PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Army War College Publishes Apologia for Hamas


Warrior-Mentor
01-24-2009, 20:41
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/979

The U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) published a monograph last month by Sherifa Zuhur entitled, "Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics," a fairly bland heading that only hints at its deeply disturbing content.

This monograph is more accurately described as an apologia for Hamas, a violent Islamist organization dedicated to jihad and the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas was first designated by the United States (U.S.) government as a terrorist organization in 1995 by a presidential executive order and then again as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997. Hamas has remained on the FTO list ever since. The essay also consistently demonizes Israel and its legitimate defense of national sovereignty under international law.

The U.S. Army War College is an official educational facility of the Department of Defense, and is accredited by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The mission of the Carlisle, Pennsylvania-based War College is to prepare its students for strategic leadership positions in the U.S. military and senior levels of civilian policymaking. American taxpayers fund the War College and its Strategic Studies Institute.

According to the monograph's forward (written by SSI Director Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.), "Hamas and Israel" provides "an orientation to HAMAS and its base" that demonstrates how "efforts….to separate HAMAS from its popular support and network of social and charitable organizations…have not been effective in destroying the organization, nor in eradicating the will to resist among a fairly large segment of the Palestinian population."[1]

The pronounced bias in support of Hamas and against the State of Israel that suffuses this monograph shows in the absence of any explanation for why Hamas would continue to be engaged in resistance of any sort through the end of 2008, much less incessant rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilian population centers, more than three years after Israel withdrew completely from Gaza. Instead, key recommendations include the need for "Israel and the United States…to abandon their policies of non-negotiation and non-communication with HAMAS."[2]

Additionally, according to Zuhur, Israel needs to "abandon the aspects of its new defensive strategy which are calculated to thwart peace efforts,"[3] by "[d]ismantling the settlements in the West Bank"[4] and recognizing what Zuhur calls "Hamas' political and strategic development"[5] instead of villainizing the group. She claims that "Israel could not tolerate Palestinian Arabs' resistance of their [sic] authority on the legal basis of denial of self-determination"[6] and slips in a stab at what she terms "Israel's rejection of all comprehensive peace offers by the Arabs."[7]

Statements like these betray the actual purpose of this monograph: to criticize Israel for exercising its sovereign right to self-defense while giving Hamas a free pass for terrorist assaults that deliberately target Israel's civilian population. It should be noted that this monograph was published the very week that Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008.

American dedication to free speech should not extend to using taxpayer money to pay for a paean to Islamist terrorism, backed by shoddy research and written at what is supposed to be this nation's premier U.S. Army institute for national security research and analysis. Unfortunately, there is precedent at SSI for this genre of terrorist apologia. Sherifa Zuhur, an American citizen who is Research Professor of Islamic and Regional Studies at SSI, is the same author who penned an April 2008 SSI monograph, "Precision in the Global War on Terror: Inciting Muslims Through the War of Ideas."

That monograph takes the form of a Glossary of Terms, from A to Z, which Zuhur uses to identify "a trend of pathologizing beliefs and practices that are at the core of Islam."[8] Her definitions invariably deny any link between Islam and terrorism and claim that the violence of the suicide bomber is "not a manifestation of belief nor a natural outcome of Islamism or ‘fundamentalism,' but rather a tactic, labeled with the religious principle of Jihad, that is intended to build an ethos, a camaraderie, and dependency on others engaging in violence."[9]

Zuhur overlooks the Hamas charter, a theological covenant with Allah, which takes the motto of its parent organization, The Muslim Brotherhood, as its own:

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed,

the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way,

and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire

Article Seven of the covenant justifies its anti-Semitic mission to obliterate Israel with the notorious hadith authenticated by the two most authoritative hadith scholars in Islam, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight

The Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones,

And each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah,

there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…

Had Zuhur included something more than false, dismissive references to the Hamas Covenant in her latest monograph, she may have had a much harder time excoriating Israel for its "…stance towards the democratically-elected Palestinian government headed by HAMAS [which] has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking."[10] Zuhur describes the charter as "defunct" and claims that Hamas leadership no longer "cites or refers to" it while generally playing down its aggressive anti-Israel elements.[11] Yet, as recently as 2007, the Hamas leadership issued an official statement to defend itself against criticism from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two. "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine,"[12] according to the statement. This statement not only clearly reaffirms Hamas' commitment to the destruction of Israel, but notably as well underscores the theological character of the Hamas Covenant, which declares "promises we made to God."

