Your email: Password [ reset ]
   -> create a personal or business account for free in seconds!




where moroccans click!


about · terms
PEOPLE
GROUPS
BUSINESSES
DISCUSSIONS
727 members
8 groups, 40 businesses
1140 discussions, 13544 comments

POLITICS
Adnane Ben.
Boston USA
Share on facebook
3
comments.
A Grand Strategy: In The Wrong Or The Right Direction ?
12:00:00 AM Wednesday Apr 9, 2003



As Saddam's regime is falling apart, and the Bush administration realizing its wishes step by step, you wonder who is benefiting from this, who will be next, and before you know it you realize that the world is operating under a renewed US strategy. I was reading this article written not too long ago about the current US national strategy, and how in my opinion is tightly coupled with US foreign policy under the Bush administration. You might find this article long yet interesting. I encourage you to read and tell us what you think. The author talks about the national security strategy of President Bush. Sometimes I like to read dated analysis to correlate between the analyst vision and how things unfolded. This article was published on Foreign Policy magazine, as the war effort against Iraq was boiling, followed by a debate. I have included two comments from that debate at the end of this article, which seem to be opposing, and could start a nice discussion in Raioo.

A Grand Strategy of Transformation

President George W. Bush's national security strategy could represent the most sweeping shift in U.S. grand strategy since the beginning of the Cold War. But its success depends on the willingness of the rest of the world to welcome U.S. power with open arms.

By John Lewis Gaddis

It's an interesting reflection on our democratic age that nations are now expected to publish their grand strategies before pursuing them. This practice would have surprised Metternich, Bismarck, and Lord Salisbury, though not Pericles. Concerned about not revealing too much, most great strategists in the past have preferred to concentrate on implementation, leaving explanation to historians. The first modern departure from this tradition came in 1947 when George F. Kennan revealed the rationale for containment in Foreign Affairs under the inadequately opaque pseudonym 'Mr. X,' but Kennan regretted the consequences and did not repeat the experiment. Not until the Nixon administration did official statements of national security strategy became routine. Despite his reputation for secrecy, Henry Kissinger's 'State of the World' reports were remarkably candid and comprehensive--so much so that they were widely regarded at the time as a clever form of disinformation. They did, though, revive the Periclean precedent that in a democracy even grand strategy is a matter for public discussion.

That precedent became law with the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, which required the president to report regularly to Congress and the American people on national security strategy (NSS). The results since have been disappointing. The Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all issued NSS reports, but these tended to be restatements of existing positions, cobbled together by committees, blandly worded, and quickly forgotten. None sparked significant public debate.

George W. Bush's report on 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,' released on September 17, 2002, has stirred controversy, though, and surely will continue to do so. For it's not only the first strategy statement of a new administration; it's also the first since the surprise attacks of September 11, 2001. Such attacks are fortunately rare in American history--the only analogies are the British burning of the White House and Capitol in 1814 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941--but they have one thing in common: they prepare the way for new grand strategies by showing that old ones have failed. The Bush NSS, therefore, merits a careful reading as a guide to what's to come.

What the NSS Says
Beginnings, in such documents, tell you a lot. The Bush NSS, echoing the president's speech at West Point on June 1, 2002, sets three tasks: 'We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.' It's worth comparing these goals with the three the Clinton administration put forth in its final NSS, released in December 1999: 'To enhance America's security. To bolster America's economic prosperity. To promote democracy and human rights abroad.'

The differences are revealing. The Bush objectives speak of defending, preserving, and extending peace; the Clinton statement seems simply to assume peace. Bush calls for cooperation among great powers; Clinton never uses that term. Bush specifies the encouragement of free and open societies on every continent; Clinton contents himself with 'promoting' democracy and human rights 'abroad.' Even in these first few lines, then, the Bush NSS comes across as more forceful, more carefully crafted, and--unexpectedly--more multilateral than its immediate predecessor. It's a tip-off that there're interesting things going on here.

