George H.W. Bush answering the call of duty: Liberating Kuwait

Special to Al Arabiya English

Sunday, 2 December 2018

The radio signal was fading in-and-out when I thought the AFRTC station announcer was asserting that president George H.W. Bush has lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton. It was November of 1992 when I pulled to a side street off the Old Airport Road in Riyadh to find a spot for a clear radio signal. It was so, Bush lost. Inadvertently, I went back in memory reflecting on the events leading to that moment.

I remembered dismissing news of Saddam’s armies invading Kuwait as a joke when a friend broke the news to me. I remembered taping up the windows in my house in case shockwaves shatters them; standing in line to get gas masks. I remember the first siren in Riyadh and Sulaiman Al-Issa, the trusted newscaster, confirming the first incoming Iraqi missiles. Glued to the TV watching CNN’s continuous coverage of the war, I was reassured by the efforts of the American-led coalition.

The Gulf was in trouble. Saddam Hussein’s calculation was consistent with his understanding: the US would be agnostic on the matter. He was to overtake the small nation of Kuwait, and no one would be able to do anything about it. He didn’t factor King Fahad’s strategy of escalating the conflict to confront his army, one of the world’s top tear forces at the time. It was touch and go. US military leadership was not a foregone conclusion. At first, the US was not interested in engaging militarily in what it perceived to be a regional conflict. Besides, it would be a war of choice that requires political will and skillful finesse. Once Bush senior made his decision to take the US into war, Saddam’s days of expansionist adventures were to be over.

Effective and efficient

The American-led international force was effective and efficient in achieving its objective: drive Saddam’s army back, liberate Kuwait, and neutralize future threats. The internal argument within the administration was fierce. Strong voices demanded the US keep marching on to Baghdad to complete the job, as it were. Allowing Saddam to stay in power was perceived to be a mistake by many. Those same voices had a redo ten years later prompting the second Iraq war.

We can debate the pros and cons of those opposing views. Should the US have continued driving Saddam’s army further north to provide cover for Iraqis rising to topple Saddam? Would Arab leaders have felt betrayed by such unilateral actions and would have deemed the US an invading force of Arab lands? Would it have turned into an American war with perceived nefarious designs over oil reserves? Would it be reasonable to expect the war to continue to the present day? Perhaps. Fortunately for most and unfortunately for the oppressed Iraqis of the time, the man who had the ultimate say was a man of his word. Bush, the elder, completed the mission, packed his soldiers and left. The only remaining troops were those that were requested by Arab leaders within agreed upon objectives.

This made Bush the elder a legendary honorable figure albeit briefly. That chapter quickly turned into a mythical folktale as locals slowly forgot the details and collective senility blurred the names of the players. It didn’t help that Bush the father had a short-lived tenure as a one-term president. The forgotten story has consequential effects on the current wellbeing of most people in the Gulf States. He never took credit or boasted about his leadership and accomplishment — an honorable leader who is remembered fondly today by Americans of every political stripe.

George H. Bush’s death overnight at age 94 couldn’t have come in a more somber moment as US politics is taking a nosedive toward a day of reckoning. The contrast is glaring. The honor and grace by which this statesman led his nation is of a bygone era where true leaders fought over beliefs and came together over shared values; patriotism, truthfulness, and honer.

Humble, quiet dignity and kindness were traits evident to all who observer Bush, but yet, becoming the president of the free world was a product of political acumen and a healthy dose of competitiveness. His 40 years of public service were not the selfish kind seeking the spotlight for its own sake. In fact, his achievements included fighting in WWII where he was shot down into the Pacific ocean and had to be rescued by a submarine.

He headed the CIA taking on one of the most thankless and anxiety-ridden responsibilities in the nation. Political insiders praised his loyalty over eight years as Vice President to Ronald Reagan. His extraordinary success in leadership liberating Kuwait in 100 hours was like so many of his other accomplishments, forgotten. Today the US pauses to remind itself of the debt of gratitude it owes this man recalling the admirable acts of George H. Bush.

True, George H. had many impressive successes. But even when he didn’t, we can point to the honor by which he lost. Losing his reelection campaign was due in part to breaking his election promise to the American people when he famously said “Read. My. Lips. No new taxes!” As a result of the cost of liberating Kuwait and other compounding factors, he had to level with the nation in a televised address to renege on that promise. The American people made sure to punish him by voting for his challenger, Bill Clinton.

