Chavez sends tanks to Colombia border in dispute
Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:31pm EST
By Saul Hudson

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela President Hugo Chavez ordered tank battalions to the Colombian border and mobilized warplanes on Sunday after Colombian troops struck inside Ecuador in an attack on rebels.

He also ordered the shutting of Venezuela's embassy in Colombia and the withdrawal of all diplomatic staff in the dispute, warning Colombia's actions could spark a war in South America.

"Mr. Defense Minister, move me 10 battalions to the frontier with Colombia immediately, tank battalions," Chavez said on his weekly TV show. "The air force should mobilize. We do not want war."

Colombia's military said on Saturday troops had killed Raul Reyes, a leader of Marxist FARC rebels, during an attack on a jungle camp in Ecuador in a severe blow to Latin America's oldest guerrilla insurgency. The operation included air strikes and fighting with rebels across the frontier.

On Saturday, the anti-U.S. Chavez warned Colombia against doing the same in Venezuela because he would interpret it as a "cause for war." On Sunday, he said he would send Russian-made fighter jets into U.S. ally Colombia if its troops struck in Venezuela.

The leftist, anti-U.S. Chavez has been in a diplomatic dispute with his ideological opposite, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, for months because of the Venezuelan's mediation with FARC rebels over their hostages. Uribe has accused Chavez of using the mediation to meddle in Colombian affairs.

On Sunday, Chavez accused Uribe of lying about the details of the operation that killed the rebel in Ecuador, where the leftist government of President Rafael Correa is a close Venezuelan ally. He called it a "cowardly assassination" of a "good revolutionary."

Ecuador has withdrawn its ambassador in protest and also questioned if Uribe lied when he initially explained to his southern neighbor that the strike was in response to fire from rebels across the border against Colombian troops.

"He (Uribe) is a criminal," Chavez said. "Not only is he a liar, a mafia boss, a paramilitary who leads a narco-government and leads a government that is a lackey of the United States ... he leads a band of criminals from his palace."

(Reporting by Saul Hudson; Editing by Bill Trott)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Take My Wives, Please: Polygamy Heads West

by David J. Rusin
Pajamas Media
February 29, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1865

Myra Morton approached her sleeping husband on the morning of August 5, 2007, with pain in her heart and a gun in her hand. Once the smoke had cleared at the couple's upscale home just outside Philadelphia, a man would lie dead, a family secret would be exposed, and a spotlight would shine on the emergent phenomenon of Islamic polygamy in the Western world.

The slaying took place just hours before Jereleigh Morton was scheduled to leave for Morocco on a mission to impregnate his other wife, Zahra Toural. Niqab-clad Myra, a convert to Islam two decades earlier, acceded to his bond with the younger woman, whom he had met online in late 2006. Privately, however, the 47-year-old mother was shattered, recording her dismay in a journal and lamenting to friends that she no longer received attention. Myra even mailed a letter to immigration officials falsely claiming that Toural had terrorist ties and should thus be prohibited from entering the country. Her husband's plan to conceive is apparently what sent her over the edge.

Islam did not kill Jereleigh Morton; Myra Morton did. She bears full responsibility for her brutal deed and should be punished accordingly. Regardless of the circumstances, murder is anathema to Western legal and moral standards. Yet so too is polygamy. Recent evidence, however, indicates that governments tend to look the other way as the conjugal mores of seventh-century Arabia — and the problems that travel with them — take root in our backyards. Just as Myra Morton faces justice in a court of law, these drowsy cultural watchdogs must be made to answer in the court of public opinion.

The prevalence of polygamy among Muslims living in the West remains a matter of debate. Here is a sampling of what has been reported: As many as thirty thousand Muslim families in France include more than one wife. There are fifteen thousand in Italy and several thousand in Great Britain. Estimates for the United States typically run into the tens of thousands. Even Australia has been forced to crack down on Muslim men looking to meet potential second wives via the internet.

Individual cases often come to light unexpectedly through high-impact media events such as the Morton saga. Another example is the tragic Bronx house fire that killed ten people on March 7, 2007. Moussa Magassa, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Mali who lost five of his children in the blaze, was discovered to have two wives living a floor apart. A subsequent investigation by the New York Times found polygamy to be an open secret in his immigrant community, with agencies that serve it adhering to a policy of "don't ask, don't tell."