The first major innovation is Bush's equation of terrorists with tyrants as sources of danger, an obvious outgrowth of September 11. American strategy in the past, he notes, has concentrated on defense against tyrants. Those adversaries required 'great armies and great industrial capabilities'--resources only states could provide--to threaten U.S. interests. But now, 'shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank.' The strategies that won the Cold War--containment and deterrence--won't work against such dangers, because those strategies assumed the existence of identifiable regimes led by identifiable leaders operating by identifiable means from identifiable territories. How, though, do you contain a shadow? How do you deter someone who's prepared to commit suicide?

There've always been anarchists, assassins, and saboteurs operating without obvious sponsors, and many of them have risked their lives in doing so. Their actions have rarely shaken the stability of states or societies, however, because the number of victims they've targeted and the amount of physical damage they've caused have been relatively small. September 11 showed that terrorists can now inflict levels of destruction that only states wielding military power used to be able to accomplish. Weapons of mass destruction were the last resort for those possessing them during the Cold War, the NSS points out. 'Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice.' That elevates terrorists to the level of tyrants in Bush's thinking, and that's why he insists that preemption must be added to--though not necessarily in all situations replace--the tasks of containment and deterrence: 'We cannot let our enemies strike first.'

The NSS is careful to specify a legal basis for preemption: international law recognizes 'that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.' There's also a preference for preempting multilaterally: 'The United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community.' But 'we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.'

Preemption in turn requires hegemony. Although Bush speaks, in his letter of transmittal, of creating 'a balance of power that favors human freedom' while forsaking 'unilateral advantage,' the body of the NSS makes it clear that 'our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.' The West Point speech put it more bluntly: 'America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge.' The president has at last approved, therefore, Paul Wolfowitz's controversial recommendation to this effect, made in a 1992 'Defense Planning Guidance' draft subsequently leaked to the press and then disavowed by the first Bush administration. It's no accident that Wolfowitz, as deputy secretary of defense, has been at the center of the new Bush administration's strategic planning.

How, though, will the rest of the world respond to American hegemony? That gets us to another innovation in the Bush strategy, which is its emphasis on cooperation among the great powers. There's a striking contrast here with Clinton's focus on justice for small powers. The argument also seems at odds, at first glance, with maintaining military strength beyond challenge, for don't the weak always unite to oppose the strong? In theory, yes, but in practice and in history, not necessarily. Here the Bush team seems to have absorbed some pretty sophisticated political science, for one of the issues that discipline has been wrestling with recently is why there's still no anti-American coalition despite the overwhelming dominance of the United States since the end of the Cold War.

Bush suggested two explanations in his West Point speech, both of which most political scientists--not all--would find plausible. The first is that other great powers prefer management of the international system by a single hegemon as long as it's a relatively benign one. When there's only one superpower, there's no point for anyone else to try to compete with it in military capabilities. International conflict shifts to trade rivalries and other relatively minor quarrels, none of them worth fighting about. Compared with what great powers have done to one another in the past, this state of affairs is no bad thing.

U.S. hegemony is also acceptable because it's linked with certain values that all states and cultures--if not all terrorists and tyrants--share. As the NSS puts it: 'No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.' It's this association of power with universal principles, Bush argues, that will cause other great powers to go along with whatever the United States has to do to preempt terrorists and tyrants, even if it does so alone. For, as was the case through most of the Cold War, there's something worse out there than American hegemony.

The final innovation in the Bush strategy deals with the longer-term issue of removing the causes of terrorism and tyranny. Here, again, the president's thinking parallels an emerging consensus within the academic community. For it's becoming clear now that poverty wasn't what caused a group of middle-class and reasonably well-educated Middle Easterners to fly three airplanes into buildings and another into the ground. It was, rather, resentments growing out of the absence of representative institutions in their own societies, so that the only outlet for political dissidence was religious fanaticism.

Hence, Bush insists, the ultimate goal of U.S. strategy must be to spread democracy everywhere. The United States must finish the job that Woodrow Wilson started. The world, quite literally, must be made safe for democracy, even those parts of it, like the Middle East, that have so far resisted that tendency. Terrorism--and by implication the authoritarianism that breeds it--must become as obsolete as slavery, piracy, or genocide: 'behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and that all must oppose.'