The legacy of George H. Bush will live on. Rest in peace for you have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Climate change gamble: Betting against Mother Nature

Tuesday, 27 November 2018 on Alarabiya.net

I checked into my hotel room in Key Largo, Florida, earlier this week overlooking a Canal that opens to the Everglades. Sailboats and Dolphins against a backdrop of calm waters reflecting a fiery orange sunset. That magnificent view was disturbed by the sight of destruction below my balcony — debris littering the shoreline.

As I was walking on the brand new boardwalk I’ve noticed the telltale signs of destruction and rebuilding. The hotel wasn’t completely reopened with the east wing still under reconstruction. Talking to the locals was revealing. Many I spoke to mentioned “Irma” as if it were a family member. “If you take a boat out, you can’t follow the navigation because ‘Irma’ shifted all of the sandbars around,” said a local sailor exclaiming “the destruction goes beyond what you can see.”

Hurricane Irma is only one of the numerous weather systems born out of the increasingly volatile effects of climate change. The monstrous hurricane Irma of last year, 2017, along with this year’s hurricane Michael, claimed more lives in Florida than all of the preceding hurricanes combined since 2000. The destructive pattern is undeniable and no longer limited to harrowing stories of survival or statistical data of death. Most of us are removed from the suffering for now, but not for long. 

The fourth National Climate Assessment released by the White House on Friday paints a grim picture of wide-reaching effects on a national level. The devastating outlook on the economy, health and environment are increasing beyond localities hit by hurricanes or burnt town in out of control wildfires. Record rainfall, cold snaps and heatwaves are captured in exponentially increasing statistics and viral videos. They are now becoming the norm rather than the exception.

The Climate Report 

The Congressionally mandated report is a synthesis of research carried out by 13 US Federal agencies delivered to the President every four years. The most surprising finding is the loss of 10% of US GDP by 2100. There is not a specific date for when this will take place because the sequence of events has already started changing the economic cycle in more ways than one. The reports admit “The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and US businesses with overseas operations and supply chains.” The global economic effects will be magnified as other nations suffer from their own slowdown. The effects are already happening. I’ve been watching cell phone footage of floodings in Saudi Arabia and killer cyclones in the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. Climate change is a global problem that demands our immediate attention.

The fourth National Climate Assessment released by the White House on Friday paints a grim picture of wide-reaching effects on a national level. The devastating outlook on the economy, health and environment are increasing beyond localities hit by hurricanes or burnt town in out of control wildfires. Record rainfall, cold snaps and heatwaves are captured in exponentially increasing statistics and viral videos. They are now becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Walid Jawad

Although the report is limited to climate change effects within the US, it references the global nature of the problem. Although the US can not fix it alone, it has a leading role to live up to. If not for the sake of humanity, it should do so for selfish reasons realizing the symbiotic connection between the global and the local especially vulnerable communities. “Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term” the report asserts. 

Despite this objective warning from within the US administration, the White House economic growth plan relies heavily on an aggressive agenda to deregulate environmental policies. The conflict between this environmental doctrine and the report’s conclusion is stark. The chances of the White House reversing course is slim to none as president Trump is boastful about rolling back environmental regulation. He said last month by “we took regulations off that allow us to do things we would never have been able to do.”

There should be no more room for anyone to deny global climate change. It was always embarrassing when misguided US politicians deny global warming in responding to questions on their overseas visits. That embarrassment should turn into proactive objection as we all face deteriorating health and quality of life. This conclusion has been put forth by scientists over decades, confirmed by federal agencies, observed by all on the news and personally felt by an increasing number of people - and now it will start eating into everyone's bank account.

Short-term gains vs. long-term pains 

The moral question pitting short-term financial gains against long-term national well-being is coming to a head in the Oval Office. The four-year presidential election cycle favors short-term political gains. The chances of Trump winning his reelection bid is predicated on a number of factors including economic prosperity. Trump will double down on his environmental deregulation strategy after realizing the limited gains tax cuts delivered at the polls earlier this month in the midterm elections. Tax cuts disproportionately serve the rich. As mid and low-income taxpayers realize the limited personal benefits of those tax cuts the electorate will be less inclined to vote for him come November of 2020.

Upward mobility and job opportunities are yardsticks felt and understood by workers. Political slogans and genius social media campaigns can compel people in the short term, but their pocketbook is more persuasive. Fear politics is one political tool available to Trump, and he's making the most out of it. He’s invoking the “Wall” and sending troops to the southern border in a show of force against mostly downtrodden families fleeing violence in their homelands. The optics are unavoidable and the nation is taking notice, including his loyal base.

