers, federally funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act. The university (already a recipient of $20 million from Saudi Prince Alaweed Bin Talal to "educate" the West about Islam) is one of 18 centers of learning that provide resources to educationalists.

Among the study materials on offer is the "Arab World Studies Notebook", which makes some bizarre claims, such as Muslims arrived in the Americas before Columbus and spread through the Caribbean and into Canada. This preposterous claim was later removed, but other contentious passages remained, including comments suggesting Jews have no claim to Israel. The book is edited by Audrey Shabbas, who has hosted more than 268 seminars for teachers in 155 cities since 1987. A joint publisher of the book is Dar al Islam, based in New Mexico. According to JTA, Susan L. Douglass is an associate of Dar al Islam's Teachers Institute.

Books which promote Islamic radicalism have made their way into school districts through donations. In 2001, the Omar Ibn Khatab Foundation made a donation of 300 Korans, entitled "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", to Los Angeles city school district. In 2002, these copies of the Koran had to be removed, as it was found that they contained anti-Semitic footnotes, such as: "The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah was enclosed in their hearts. Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy."

The public schools in America are partially protected from Islamist indoctrination by the First Amendment. Though imperfectly applied and interpreted, the Establishment Clause prohibits religious indoctrination from entering the classroom. Through the efforts of Susan L Douglass and the Council of Islamic Education, a biased assessment of Islam is entering public schools via textbooks produced by mainstream publishers.

The extreme and uncompromising form of Islam known as Wahhabism is still being taught in the numerous Saudi-funded schools that exist in North America. Being independent of the US government, such establishments are not subject to the terms of the Establishment Clause. The Saudi-funded Islamic Academy in Virginia, where Susan L. Douglass formerly taught, has already produced three graduates who were jailed in 2002 on suspicion of planning a terrorist act.

Parents should make themselves aware of what their children are being taught about Islam in school. Demand to see study sheets. Demand a list of approved textbooks, and check these out in your local library. Talk to teachers, principals, or write to your local school board. If you think your child is being indoctrinated, write to your Congress representative. You have a Constitution which prevents religious indoctrination by government bodies. For this privilege you should feel fortunate.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3933
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132

Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
April 17, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. GATES: I had a really excellent visit here in Jordan. This is a relationship that goes back a long way, as illustrated, I suppose, by the fact that the last time I was in Amman, it was at the invitation of his majesty's father 20 years ago.

We have very strong military-to-military ties. There are frequent exchanges, exercises and visits between the military officers of both sides. That said, I would note that it's been about six years since a secretary of Defense came to Amman to meet with his majesty and with the chairman of their joint chiefs of staff. And so we had very wide-ranging conversations.

Naturally, we talked about Iraq. I thanked both his majesty and the chairman for all of the things that Jordan has done to help us; a great deal of training of Iraq security forces, both police and army, field hospital and more, in both Iraq and here in Jordan itself. His majesty affirmed Jordan's support for Prime Minister Maliki, and we talked about efforts that others could take to contribute to the reconciliation process in Iraq itself.

We also talked about Iran and its activities in the region and agreed that diplomatic and economic pressures were the most profitable way to try and get the Iranians to change their behavior. We talked about Syria and its activities.

We talked about the peace process. And the king expressed his views on the peace process, and I reaffirmed the president's commitment to that process.

Finally, his majesty expressed his condolences for the tragedy at Virginia Tech. And I would just add personally that as a recent president of a university that only about seven-and-a-half years ago had its own tragedy when 12 students were killed when the bonfire collapsed at Texas A&M, perhaps more than most, I can understand the horror and the emotions at Virginia Tech and extend my personal condolences to the students and faculty and staff there. Knowing the lasting impact of the 1999 bonfire collapse at Texas A&M, I can only imagine the emotional impact of what has happened at Virginia Tech.

So with that, I'd be happy to take some questions.

QUESTION

Mr. Secretary, you're probably aware that al-Sadr has had six of his cabinet ministers resign. Can you say whether you think this will have any impact, A, on the violence in Iraq; and secondly, whether you think this adds any emphasis to setting a timeline in Iraq, because that is one of the reasons he gave for -- (off mike)?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that, first of all, my understanding is that while the ministers are withdrawing as cabinet ministers, they will remain as members of the council of representatives. So I think that they are not walking away from the process, as it were.

I think the impact that it has -- that these resignations have, will depend in some measure on who is selected to replace these ministers and their capabilities and whether those vacancies are used in a way that perhaps can further advance the reconciliation process. And I don't have anything specific in mind in that respect, but there is the opportunity to turn what might seem like a negative, potentially, into a positive development.

QUESTION

Just to follow up on that, there has been some thought in the U.S. government that Prime Minister Maliki should broaden his coalition, bringing more Sunnis into the government. Is that what you're suggesting is the opportunity here for him?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think anything that can be done that advances the reconciliation process, perhaps including broadening representation in the cabinet, probably would be a positive thing. But that's a judgment that the Iraqi leadership is going to have to make. It's really their business.