Tellingly, Zuhur's monographs lack citations from recognized Islamic authorities, legal texts, or scriptures. Such quotations would refute her premise that the violent intolerance intrinsic to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Shari'a is not based explicitly in Islamic doctrine.

She also neglects to cite key references in her attempt to portray the Brotherhood as an organization "committed to global change for many decades"[13] that has "restricted its activities to Muslim education and social support."[14] Here, she conveniently ignores the self-described mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., which was revealed in a Brotherhood document first introduced into evidence at the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial:

Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: …The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands…"[15] (emphasis added)

Zuhur's protestations on behalf of Hamas' "charitable social services"[16] make a false distinction between those affiliated with al-Qaeda (acknowledged as violent) and those connected to Hamas, which has "carefully separated political and military wings."[17] Similarly, she claims that "Hamas shares an acceptance of the scientific rational traditions of the West along with moderate Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood."[18] In the rush to publish, Zuhur must have missed reports that the Hamas parliament voted in December 2008 to legalize Shari'a hudud punishments like amputation, flogging, and crucifixion.[19]

In publishing these two monographs by Sherifa Zuhur, the U.S. Army War College exposes itself to serious questions about its advocacy and promotion of views it knows or should have known are deeply inimical to U.S. national security interests. These two publications are each described on their title pages as "a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101."[20] But their author shills for a foreign terrorist organization. She attacks Israel, a friend and ally of the U.S. and an outpost of liberal democracy in the Middle East, which has been forced to fight jihadist efforts to destroy it for the entire 60 years of its existence. It is fine to present students with varying perspectives on a conflict, but when taxpayer money is used, a higher standard should be demanded. Congress should investigate why the US Army is funding papers supporting Hamas.

nmap
01-24-2009, 22:44
Sir, I cannot help wondering whether a change of policy is in the works - and, more than that, perhaps the policy change is deeper and more fundamental than the political changes we've seen recently.

The U.S. needs oil. Arab countries can supply it, but Israel cannot.

The U.S. needs buyers for its bonds. Some Arab countries can purchase them; Israel, however, cannot.

The UK (Gordon Brown) seems to want Saudi money to fund the IMF. LINK (http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/ROC.20081102.2008-11-02T125628Z_01_TRE49N5VU_RTROPTT_0_CBUSINESS-US-FINANCIAL6/GIStory/)

Please understand that I am not advocating any particular policy or changes to existing policies. Still, I cannot help wondering if someone, somewhere regards the Arab states as more important than Israel.

Saoirse
01-25-2009, 10:10
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/979

Congress should investigate why the US Army is funding papers supporting Hamas.

I don't believe they will. It has become pervasive in this country and in many in the Western world to apologize for THEIR actions rather than to demonize them. To try and seperate Islam from terrorists is like trying to seperate milk from cereal... you can't. The two fundamentally go together (IMMHO). This is no different than the "indotrination" that goes on in our universities. I have read "opinions" on the internet regarding how Hamas and other terrorist groups are "misunderstood". All part and parcel to the liberal leaning view points in our "world" these days.

Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2009, 20:10
Sun Tsu "Know your enemies."

Apparently the War College is just following the Godfather's advice...
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer."

Team Sergeant
01-25-2009, 20:44
Seems Sherifa Zuhur has responded to the blogs posting of her monograph (see below).

I have found her monograph and it can be found in it's entirety here:

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/zuhur.pdf

Team Sergeant



Talking Back

Jan 23, 2009 16:21

On the contrary, you have totally misunderstood my monographs -- if you read them, which is not clear; many blogs

simply copy from each others comments. By all means, why don't you forbid Americans from engaging in

research and writing their own analyses? That will provide a great alternative to the totalitarianism you claim to be

fending off. Sherifa Zuhur

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/979

Saoirse
01-26-2009, 09:58
Seems Sherifa Zuhur has responded to the blogs posting of her monograph (see below).