Trump tactics are reliant on that base. He is inducing a sense of division to keep his base engaged and fired up. This political strategy will only succeed if he can deliver on his promises for an “America First” leading to increased economic opportunities for the electorate. Environmental deregulation might cause better economic numbers between now and 2020, but it is an unsustainable tactic. He knows as well as we do of the impending economic slowdown. This conclusion is spelled out in black and white in the report his office published mere days ago. Betting against mother nature is ill-informed and potentially disastrous for the nation and the rest of the globe.

From gossip to fake news: A full circle incorporating state secrets

Tuesday, 20 November 2018 on Alarabiya.net

Gossip can be fun, but more importantly functional. Secrets are intriguing, while State secrets are consequential. Gossip played a functional and necessary role in conveying relevant information in the pre-mass media era. Personal survival and society-wide well-being required continuously maneuvering to avoid physical harm. As we evolved, gossip helped people navigate social structures for personal gains. In the area of mass media gossip is institutionalized in the hand of trusted media outlets but has lost its interactive nature.

Mass media is a one-way information machine; transmitting information from media organizations to the audience. Social media has changed that equation allowing people to go back to a more natural two-way communication style. Being exposed to information is only useful to the extent they are factual. Of course, now that we have discovered a “new-type” of information, Fake News, many became skeptical of most news media outlets. 

As we have been witnessing lately and specifically around elections, it’s a short hop from disinformation to a virally spreading misinformation accepted as truths on social media. Wholly or partially incorrect information disseminated intentionally to serve any number of purposes is not a new phenomenon. Decades ago when information was monopolized by mass media, Fake News was packaged within traditional media channels.

Wholly or partially incorrect information disseminated intentionally to serve any number of purposes is not a new phenomenon. Decades ago when information was monopolized by mass media, Fake News was packaged within traditional media channels

Walid Jawad

It was referred to as Yellow Journalism. The lines were clear. Today, disinformation; i.e. falsehoods presented as truths, become Fake News once it is widely referenced by others and accepted as truth without question Such lies don’t have to meet any standards or even be convincing, they only need to create doubt. Understandably, people don’t know what to believe anymore causing the truth to be lost. After all, who has time to research information for accuracy?

Now that we have discovered “Fake News” circa 2016, many doubt information uncovered by legitimate news outlets, all the while trusting none transparent sources; enter WikiLeaks.

The WikiLeaks War

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, stepped into the spotlight this week when US prosecutors unintentionally revealed secretly filed criminal charges against him. The US government has waged war against Assange and his anti-secrecy organization. The US is more interested in killing the messenger, as it were, than pursuing the people who have committed the criminality of information theft; espionage or hacking.

The indictment which is under seal; i.e. the charges are secret, leaves us speculating on its content. News reports confirm the indictment is connected to the alleged Russia collusion investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. WikiLeaks shared hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, which is believed to be part of a Russian government-sanctioned attempt to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in favor of advancing Trump chances of winning the presidency according to most accounts.

OPINION: Political tasks for international organizations in Yemen

Assange has been holed up inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 in an attempt to avoid prosecution in Sweden on sexual assault charges and possible extradition to the US. It is unclear if his framing of Clinton being a personal foe qualifies him to be delusional. But in his 2016 editorial on his WikiLeaks site, he wrote: "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States."

Thus, raising a critical question: was Assange exposing secrets for the sake of spreading knowledge or for personal gains; the former makes him a journalist and the latter a person with an agenda. The administration of former president Obama treated him as a journalist rather than an activist. The Mueller indictment suggests a shift in that approach.

Indeed, the Trump administration made Assange a target by reversing his WikiLeaks classification as a media organization. This is a critical step to allow the US government to go after Assange without the appearance of intruding on press freedoms. Mike Pompeo, as the top US spy at the time, locked onto Assange making him a CIA target conducting espionage against his organization over the past year according to a New York Times report. The administration is out of sync with Trump who had praised WikiLeaks numerous times during the 2016 campaign for releasing Democrats emails damaging Clinton. Further, Mr. Trump adamantly denies any collusion between his campaign and the Russians. He believes Mueller’s investigation is a “witch hunt” and “absolutely nuts.”

Who is not a Journalist?

Can the US government reclassify a journalist as “information broker” and what are the criteria a person or an organization must meet before being stripped from its media status? Pursuing legal options places the burden of proof on the government. Because US laws don't carry over to none Americans, Assange, who is Australian, has no legal recourse or right to due process.