The Bush NSS, therefore, differs in several ways from its recent predecessors. First, it's proactive. It rejects the Clinton administration's assumption that since the movement toward democracy and market economics had become irreversible in the post-Cold War era, all the United States had to do was 'engage' with the rest of the world to 'enlarge' those processes. Second, its parts for the most part interconnect. There's a coherence in the Bush strategy that the Clinton national security team--notable for its simultaneous cultivation and humiliation of Russia--never achieved. Third, Bush's analysis of how hegemony works and what causes terrorism is in tune with serious academic thinking, despite the fact that many academics haven't noticed this yet. Fourth, the Bush administration, unlike several of its predecessors, sees no contradiction between power and principles. It is, in this sense, thoroughly Wilsonian. Finally, the new strategy is candid. This administration speaks plainly, at times eloquently, with no attempt to be polite or diplomatic or 'nuanced.' What you hear and what you read is pretty much what you can expect to get.

What the NSS Doesn't Say
There are, however, some things that you won't hear or read, probably by design. The Bush NSS has, if not a hidden agenda, then at least one the administration isn't advertising. It has to do with why the administration regards tyrants, in the post-September 11 world, as at least as dangerous as terrorists.

Bush tried to explain the connection in his January 2002 State of the Union address when he warned of an 'axis of evil' made up of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The phrase confused more than it clarified, though, since Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, and Kim Jong Il are hardly the only tyrants around, nor are their ties to one another evident. Nor was it clear why containment and deterrence would not work against these tyrants, since they're all more into survival than suicide. Their lifestyles tend more toward palaces than caves.

Both the West Point speech and the NSS are silent on the 'axis of evil.' The phrase, it now appears, reflected overzealous speechwriting rather than careful thought. It was an ill-advised effort to make the president sound, simultaneously, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, and it's now been given a quiet burial. This administration corrects its errors, even if it doesn't admit them.

That, though, raises a more important question: Why, having buried the 'axis of evil,' is Bush still so keen on burying Saddam Hussein? Especially since the effort to do so might provoke him into using the weapons of last resort that he's so far not used? It patronizes the administration to seek explanations in filial obligation. Despite his comment that this is 'a guy that tried to kill my dad,' George W. Bush is no Hamlet, agonizing over how to meet a tormented parental ghost's demands for revenge. Shakespeare might still help, though, if you shift the analogy to Henry V. That monarch understood the psychological value of victory--of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them.

For Henry, the demonstration was Agincourt, the famous victory over the French in 1415. The Bush administration got a taste of Agincourt with its victory over the Taliban at the end of 2001, to which the Afghans responded by gleefully shaving their beards, shedding their burkas, and cheering the infidels--even to the point of lending them horses from which they laser-marked bomb targets. Suddenly, it seemed, American values were transportable, even to the remotest and most alien parts of the earth. The vision that opened up was not one of the clash among civilizations we'd been led to expect, but rather, as the NSS puts it, a clash 'inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world.'

How, though, to maintain the momentum, given that the Taliban is no more and that al Qaeda isn't likely to present itself as a conspicuous target? This, I think, is where Saddam Hussein comes in: Iraq is the most feasible place where we can strike the next blow. If we can topple this tyrant, if we can repeat the Afghan Agincourt on the banks of the Euphrates, then we can accomplish a great deal. We can complete the task the Gulf War left unfinished. We can destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein may have accumulated since. We can end whatever support he's providing for terrorists elsewhere, notably those who act against Israel. We can liberate the Iraqi people. We can ensure an ample supply of inexpensive oil. We can set in motion a process that could undermine and ultimately remove reactionary regimes elsewhere in the Middle East, thereby eliminating the principal breeding ground for terrorism. And, as President Bush did say publicly in a powerful speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, we can save that organization from the irrelevance into which it will otherwise descend if its resolutions continue to be contemptuously disregarded.