I have found her monograph and it can be found in it's entirety here:

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/zuhur.pdf

Team Sergeant



Talking Back

Jan 23, 2009 16:21

On the contrary, you have totally misunderstood my monographs -- if you read them, which is not clear; many blogs

simply copy from each others comments. By all means, why don't you forbid Americans from engaging in

research and writing their own analyses? That will provide a great alternative to the totalitarianism you claim to be

fending off. Sherifa Zuhur

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/979



I went to the "blog" and saw her comment to the one from Jeffery Imm. Interesting that the other "25 recent comments" were not available. ?? :confused: ?? I guess what others had to write were: Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.
I guess the other 25 disagreed more vehemently than the posting from Jeff Imm.
They are the borg, resistance is futile, assimilation is inevitable.:mad:
:munchin

afchic
03-09-2009, 09:51
I thought you all might find this interesting. I got it from a friend of mine at NDU today.

By PETER SCHMIDT <mailto:peter.schmidt@chronicle.com>
The U.S. Army War College has suspended a widely known expert on Islamic studies partly because she had turned to the Middle East Studies Association, and threatened to contact a newspaper, with allegations that administrators there were violating her academic freedom and discriminating against her as a Muslim.

Sherifa D. Zuhur, a research professor of Islamic and regional studies in the college's Strategic Studies Institute, was suspended without pay for 10 days, effective Monday, from the Army college, in Pennsylvania, which trains both military leaders and civilians. The institute's director, Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., had notified her of her suspension in a letter last week affirming the recommendation of the institute's deputy director, Col. Louis H. Jordan Jr., that the college take disciplinary action against her.

Among the alleged misconduct Mr. Lovelace cited in his letter was a January 23 e-mail from Ms. Zuhur to Colonel Jordan, her supervisor, threatening to relay her complaints against the college—as well as letters to the college by the scholars' association and a Muslim American advocacy group—to an Arab-American newspaper, the Arab Times.

Mr. Lovelace's letter supported Colonel Jordan's conclusion that the e-mail message amounted to a challenge to her supervisor's authority and "a clear threat to attempt to damage the U.S. Army War College's reputation with malicious claims and misinformation for which you can offer no support." Mr. Lovelace's letter cited several other examples of "conduct unbecoming a federal employee" and warned "should you persist in such conduct, I will propose your removal from federal service."

A spokeswoman for the Army War College, Carol Kerr, declined on Tuesday to discuss Ms. Zuhur or the actions taken against her. In an e-mailed statement, she said, "In support of our employees' privacy, it's our policy to not comment on personnel actions."

Earlier Complaint

Ms. Zuhur's suspension marks the latest chapter in a long-running dispute with the Army War College, in which she has leveled a long list of allegations that the institution denies. In 2007, she filed an employment discrimination complaint with the U.S. Defense Department alleging that a student there had sexually assaulted her, that she has been unfairly denied more than a one-year renewal of her contract, that an unspecified employee of the college had orchestrated an attack on her work in the news media, and that administrators there had discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her Muslim religious practices.

Ms. Zuhur has also accused the college of violating her academic freedom by blocking her from publishing criticisms of the Bush administration's since-debunked "weapons of mass destruction" justification for going to war with Iraq, as well as various statements regarding Israel and the Islamic Palestinian group Hamas, such as characterizations of Israel's targeted elimination of various enemies as "assassinations." More recently, she has accused an administrator of the college of harassing her in retaliation for her discrimination complaint.

Responding to an appeal by Ms. Zuhur for help, the president of the Middle East Studies Association, Mervat F. Hatem, sent the college's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert M. Williams, a letter last June urging him to investigate her complaints. The letter said Ms. Zuhur had complained of being treated in ways that may violate the college's stated policy regarding academic freedom and the standards of the college's accreditor, the Middle States Association of Colleges. (Mr. Hatem has said he never received a response.)