As per the guarantees the American legal code offers freedom of speech, officials avoid facing the news media in the courts. It is much easier and more effective to use their bully pulpit to smear the media. Fake News is one way to render the press less effective, but it doesn’t stop their mission. Having the ability to strip journalists of their status can silence the media and at the same time turn a democracy into a society rotting with corruption and abuse of power.

ALSO READ: The new Iraq and the Qatari temptation

Days ago, a federal court ruled in favor of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta after the White House revoked his access last week. The White House Press Corps is expected to ask the president the tough questions and pursue answers on behalf of the American people. Excluding a reporter on frivolous basis will not and should not be tolerated.

Pleading ‘fake news’ before the court

Unfortunately, allegations of Fake News is harder to stop. However, the silhouette of a silver lining is beginning to take shape. The casual observer will inevitably notice the pattern by which government officials invoke “Fake News.” They will soon conclude that only weak officials who are exposed by truthful reporting will always cry “Fake News.” Soon enough crying “Fake News” will be synonymous with crying “wolf!”

Constantly labeling legitimate reports 'fake news' was trumped by the president’s tweet last year branding news media as “the enemy of the American people.” The president’s freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed. The First Amendment guarantees the same right to every American except for inciting violence among other exceptions. Should we really be surprised when someone takes it upon themselves to act violently against the media? 

Resorting to the courts seem to have delivered a first-round win to the press in the Acosta case, but the fight is far from over. Although the legal system is a compelling option when available, it is the court of public opinion officials should fear the most.

My wish for 2019: Conflict and more orange peel

Thursday, 27 December 2018

Conflicts around the world from the unfathomable against the Rohingya in Myanmar to the Brexit dispute are highlighted in the news and rightly so. But these are a small number of conflicts people around the world are mired in.

As conflict breaks, news organizations check them against their criteria for newsworthy events and against its editorial-line, bottom-line, and redlines. Only those that make the cut become headlines.

Death, destruction, kidnapping, revenge, punishment, political deadlock, diplomatic impasse, and the quest for justice within the courts or in extrajudicial fashion are some of the manifestations of conflict we typical read about in the news.

Yet, conflict takes many more forms. Human interactions are a constant exercise in conflict resolution negotiations from ones’ relations with employers or employees to the exchange of money for goods or services to interactions within one’s family, friends, and society.

ALSO READ: The curious case of a US government shutdown

The dynamic nature of our existence offers plenty of opportunity for agreements and potential conflict. The inability to reach a satisfactory outcome typically results in conflict prompting a search for alternatives. Negotiating a compromise, coming up with alternative goals, and reframing/redefining sought after outcomes are tactics we utilize every day.

Negotiations over basic needs of existence and rights require similar tactics, but with a real need for a clear-eyed understanding of underlying issues instead of dwelling in the treacherous minefield of arguing the positions people fight over.

Although these seem tricky to engage on, such conflicts are the type that is most worthy of our efforts as they are the most consequential. Contrary to popular belief, conflict is not a negative state of affairs in and by itself. Nonviolent conflict is what gave us many of the positive things we are enjoying today.

While human conflict with nature over millennia made it necessary for man to innovate survival tactics and create tools to overcome challenges, social conflicts gave us concepts such as equality and equitable wealth distribution

Walid Jawad

The upside of conflict

While human conflict with nature over millennia made it necessary for man to innovate survival tactics and create tools to overcome challenges, social conflicts gave us concepts such as equality and equitable wealth distribution. It gave us the larger framework citizens to work through: government.

Social norms codified and turned into laws constitute the ultimate arbiter in conflicts within a society. This system strives to be as just and fair as possible to prevent conflicts from becoming violent. The rule of law is a construct that works effectively when applied uniformly within a society.

The latest #MeToo movement has ushered a new era for gender equality and rights. The last midterm elections prompted more women to run for public office than ever before. Indeed more women won their races including the first female Muslim Arab-American to Congress.

ALSO READ: The cyber war that is raging in your pocket

International conflict in the last century gave us military innovations which we use on a daily basis including reading these words on the Internet. If it weren’t for the US Department of Defense, the Internet would only live on the pages of creative fiction writers. International conflicts gave us other advantages such as establishing the concept of sovereignty and international borderlines.

In 1648 the peace agreement between warring groups in Europe planted the idea of nation-states which the basis of our current world order. As consequential as the signed Peace of Westphalia was, the people of that era did not enjoy real peace. For them it was a theoretical exercise which brought them temporary peace; i.e. negative peace.