Lack of official curiosity is just one reason for the poor statistics. Practitioners also labor to avoid scrutiny. Two strategies are common. Some Muslim men with additional wives living abroad arrange for relatives to sponsor visas that can bring them to the West without raising red flags. Others find second, third, or even fourth wives locally, sealing the deal in a nikah ceremony conducted by an imam. Because such marriages are performed under the state's radar and have no legal standing, the wives enjoy none of the rights guaranteed to spousal partners.

Concern about Islamic polygamy — whether in the West or East — has naturally been dismissed in some quarters as cultural imperialism. For example, Duke University professor Miriam Cooke argues that "polygamy can be liberating and empowering." As Kay Hymowitz explains in City Journal, "Some women, [Cooke] continued, are relieved when their husbands take a new wife: they won't have to service him so often. Or they might find they now have the freedom to take a lover. But, I ask, wouldn't that be dangerous in places where adulteresses can be stoned to death? At any rate, how common is that? ‘I don't know,' Cooke answers, ‘I'm interested in discourse.'"

Two nations have apparently skipped the "discourse" and moved straight to capitulation. Following a yearlong review, the British government has ruled that husbands can claim benefits for multiple wives, as long as the marriages are legal in the countries where they were conducted. Specifically, guidelines issued by the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the jobseeker's allowance state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

A similar arrangement exists in parts of Canada. According to the Toronto Sun, "Hundreds of [Greater Toronto Area] Muslim men in polygamous marriages … are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say. Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Act Law, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad."

Why should the introduction of — and increasing tolerance toward — Islamic polygamy be a cause for worry in the West?

First, like so many facets of sharia, Islamic family law codifies inequality and thus contravenes both the letter and the spirit of Western jurisprudence. While guidelines that reference polygamy, such as those now regulating welfare benefits in the UK, typically employ general-neutral language, there can be little doubt regarding the very gender-specific nature of the institution as it exists among Muslims. By tacitly recognizing this practice, governments offer their imprimatur to sex discrimination.

Second, Nonie Darwish and Phyllis Chesler have noted that polygamy, when combined with other misogynistic provisions of sharia, breeds societal dysfunction. Plural unions not only inspire distrust between spouses and heightened competition among offspring. Children also learn from an early age that females are unworthy of exclusive affection and therefore hold less value than males. Moreover, if common, polygamy creates legions of unhappily unmarried young men who are ripe for radicalization.

Third, polygamy is illegal in virtually every Western state. Men who partake in such marriages while residing in the West or circumvent immigration rules to gain entry for additional spouses are law-breakers, plain and simple. Which other statutes might they feel comfortable violating in the name of their imported traditions? The mixed message sent by government bureaucrats is particularly damaging in this context. Their multicultural nonchalance undermines both the legal system itself and the foundational values that laws are intended to reflect and secure.

Fourth, the push to normalize polygamy is yet another front in the Islamists' campaign of inches. Its acceptance would serve as a powerful salient, paving the way for the further implementation of sharia principles. This slippery slope is not lost on Tory shadow secretary Chris Grayling. Discussing the welfare imbroglio, he observed that extending payouts to multiple wives "sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law."

While Grayling sounds the alarm in Britain, a few European nations have already enacted policies designed to combat polygamous unions. The Telegraph reported in 2004 that Ireland "has ordered all men from Islamic countries seeking residency to sign a sworn affidavit rejecting polygamy. … A man must swear he has ‘one spouse only' and ‘has no intention of entering into a simultaneous marriage.'" Likewise, the Italian interior ministry has asked Muslim groups to agree to a "values charter" that promotes monogamous families and the equality of women.

Contrary to defeatist pronouncements by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, these examples demonstrate that the arrival of sharia law in the West is not "unavoidable." It can and will be avoided if the public musters the resolve to beat it back. As Daniel Pipes noted regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations' sudden abandonment of Muslim cabbies who object to serving passengers with seeing-eye dogs, widespread outrage is the best disinfectant. "When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will."