In a separate letter sent to the college in January, the Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations relayed allegations by Ms. Zuhur that she had been a victim of religious discrimination at the college since 2005, when, she said, she had difficulty obtaining a room in which to observe her daily prayers. Among the requests it made of the Army War College in its letter, the group asked that the college adopt the council's diversity- and sensitivity-training program on Islam and Muslims for its employees, and either compensate Ms. Zuhur for not being offered the three- to five-year contract offered her peers or "provide her with an equal opportunity to attain such a contract."

Findings of 'Unprofessional Conduct'

Mr. Lovelace, the Strategic Studies Institute's director, said in his letter last month to Ms. Zuhur that he had concluded that her latest set of complaints related to academic freedom and harassment were without basis, and that he was suspending her over the college's several findings of unprofessional conduct on her behalf.

"I have never before dealt with such blatant examples of disrespect and contempt for one's supervisors and support staff," he wrote. "Nor have I encountered the level of obstreperousness you display in my 40 years as a supervisor."

Mr. Lovelace's letter accused Ms. Zuhur of making several unsubstantiated allegations against Steven Metz, chairman of the college's regional strategy and planning department. Those complaints include accusing him of bursting into her office and physically threatening her by thrusting a letter in her face so abruptly that she fainted. Mr. Lovelace's letter said the complaint led to an investigation that wasted the college's resources, because an eyewitness said she had not fainted and otherwise denied her account of the incident. "As a federal employee, researcher, and writer, you have a responsibility to report and articulate matters in an accurate and unembellished manner," Mr. Lovelace's letter said.

In a letter last month standing by her accusations against Mr. Metz. Ms. Zuhur said the institute apparently "wants to torture me for saying exactly what happened."

Mr. Lovelace's letter also accuses Ms. Zuhur of verbally abusing the college's support staff and acting unprofessionally by setting an automatic out-of-office message on her computer that included the statement: "Dr. Metz, do not continue to harass me, especially by e-mail. I am trying to work or enjoy the days off."

Ms. Zuhur was caught up in a similar struggle with a previous employer, the American University in Cairo, in 2000. In that case, she had the support of several faculty members and ended up going on a hunger strike (The Chronicle, <http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i40/40a05901.htm> June 9, 2000).

nmap
03-09-2009, 09:59
Only ten days off? I cannot help but wonder when society as a whole will simply say - enough. I probably should not hold my breath...

Thank you for the update, Afchick.

afchic
03-09-2009, 10:14
Only ten days off? I cannot help but wonder when society as a whole will simply say - enough. I probably should not hold my breath...

Thank you for the update, Afchick.

Yes kind of frustrating, but I bet her chances of making tenure are now obliterated.:)

Warrior-Mentor
03-09-2009, 10:22
Infiltrate and accuse. Then get 10 days off. Nice.

Richard
03-09-2009, 11:55
FWIW - the mission of the SSI is:

The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College publishes national security and strategic research and analysis which serves to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between Military and Academia.

Actually, it appears that Dr. Zuhur has produced some interesting works in line with the Institute's mission.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=555

It might be worthwhile to check out the entire staff/faculty and see what else has been produced by the SSI to support their mission statement. The monthly Op-Eds give a good idea of how they academically support it.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

redleg99
03-09-2009, 13:26
Ms. Zuhur was caught up in a similar struggle with a previous employer, the American University in Cairo, in 2000.

I tried referencing the Chronicle article, but it’s password protected.

However, you can find the whole thing on EBSCO Host, if you have access to it.

This seems to be the relevant piece:

Ms. Zuhur says administrators decided not to renew her contract beyond this summer in part because she publicly defended a colleague at the university, Samia Mehrez, a specialist in modern Arabic literature. Ms. Mehrez, a tenured faculty member, faced a storm of criticism in Egypt last year after students' parents complained to the Egyptian press and parliament about the reading list in one of her courses. She had assigned a novel, By Bread Alone, by the Moroccan author Mohamed Choukri, that some conservative Muslims regard as too sexually explicit.