QUESTION

Dr. Gates, you mentioned that you spoke with the king about the steps others could take toward reconciliation in Iraq. And I wonder if you could expand upon that. What kinds of steps should others take to help the reconciliation process?

SEC. GATES: Well, I don't want to get into the details of the conversation, but we talked about the potential role for the six-party talks and we talked about the value of the neighbors reaching out to the Maliki government. And obviously the Neighbors' Conference was an important step. But really anything that the neighbors can do to help strengthen the current government of Iraq would be a contribution. And clearly the greater the interchanges, the greater the dialogue, all that will be to the good.

QUESTION

Mr. Secretary, it wasn't long ago that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called the situation in Iraq an occupation. What's your sense of the neighbors? Is enough being done? Are you frustrated, as many are, that there isn't more being done -- that are not done by this government in Jordan, but others in the region to support the government in Baghdad?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that there is not yet confidence in the region that Iraq's government represents all Iraq. My own view is that they're working hard in that direction, the Iraqi government. And I think the more encouragement the neighbors can provide, the more support for the Iraqi government, and with it, encouragement of a broad-based government and approach to governance, I think, would be a positive contribution.

QUESTION

Sir, given that the Mahdi Army has been a very powerful, troubling presence on the ground, what do you think the impact of Sadr distancing himself somewhat from the government will have on the actions of the Mahdi Army on the ground?

SEC. GATES: I think the honest answer is I don't know the answer to that question. I think we'll just have to wait and see. And I'm not sure, really, that we fully appreciate the meaning of the action that's been taken and how significant it is. I think we are going to have to wait and see a little bit about that.

QUESTION

(Off mike.)

SEC. GATES: Well, clearly I'm going to be interested in President Mubarak's view of the situation in the region, his view of the conditions and circumstances in Iraq, his views on Iran and Iran's role with respect to Iraq; interested in what he has to say about Lebanon. So I'm really basically just interested in hearing his thoughts, as one of the elder statesmen in the region, about his view of developments throughout the entire region.

I also will take advantage of that opportunity to encourage his support for the Maliki government and for the reconciliation process in Iraq, and also whatever he can do to encourage others in the region to invest in Iraq and to contribute to economic development there.

QUESTION

(Off mike) -- I mean, what are your own feelings about what might forward the reconciliation process in Iraq? What do you -- (off mike)?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think clearly the most concrete manifestations of the reconciliation process would be progress on key pieces of legislation, and not just the hydrocarbon law but the revenue-sharing law that must go with it, completion of the legislation on de-Ba'athification. There are several issues like that where I think getting that legislation done is very important.

QUESTION

Sir, do you think that the governments of Jordan and Egypt can be most helpful in the reconciliation process by pushing the Sunni minority to come to make deals at the bargaining table or to push the ruling Shi'ite coalition to make concessions to the Sunni minority?

SEC. GATES: Yes.

QUESTION

I guess I phrased that question --

SEC. GATES: (Laughs.)

QUESTION

Could I ask you, you have said publicly in the past that the efforts in Congress recently regarding -- I assume you mean setting a deadline for troop withdrawal -- are helpful in terms of showing the Iraqis that our commitment there is not unlimited.

In some ways -- and I'd like you to just clarify. That seems to put you a little bit at odds with the White House, which says those efforts are not -- which opposes those efforts. Can you clarify what you mean by that specifically?

SEC. GATES: I think that what I have said is that the debate in Congress, I think, has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. As General Petraeus has said, there's the Baghdad clock and there's the Washington clock.

That said, I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake. But I think the debate itself and I think that the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact -- at least I hope it has -- in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.

QUESTION

Did you talk to the king about Syria in relationship to Iran? And did you agree on whether more pressure or a diplomatic approach -- (off mike)?

SEC. GATES: We talked about Syria. We talked about the relationship between Syria and Iran. We talked about the relationship of the two of them with Hezbollah and the impact in Lebanon. I think I'll just leave it at that. But we did discuss all those aspects of it.

QUESTION

Mr. Secretary, did the king or any of the other Jordan interlocutors that you spoke to express any concerns about what happens if the effort to stabilize Iraq is not successful? Obviously they're a next-door neighbor. Did they press you as to whether you had a plan B and what you would do to support them in that case?

SEC. GATES: No, that never came up. There was -- and actually, we didn't even talk about the consequences should things not work out in Iraq. The focus was all on how do we make the current situation in Iraq better and make it work for the long term.

QUESTION

Could you elaborate a little bit more on how you view Muqtada al-Sadr. I mean, why you believe he's -- what's your analysis of why you think he would stab -- does it mean he's departing from the political process? He's been sort of en enigmatic character.

SEC. GATES: Well, you know, in the intelligence business, we divided all the information that we wanted to know into two categories -- secrets and mysteries. I think that his motives right now, at least for me, are a mystery, not a secret.

STAFF: Thank you all.

SEC. GATES: Thank you all. See you on the plane, eventually. (Cross talk, laughter.)

(C) COPYRIGHT 2007, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE. NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES. FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347-1400.

------------------------------------------------------------------------