Simply put, the choice is ours: defend a hard-won heritage of freedom and equality, or continue slouching toward sharia. Pray that we choose wisely.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/take_my_wives_please_islamic_p.php

David J. Rusin is a research associate at Islamist Watch and a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. Please feel free to contact him at djrusin@gmail.com.

Printer-friendly version

Related Items

Other items by David J. Rusin
Other items from Pajamas Media
Other items in category Muslims in the West
Other items in category Sex and gender relations

Barnett: The 51st state: Huge upside-down question mark

By Thomas P.M. Barnett
Sunday, March 2, 2008

If America doesn't add a new star before I die, I'll be the first Barnett - in a long line of Barnetts - to be born and die under the same flag. That just ain't right.

Travel back with me and track the growth of these United States across seven generations of my family:

- Joseph Barnett (born 1754) saw 13 colonies form a new nation and then grow to 26 states total before he died in 1838.

- His son Andrew (born 1797) witnessed 18 states join the Union, only to see it rip apart just as he passed in 1862.

- Then came Jared (1831-1911), who, across his tumultuous eight decades, watched nine new states join, 11 of them leave in a huff (only to be forcibly reintegrated) and then another 13 added!

- Jared's boy Harry (1864-1948) had his national flag go from 35 stars to 48.

- My grandfather, J.E. (1896-1983), got five new stars.

- And his only son, my dad, John (1922-2004), was reduced to just two (Alaska and Hawaii).

And what about me (1962 and counting)? I'm looking at nada with all this anti-immigrant populism, even as China adds lost colonies and the European Union keeps expanding!

So why isn't America open for mergers and acquisitions?

Americans forget that these United States (the only country in the world whose official name is a complete abstraction) constitute the planet's oldest and most successful multinational political and economic union.

Nobody's ever consistently added stars over its lifetime like the U.S., so why did we stop growing?

Blame it on our Cold-War containment strategy, which turned us into such status-quo ninnies - a betrayal of our historical roots.

Where do we go from here?

First off, as we proved with Alaska and Hawaii, being noncontiguous to the Lower Forty-eight is no show-stopper.

So don't assume our only options are Mexico (which provided us with eight states in the past) and Canada (although, if Quebec really makes a break for it, I say invite Alberta down for some beers - eh?).

Second, much like the free-slave-state matching scheme during the run-up to the Civil War, we'd have to add states in red-blue pairs just to keep Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton and the rest of those boomer politicos from going to the mattresses.

Third, our rising Hispanic quotient hangs over America's future like a huge, upside-down question mark. At the beginning of World War II, America was almost 90 percent white and less than 2 percent Hispanic.

Now we're roughly 70-15. By 2050, at least one out of every four American voters will share a Hispanic heritage. In electoral-powerhouse states like Texas and Florida, the ratio will reach far higher. By 2040, for example, Hispanics will constitute an absolute majority in California!

Historically, the U.S. added states by flooding the territory in question with its nationals and then having them petition back for statehood. But, with the rising Hispanicization of America, we're looking at the opposite dynamic: Hispanic Americans agitating for inclusion of their familial homelands in the United States.

Based on recent events, you know where I'm going next with this.

Cuba represents the first best scenario, and here's how it will happen:

- Once Fidel Castro finally croaks and brother Raul gets to run things for a bit on his own, watch the practical brother experiment with markets while allowing some serious infusions of cash from "trusted" sources like China.

- Fast-forward a year or two, and tired Raul is replaced by some national unity committee that reflects the growing splits within the next generation of leaders over how far market reforms should proceed.

Meanwhile, the money seeping in from Miami's Cubans grows to a flood as travel restrictions are radically reduced in response to popular demand.

- Within five years, Cuba holds its first roughly free presidential election, and one or more candidates, with pockets bulging with greenbacks, stump openly for American statehood.

- Once that match gets lit, watch Florida hold every subsequent American presidential candidate hostage to the Cuba-statehood plank.

Once we move into that political territory, the pairing most likely to unfold is Blue State D.C. joining the Union alongside Red State Cuba, and I've got my first two new stars on the flag.

I can't wait!

