"IN THEIR BOOTS is a compelling new magazine show about the dramatic impact the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are having on us - the people here at home. The show will feature our Iraq and Afghanistan service men and women, and their families, in stories that have universal appeal.

"Every week an episode will be built around a dramatic and emotional IN THEIR BOOTS "Real Story," a non-fiction narrative about how our servicepeople, their families, and their communities have been profoundly changed by the nation's campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then Jan Bender, our host, will interview the participants and lead a discussion that includes experts and service-providers." (more info.)

War Scar:

Hero's Welcome:

Go directly to the In Their Boots website to watch their Veteran's Day Special.

By Daoud Kuttab

A curious thing has happened as Americans were choosing their first black president. Democracy suddenly ceased to be a bad word for many genuine democrats in the Middle East.

In the aftermaths of the war on Iraq and as part of President Bush's attempts to win the hearts and minds of Arabs, a public democracy campaign was launched aimed at injecting Arabs with the democracy virus. Millions of dollars and years later, the effort has been pronounced as a failure. Democracy salespeople had a problem selling their goods while the Bush administration was occupying the Arab country of Iraq, supporting the continued occupation and illegal settlements of the West Bank while simultaneously placing a worldwide financial siege on a truly elected Palestinian government.

Arabs easily dismissed the democracy surge by simply pointing to what was being done by Americans, and in the name of Americans, in the region. Scenes and images from the Abu Ghraib prison to Guantanamo poured cold water on these efforts to convince Arabs of democracy, U.S. style. The arguments passed around in coffee shops and sitting rooms throughout the Arab world was that American democracy is in reality a facade. That while elections do take place on the surface, a behind-the-scenes process led by a handful of people really decides who rules America.

This has continued to be the lead anti-democracy argument ... until this week.

by Gershom Gorenberg
30 October 2008

JERUSALEM – A neighbour in Jerusalem asked me to write to his American father-in-law, who has been showering him with emails attacking Barack Obama. At a local bakery, the owner suggested in a whisper that I might talk sense to the tourist proclaiming in a New York accent, between sips of strong Israeli latte, that she was voting for John McCain. Old friends in California worry to me that elderly Jews in Miami think that McCain is better for Israel. "Remember 2000," they tell me darkly. Every vote counts.

I suspect that something even more emotionally powerful than electoral math is at stake. My friends are frightened of the shame of a mother or uncle staining the family, or the tribe, with the wrong vote–a vote purportedly cast out of concern for Israel. From where I sit, this would be a shame, because the reasons Obama is better for Israel's security are the same reasons he is better for American security.

by Peter Ryan

In a last desperate attempt to smear presidential candidate Barack Obama, the McCain campaign brought up Obama's "ties" to professor, author and historian Rashid Khalidi.

Liberal pundits have charged back that John McCain served as chairman of the International Republican Institute when it provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies which Khalidi co-founded. It was apparently the only group conducting Palestinian polling at the time (apparently, even polling data, normally seen as fairly dry topic, becomes scandalous when you put the word "Palestinian" in front of it).

Both political camps in this fight are correct. McCain helped grant money to a Khalidi associated group to conduct polling and research and Obama participated in events and met with Khalidi.

Now the important question: So what?

Why do we care what connections the candidates have to Rashid Khalidi? Is he a terrorist? Is he anti semitic? Is he a radical? Well, actually, no. Far from it.

In a recent article in Harper's magazine, the New McCarthyism, Scott Horton offers this perspective on Khalidi, a public figure whose career he has followed attentively for a number of years:

Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles.

by Peter Ryan

According to Syrian media, on October 26th, 2008 four U.S. helicopters based in Iraq launched a deadly airstrike on a farm under construction about five miles from the Iraq-Syria border. According to CNN, "a U.S. official who did not want to be identified said U.S. gunships fired near the Syria-Iraq border and successfully targeted Abu Ghadiya, an Iraqi suspected of working with al Qaeda to smuggle money, weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq."

According to Syrian accounts, eight civilians were killed in the attack.

The following day reporters asked Department of State spokesperson Sean McCormack about the U.S. air strike and about Syria's role in preventing fighters from entering Iraq. Here is what he had to say:

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with Syria’s help to prevent fighters to go to Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, I think I will – I guess I’ll respond to Lach’s question a bit here. I’ll let the folks at the Pentagon describe in any detail how they view the situation. I think it – there was – there has been, over the years, a changed situation. We read a lot about infiltration over the Syrian border into Iraq quite a bit three, four years ago, a couple years ago; less so now. That doesn’t mean that it’s not – there aren’t continuing issues in that regard.

In a related question, he gave his summary of improvements Syria has made:

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Syria knows what it needs to do in order to play a different role in the region. It has taken some steps in a positive direction. I would note, for example, their decision to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon. It’s a positive step. And of course, their decision that they took with the Israelis to have contacts via the Turkish Government about coming to a peace settlement. So those are certainly positive steps, but again, there’s still a ways to go.

Deputy spokesman Robert wood, echoed these sentiments yesterday, October 28th:

MR. WOOD: No, I don’t. But let me just say, as Sean said yesterday, with regard to, you know, the flow of foreign fighters across the border, the Syrians have made, in the past, some -– taken some steps in the right direction. But there’s a lot that they need to do, and we have spoken to Syria about what they need to do.

It is a very strange thing that, a few days after violating Syrian sovereignty and bombing a target within Syria's borders, that a U.S. representative should essentially praise the "positive steps" Syria has made. Certainly Mr. McCormack and Mr. Wood make it clear that we are not perfectly happy with Syria and its role in the region, but there is a general and pervasive sense that Syria is moving in the right direction.

If we were really cautiously optimistic about Syria and its efforts, why did we risk fragile diplomatic efforts on a single, high-risk military strike? Did we really not imagine that this would tarnish U.S.-Syrian relations, that this would make it harder, rather than easier, to seek Syria's cooperation on pivotal issues-such as halting the flow of foreign fighters?