From Ms. Zuhur’s perspective, this must be deja-vous all over again.

Pete
03-09-2009, 13:59
It is interesting to note she was in Cairo and got hammered for sticking up for another female who was getting attacked by more conservative Muslims.

She comes to the US, begins working and then starts making demands for her religion.

The move from a moderate to more conservtive state appears to be the "end state" for Muslim countries. Can anyone name a Muslim country moving to a more liberal state? We used to hold up Turkey but she appears to be backsliding.

I find it so hard to understand why libs and Muslim women wish for such an "end state".

Sigaba
03-11-2009, 05:08
I think AFCHIC hits close to the mark. I'm of the view that Ms. Zuhur's meltdown is about her career as an academic. Her public comments about her education, her jobs, and her publications are, at best, hinky.

To summarize a post that was turning into something of a tea-leaf reading rant, I'll provide links to two summaries of her career. One is an interview she did in 2005 (link (http://www.international.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=27043)). The other is her (auto)biography on the ISS website (here (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=555)).

While many of the comments send up warning flares, what catches the eye most quickly are the degree to which she's bounced around from job to job in spite of her claim that "She is a published author of ten books and monographs, and more than 47 journal articles and book chapters." Aside from her really curious choice of words (among historians, a monograph is a book), I would point to the tension between her job changes and her prolific publishing career. Bluntly, if a historian publishes ten books--and monographs--and that many journal articles as she claims, she is a stud of the highest order and is going to write her own ticket and pretty much teach what she wants, where she wants. The fact that she doesn't have a tenure track job suggests some of the same issues that led to the questionable accounting--it would not be the first time that a historian counted short (500 word) book reviews as 'articles'-- of her publishing career keep her from playing well with others.

In the 2005 interview, she makes a couple of off hand references to fellow academics, her students at the NWC and soldiers in V Corps that strike me as odd. From the posts on this BB and other BBs and my own experiences, I understand that not every professional armed service officer is cut from the same cloth as John Boyd, Fox Connor, Peter Schwartz, or 'Bing' West. I also understand that students at almost any institution are going to be driven by the "is this going to be on the midterm" mentality at one point or another. Yet, for her to suggest that officers are more engaged than only 'some' undergraduates just strikes me as a bit daft.

Finally, in TS's post, we see Ms. Zuhur's response to the ITP blog criticizing her latest publication. Her response is, to put it mildly, odd. First, she never should have replied--the blogosphere is not a good medium for academics who rely on nuance to make their points. (And her comment on how bloggers cut and paste suggests she's spending too much time on blogs for someone seeking tenure.)

Second, while we bookworms, established academics, and other denizens of the Ivory Tower know nothing of the art of the Monkey Stomp, academics do have a formidable arsenal at their disposal. One weapon in this arsenal is the morningstar named "DID YOU EVEN READ MY WORK?" This weapon is frequently wielded in the letters to the editor section of academic journals in response to hostile book reviews.

When used properly, an aggrieved scholar such as Ms. Zuhur provides chapter and verse citations from her work that respond to a reviewer's criticisms. When used properly, the reviewer's response reads exactly as follows "Professor [X, the reviewer] does not wish to respond." The fact that Ms. Zuhur resorted to a snarky barb rather than griping the haft of this weapon and braining who ever posted that review (because it is obvious that the person did not read her work carefully) suggests that something is seriously wrong with this woman. She is in a fight of her intellectual life and she wants to make it about allegations of sexual harassment and religious intolerance. Really?:rolleyes:

Well, so much for not ranting.

Sigaba
03-11-2009, 21:00
Good info Sigaba. It only confirms the lack in judgement of our beloved War College.:(

Sir--

It may not be a lack of judgment per se. An academic such as Zuhur is supposed to represent the cutting edge of knowledge. If she's as accomplished as her bio suggests, there are very few people on the face of the earth who have the expertise to understand fully her scholarship and to assess the value of her work.