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a visiting scholar at the University of Tennessee's Howard Baker Center and the senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC. Contact him at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

© 2008 Knoxville News Sentinel

Friday with Ambassador
From Dr. Moayad, an Iraqi cardiologist in South Baghdad:
Many people in South Baghdad and other Sunni areas were upset when the Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri al-Maliki returned directly from London to Karbala, Iraq to participate in the Shiite memorial of Arbaeen (the end of the annual mourning period of Imam Hussein, a Shiite saint). The Sunnis believe that Mailiki is the Shiite prime minister, not the Iraqi prime minister.

But on the early morning of Friday February 29, the South Baghdad neighborhood of Dora received the American Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Everyone in Dora welcomed his visit. It was the first time I met Ambassador Crocker. On TV he looks younger, but he is very active and smart.

We walked along 60th Street where reconstruction work has started. We also walked Mulhallah [neighborhood] 840, where he met with the kids and old women, and visited the shops. Crocker speaks very good Arabic. He asked the same questions of everyone he met. ( How is the security situation? What’s the most important problem after security is established?) The answers were always the same: The security situation is very good and we are looking for jobs and more hours of national electricity.

Then we walked the streets of Mulhallah 838. I felt tired while the ambassador kept walking. General Jeffery Hammond and Colonel Rick Gibbs were with him. My mother cooked all the night before for lunch (which was enough for a minimum three hundred soldiers) but after six hours of touring Dora, Ambassador Crocker received a call and left without having lunch.

It’s wonderful that the American officials take care of us, while the Iraqi government only takes care of their Shiite sect. We can say the Sunni sect has become the American sect because only the American forces and embassy visit us. It was true when one of the local citizens of Dora told the ambassador that Colonel Gibbs is our president, because he supplied more than nine thousand jobs and paid for all the services and the Sons of Iraq in our area. The ambassador smiled at that. Another citizen told the ambassador that the next battle is against the elected Iraqi government to take on their responsibility as the government for all Iraq.
Both American and British ambassadors have visited our area, as well as General Petraeus and more than ten other generals. Meanwhile, we are still waiting an official from the Iraqi government to visit us in Dora without invitations from the U.S.Army.
Thank you very much Ambassador Crocker for your visit, which helped us forget the government deficiency syndrome in Sunni areas.
I had a great time with the ambassador. You can learn a lot from this great man within few hours.

Dr. Moayad
Baghdad

Greetings from Mosul,
 
Moment of Truth in Iraq will be turned in to the publisher within 36 hours.  After that, it's back to writing dispatches.  Please buy a copy of Moment of Truth, or consider supporting the site with a contribution.  If not for your help, these stories would go untold.

 
A prominent Iraqi cardiologist wrote me a very interesting letter with permission to publish.  I sometimes have dinner at his home when I am in Baghdad with 1-4 Cav.  Please read: Friday With Ambassador
 
On another note, it's great to see a man paying his dues and earning the right to be called "Sir."  A prince who is willing to fight for his country, indeed, fighting to fight for his country, should be an example for Americans and British: A Prince and a Soldier
 
The American helicopters crews here in Mosul have been devastating the enemy.  I have never seen anything like it.  Very soon I'll be able to tell you more.  The enemy is shooting back, and many of our helicopters are full of holes.  Two pilots got shot.  One was wounded and is in the hospital; he'll be fine.  The other got shot through the helmet and he's still flying around Mosul killing terrorists.  I photographed his helmet.  If not for these brave helicopter pilots, a lot more of our folks would be getting killed.  You might find it difficult to believe how many terrorists they are killing.  It's hard for me to believe and I am right here in Mosul.  They often wake me up shooting missiles and machineguns, yet the pilots have been very careful with fires and have inflicted practically no collateral damage.  Damage to the terrorists is truly severe, however.  The gun footage is ugly.  I am starting to wonder if this small group of pilots is a big part of the reason why attacks are so relatively low here.  I can hear them flying now.  It's just matter of time until I hear the next missile launch.  Vroooossshhhh...........BOOM.
 
V/r,
 
Michael

P.O. Box 5553

Winter Haven, Fl 33880

 

 

This message was sent to danhare@cox.net
To manage your preferences, please click here.
Forward this message to a friend.