Negative vs. positive peace

Negative peace is the situation where a cessation of violence is reached based on an understanding between fighting groups. It is the type of peace that is celebrated globally and for good reasons.

Humans are averse to living in fear and loss of life especially one’s own or that of loved ones. Negative peace neutralizes the source of threat allowing people to attempt rebuilding their lives.

Localized violence in faraway lands theoretically poses no threat beyond the local battlefield, but in reality, violence anywhere in the world has unintended global consequences. From a human perspective, we are all connected in this global village. Suffering befalling fellow humans anywhere in the world should be of concern to us.

Refugees dying as they cross the Mediterranean, persecuted Muslim Uighurs in China, oppressed North Korean citizens, Syrians dying in a multiparty conflict on Syrian soil, Houthis and the suffering Yemeni people, Libyans in the crossfire of their civil war, and unrest in Africa and Latin American are some of the glaring examples. My apologies to all of the other groups of people suffering whom I didn’t mention.

But if that concept sympathy is too lofty of an ideal to exist in our consciousness as we battle the hours of our days, the economic fallout is a tangible impact we can all feel. In no subtle ways, global oil prices fluctuate in extreme fashion as a result of wars and the threat of war.

ALSO READ: Personal financial options for anticipated global economic slowdown

Tracking oil prices over the last three decades of the last century shows an undeniable correlation between wars and spikes in crude oil prices: the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the second oil crisis of 1979 due to the Iranian revolution, and the oil shock of 1990 as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The effects were immediate as we all paid higher prices at the gas pump.

Negative peace as a concept is fragile and should be invested as a transitional period to negotiate a lasting peace. The US Navy is quoted describing negative peace as a “perpetual state of pre-hostilities.”

Positive peace is one that addresses needs and resolves issues. Getting caught up in the positional demands of the conflicting parties only leads to a return to violence. Smart negotiators understand the difference between positions and issues.

The orange

The fable goes like this: A mother burst into the living room where her two daughters are fighting over an Orange, demanding to know the cause of the ruckus. One of the two insisted she has the right to have the Orange because she reached for it first. The mother thought to resolve the conflict in a way that is clearly fair to ensure her daughters’ acceptance.

She quickly takes the orange to the kitchen, cuts it in half giving each one of the girls an equal share. The simple and easy solution seems fair and should resolve the conflict between the two, but satisfaction is proven to be elusive.

One girl peels her half eating the orange throwing the peel in the trash, while the other throws the orange keeping the peel to make an orange sorbet. Had the sisters engaged in a discussion, their negotiation would have revealed the reasons behind their position. The positional demand was over who has the right to the orange.

The issue was in fact what each of them wanted to get out of the orange. Effective negotiations would have allowed both to realize they can share one orange yet end up with the whole portion of the fruit according to each of their wants - one would get the peel and the other to eat it.

ALSO READ: Trump’s ‘Russiagate’ and the looming Iran war

Of course, when the parties in conflict are too deep into the weeds, positional negotiation become the default. Here is when a neutral third party becomes critical. This outside party can mediate to steer the parties toward negotiating the underlying issues. Positional negotiations can lead to a win-lose outcome, while issue based negotiations can help the parties achieve a win-win situation.

There are many complicated conflicts on the horizon of 2019. Many of which are ongoing while others can be anticipated. The one conflict I predict becoming more contentious in the next few months.

The conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. As we await for Jared Kushner to reveal his peace plan, I can only hope it prompts the conflicting parties to work through the “issues” as defined by them.

Framing the conflict by a third party such as the US and defining the issues for the conflicting parties instead of allowing both the Palestinians and the Israelis to express and define their issues is worse for the prospect of peace than not engaging in the first place.

Wishing all of humanity in the new year 2019, a hopeful reprieve grounded in inspiring conflict and positive peace!
_________________________________
Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj.

Red and blue waves: Setting up the 2020 presidential elections

Wednesday, 7 November 2018 on Alarabiya.net

The much-touted Democrat Blue wave many pundits were foreshadowing was held off by a Republican dam. The unprecedented voters’ turnout made the typically unimpressive and much-ignored midterm elections more impressive than any other in recent history. Yesterday’s Election Day was of proportions similar to a presidential election.

The results proved the depth of the struggle between a divided America; Democrats regained control of the US House of Representatives, while Republicans expanded their majority in the US Senate. An impressive final result with many foretelling and extraordinary local races.

Some winners in hotly contested races triumphed in exciting fashion. Many survived the fiercest battles of their political lives. New faces and old names made for gripping races in battles of hope versus fear.