(Please note that I'm saying expertise, not intelligence! When it comes to military history--and most other things-- I'm a knuckledragging mouthbreather who wears an orange safety helmet, carries a drool cup, and who is most articulate when silent. Yet, because I've done research on exceedingly obscure topics, I know things about the army, military history, and civil military relations that only a handful of scholars--and two of them have passed away--could understand well enough to say "You may have something there...." Even with this esoteric knowledge, you will in one day forget more about your craft than I will ever know. A historian is an ant standing on the beach trying to figure out how to cross the Pacific.)

I've had the privilege of observing discussions in which established scholars try to evaluate a peer's worth. These conversations are very similar to the discussions here about knives, firearms, scopes, and ammunition--and not just because these conversations are over my head. The level of knowledge is so high that points are turning on matters those of us on the outside can't even see.

A big difference is that in the discussion of ideas and knowledge it is difficult to establish the same vision of what is the cutting edge and what is not. To jump back to one of the discussions I witnessed, you could sense by the nods of agreement that members of a history department were building consensus that...a certain scholar...was a good fit for an endowed professorship--the crown jewel of that department and the centerpiece of its plans to grow in national reputation.

However, two professors who studied essentially the same subject could notice that things didn't quite add up. Fortunately, one of these two spoke up then and there--I saw it coming only because he was one of my mentors. (Otherwise I was going to drift from my lane and jump on my crank with both feet to make a slightly different point). The intensity of the discussion that followed was something to behold.

With Zuhar, I think that what is happening is that her colleagues and her students may be realizing that things aren't quite adding up and they may not have been equipped to make this determination because they don't know what she knows and therefore couldn't quickly identify what she doesn't know. (I can't help but wonder if another visiting professor, Mark Grimsely, played a role in these discussions?)

More generally, I think the notion of bringing a different point of view to the educational process of an armed service can work. The Navy seems to think so. Kenneth Hagan, once at the Naval Academy's history department is now at the Naval Post Graduate School. HIs scholarship is the greatest challenge to the Navy's advocacy of Mahanian theory out there. An associate of his and former mentor of mine so impressed the powers that be at the Air War College that they offered to turn his temporary appointment to a tenure track job and his work is very critical of America's approach to war. To me, the armed services 'get it' when it comes to the study of its past: the harder the questions and the tougher the discussions today, the better the understanding of how to develop solutions that might work in the future.

Richard
03-11-2009, 23:35
After reading all the material on this matter, I think Dr. Zuhar has been '3 Blocked' and statements to the effect of 'Does not play well with others' and 'Do not promote' have been placed in her personnel file. The smokescreen she's throwing up is obvious - but ultimately ineffective. What's next - an EEO complaint or jihad? Anybody's guess here...but I think Sigaba is absolutely correct in his assessment of her standing among her students, peers, and supervisors.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

bailaviborita
03-14-2009, 15:03
Good point about differing views in academia are usually preferred. I'm not sure her monograph is the issue- but it is obvious that her attitude is. Unfortunately, I see that a lot with Government civilians. Whoever is hiring makes assumptions based on their creds- or maybe a political need to offer differing views- and never does a critical check on their background. Kooks like that seem to turn up in government schools- possibly because their kind are already overloaded at the UC Berkleys and conservative schools wouldn't have them.

Returning to the monograph, however, I recently read a book on Iran- The Devil We Know, by Robert Baer, that seems to echo other CIA operatives who have written about Iran. In it he makes the case that Iran is pragmatic, because they are they can be dealt with (as opposed to AQ), and are actually in control of Hamas- as they are many proxies- even Sunni ones- around the Middle East.

If this is true, then differing views on Hamas, et al, are warranted- and surely we would want our top leaders to be exposed to them. Surely the conventional thinking on Hamas hasn't made much progress lately. If they have switched, as Baer claims, from being a terrorist organization to a pragmatic proxy controlled from Iran more bent on insurgency- then maybe we should re-visit what we think of them. And maybe even wacko academics who have psychological problems can give a different glimpse into these "complex problems". In other words, I might read her work with a discerning eye- willing to entertain some of her ideas- but I would never hire her...