I think it is important to highlight the real advantages to being an American that many of us take for granted. Of these advantages, the right to publicly speak out about a particular subject is the most important. Whether it is a citizen standing in front of the Congressional Representative, or writing a letter to the editor of the local or national newspaper, or whether it is writing in the weblog fashion, it is a fantastic right that Americans have.

Compare this to the degree of freedoms that others throughout the world have. Muslims for example have no such rights, or at the least very limited rights, in this respect. Bashir Goth has written an excellent piece on The Washington Post blog community that deals with this very topic.

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

Thank God the United States is free of this kind of treatment. But pray to God that our own extremisim is not leading us down this path. Goth continues:

On a personal level, I remember writing a poem in early 1980s, which was considered critical of Somalia’s dictatorial regime of Siyad Barre. Later when I wanted to visit my ailing father I had to travel by land from Djibouti, taking a longer route, rather than risking an arrest at the airport of Hargeisa.

In another unfortunate instance, a lyric I wrote on raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and encouraging safe sex has to remain under wraps because musicians were all afraid to set them to music. They considered its message un-Islamic.

Goth’s words should also serve as a reminder to us that creating a democracy in the Muslim world may not be that simple, and what’s more important, it may not be desired. Democracy is a sociopolitical system, whereas Islam is a socioreligious system. The two do not always belong together.

President Bush’s comments on the state of the world last week at the United Nations raise some interesting thoughts about not only his own personal view but of America’s collective view of the world around us. 

To say that the mission of this government is to eradicate tyranny from the face of the Earth sounds great. It is the battle call of so many wars before, and yet it is almost a hollow message. In World War II the allies pulled their resources to combat a common external enemy. The campaign was costly but effective in removing true fascists from the grips of power around the globe. Storming cities across Europe and invading islands throughout the South and North Pacific were all tasks that in themselves created a culture of appreciation for the West. But this war on terror is not as simple. 

The world we live in is a very complicated and often caustic world filled with hate and distrust for one another, not as nations but as people. William Arkin points this out rather eloquently in his blog posted today on The Washington Post website. 

Bush has an incredible knack for saying things that are throw-backs to the WWII era, but never really delivers any substance that supports his rhetoric. Many people were completely surprised and shocked to hear Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez refer to Bush as the devil last week, but really if examine the root cause of this language we can see that Chavez is merely expounding the underlying feelings of many around the globe that find themselves pointed out as the enemy in increasingly generic language used by Bush. Our global war strategy in terms of WWII is no longer sufficient. Instead, we need to take notice of the historical definition of war back to the middle-centuries when wars were more tribal and the underlying cause of such wars was religion and moral values. The people that Bush calls “extremists fascists” are the same people who were slaughtered by the Spanish and Romans centuries before our continent even existed on the map. Centuries of hatred and distrust are bubbling to the surface, and those “warriors” fighting this war are well-learned in the historical purpose of their cause.

The enemy is not one country. The enemy is not even a public state that can be pin-pointed on a map. The enemy is something much more dangerous and elusive and deserves a different approach militarily and politically. As Americans we really need to understand the world a little better, and as citizens, we need to demand that our government take a much more diplomatic and constructive approach to squelching the volume on extremist groups and not annihilating entire societies to eradicate the few and ultimately creating more “extremists”.

According to the Australian radio program “AM“, the United Nations Secretary General, just back from a tour of the Middle East, has said that many leaders in the region are expressing private concerns about the U.S. invasion of Iraq and that the entire operation has destabilized the region.

TONY EASTLEY: The head of the United Nations says most leaders in the Middle East believe the US invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been a disaster.

UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has relayed the damning assessment after returning from a trip, which included visits to Iran and Syria.

A new US intelligence report meanwhile calls the security situation in Iraq’s western Anbar province “dire”.

Washington Correspondent, Kim Landers reports.

KIM LANDERS: In the past day around Baghdad, police have found the bodies of 65 men who’d been tortured and shot.

Car bombings and mortar attacks have killed at least 39 others and wounded dozens more.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says the violence in Iraq is troubling other leaders in the region.

KOFI ANNAN: Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them. They believe it has destabilised the region.

KIM LANDERS: It’s an opinion that’s been instantly dismissed by White House spokesman Tony Snow.

TONY SNOW: I’m not going to engage in a further disputation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but we disagree with the characterisation.

KIM LANDERS: Kofi Annan says some in the Middle East think that having created the problem, the US can’t now walk away.

KOFI ANNAN: Then you have another school of thought, particularly in Iran that believe that the presence of the US is a problem and that the US should leave.

So in a way, the US has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave.

KIM LANDERS: Concern about Iraq is also surfacing in senior US military ranks.

The Chief of Intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq has filed a secret report concluding the prospects for securing the country’s western Al Anbar province are dim.

It also says al-Qaeda has filled the power vacuum, partly because of a lack of US and Iraqi troops.

On Capitol Hill today the former deputy ambassador to Iraq, David Satterfield, was asked for his appraisal.

DAVID SATTERFIELD: The situation in Anbar province is indeed very serious and we agree that major measures need to be taken to address the social, the political situation there.

We disagree that the situation is hopeless.

KIM LANDERS: But Ambassador Satterfield, who’s now the senior Iraq adviser to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, added this blunt assessment.

DAVID SATTERFIELD: If sectarian violence cannot be demonstrably, tangibly reduced and sustained that reduction, over the next several months, an Iraqi government that represents all of its people as a partner against terror and as at peace, both at home and with it’s neighbours will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve.

KIM LANDERS: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says if the US does leave Iraq it has to be arranged in such a way that it doesn’t lead to even greater violence.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone within the administration actually believes that the war in Iraq is moving in a positive direction. How many new directions, changed focus, refined strategies are these guys going to come up with before they finally admit they made a mistake.

At this point, I say admit to your errors and publicly spell out the specifics to end this war. It’s going to take reaching out to those that disagree with the current logic and to other nations in the region that can actually help the situation.

Unfortunately, this administration will never admit to any errors, and they are certainly not going to reach out to anyone that does not have fists full of money for them. Bush has never proposed anything for peace in the Middle East, outside of calling people fascists and declaring war (or crusade, as W likes to call it) on them.