Although the most recognized name, Donald J. Trump, was never listed on any of the ballots, it was in fact a Trump election. The American people understood it for what it was: a referendum on his Presidency. So, did he win? The answer is yes.

ALSO READ: US Arabs and Muslims for Jewish-Americans

The simple reason being that he defined the parameters of the game and won it. Trump decided to focus his campaigning time and energy on Senate races. His calculation paid off: his Republican Party went beyond holding on to its Senate majority by expanding its lead with a comfortable margin.

Republicans had a slim majority with 51 of the 100 legislative Senate seats coming into this election. Once the dust settles, they are looking to increase their advantage to as many as 55. Trump emerged victorious delivering a loyal constituency for his Republican party.

The tide was in the Republicans favor with gerrymandered districts making it all but impossible for the Democrats to overcome Trump’s cult of personality in solidly Republican districts. Getting out the vote makes or breaks an election. Trump was successful in energizing his base winning big Senate races.

A different dynamic existed in House races. As expected, suburbia delivered a decisive victory to the Democrats. Women and other groups won big last night. Voters confirmed their support for equity and justice affirming a hopeful trajectory for the nation to combat the politics of fear that has been plaguing the country.

The American people understood it for what it was: a referendum on his Presidency. So, did he win? The answer is yes

Walid Jawad

An election of firsts

Rashida Tlaib, a female-Palestinian-Muslim candidate, won her race to the House of Representatives unopposed making her one of two Muslim-women candidates voted into Congress.

Along with Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American, they have shattered a once thought impenetrable political glass ceiling. The list of races worthy of recognition is long, even the ones where Arabs didn’t win.

As of yet, Ammar Campa-Najjar’s race has yet to be called, although he is predicted to lose. His loss is not a defeat. He has been a formidable challenger to a safe incumbent, Duncan Hunter. Hunter’s legal issues combined with Ammar’s vigor and appeal turned this race from a long shot to a narrowly contested election.

ALSO READ: Rise of white supremacy and forgotten Arab-American victims

Hunter used ad hominem attacks attempting to link Ammar to terrorism. Voters have shown a higher degree of sophistication giving Ammar a chance to make a case for himself. Despite the mudslinging tactics, Ammar has gained name recognition and a reputation as an effective campaigner. 

Impressively, of the reported races with Arab-American candidates, two-thirds have secured their bids. According to the Arab American Institute’s website, Arab candidates won 16 of the 21 reported races up to the time of writing of this column. While many of the Arab names have gained recent recognition, such as Rashid, Elhan, and Ammar, others have been in the limelight for years.

Donna Shalala is one of those who has been in the public eye for many years. She was the Secretary to Health and Human Services in the Bill Clinton administration. Shalala’s win last night is significant for many reasons including her age, as one of the oldest at 77, and more importantly, as a Democrat who flipped a Republican district in the highly contested state of Florida.

But which party won?

Neither party won yesterday’s elections outright. The only clear result is the country’s growing division. The next two years, leading up to the presidential elections of 2020, are poised to be bitterly contested.

The nation will fight political battles for immediate gains along party lines in the name of saving America’s soul. Unfortunately, these political battles are expected to be vicious and ugly. America’s future will become dark as both Republicans and Democrats don their armors and sharpen their proverbial knives. 

The new year, 2019 will bring a new Congressional dynamic as the newly elected cohort of candidates assume their seats. The Democrats are expected to aggressively move ahead with hearings into Trump’s Russia connections and investigations into Russian collusion with his 2016 presidential campaign.

Calls for impeachment proceedings will become louder and might gain traction. A possible constitutional crisis will appear on the horizon if Trump takes measures against the Robert Mueller Russia investigation.

ALSO READ: What Kavanaugh nomination tells us about American politics

Trump’s personality of confrontation and political jousting will exacerbate the adverse effects of the political war between the two parties. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Politicians are myopically focused on advancing their personal gains losing sight of the damaging outcome befalling the nation.

Americans will be nudged to choose sides increasing their divisions. The next two years will create a new social and political norm that will take decades to overcome. Divisions of fear and hate will take generations to heals.

Yet, there is a silver lining. Americans have proven a much higher level of electoral discernment in yesterday’s midterm elections. They voted for candidates going beyond simplistic one-dimensional labels. Being Muslim is no longer a devastating accusation, being Arab is not an impediment to running and winning elections.

One can only hope that the resiliency of the American people can see the nation through the next cycle of devastating political wars.