If I'm right about this, then it's a truly grand strategy. What appears at first glance to be a lack of clarity about who's deterrable and who's not turns out, upon closer examination, to be a plan for transforming the entire Muslim Middle East: for bringing it, once and for all, into the modern world. There's been nothing like this in boldness, sweep, and vision since Americans took it upon themselves, more than half a century ago, to democratize Germany and Japan, thus setting in motion processes that stopped short of only a few places on earth, one of which was the Muslim Middle East.

Can It Work?
The honest answer is that no one knows. We've had examples in the past of carefully crafted strategies failing: most conspicuously, the Nixon-Kissinger attempt, during the early 1970s, to bring the Soviet Union within the international system of satisfied states. We've had examples of carelessly improvised strategies succeeding: The Clinton administration accomplished this feat in Kosovo in 1999. The greatest theorist of strategy, Carl von Clausewitz, repeatedly emphasized the role of chance, which can at times defeat the best of designs and at other times hand victory to the worst of them. For this reason, he insisted, theory can never really predict what's going to happen.

Does this mean, though, that there's nothing we can say? That all we can do is cross our fingers, hope for the best, and wait for the historians to tell us why whatever happened was bound to happen? I don't think so, for reasons that relate, rather mundanely, to transportation. Before airplanes take off--and, these days, before trains leave their terminals--the mechanics responsible for them look for cracks, whether in the wings, the tail, the landing gear, or on the Acela the yaw dampers. These reveal the stresses produced while moving the vehicle from where it is to where it needs to go. If undetected, they can lead to disaster. That's why inspections--checking for cracks--are routine in the transportation business. I wonder if they ought not to be in the strategy business as well. The potential stresses I see in the Bush grand strategy--the possible sources of cracks--are as follows:

Multitasking | Critics as unaccustomed to agreeing with one another as Brent Scowcroft and Al Gore have warned against diversion from the war on terrorism if the United States takes on Saddam Hussein. The principle involved here--deal with one enemy at a time--is a sound one. But plenty of successful strategies have violated it. An obvious example is Roosevelt's decision to fight simultaneous wars against Germany and Japan between 1941 and 1945. Another is Kennan's strategy of containment, which worked by deterring the Soviet Union while reviving democracy and capitalism in Western Europe and Japan. The explanation, in both instances, was that these were wars on different fronts against the same enemy: authoritarianism and the conditions that produced it.

The Bush administration sees its war against terrorists and tyrants in much the same way. The problem is not that Saddam Hussein is actively supporting al Qaeda, however much the Bush team would like to prove that. It's rather that authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East support terrorism indirectly by continuing to produce generations of underemployed, unrepresented, and therefore radicalizable young people from whom Osama bin Laden and others like him draw their recruits.

Bush has, to be sure, enlisted authoritarian allies in his war against terrorism--for the moment. So did Roosevelt when he welcomed the Soviet Union's help in the war against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. But the Bush strategy has long-term as well as immediate implications, and these do not assume indefinite reliance on regimes like those that currently run Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. Reliance on Yasir Arafat has already ended.

The welcome | These plans depend critically, however, on our being welcomed in Baghdad if we invade, as we were in Kabul. If we aren't, the whole strategy collapses, because it's premised on the belief that ordinary Iraqis will prefer an American occupation over the current conditions in which they live. There's no evidence that the Bush administration is planning the kind of military commitments the United States made in either of the two world wars, or even in Korea and Vietnam. This strategy relies on getting cheered, not shot at.

Who's to say, for certain, that this will or won't happen? A year ago, Afghanistan seemed the least likely place in which invaders could expect cheers, and yet they got them. It would be foolish to conclude from this experience, though, that it will occur everywhere. John F. Kennedy learned that lesson when, recalling successful interventions in Iran and Guatemala, he authorized the failed Bay of Pigs landings in Cuba. The trouble with Agincourts--even those that happen in Afghanistan--is the arrogance they can encourage, along with the illusion that victory itself is enough and that no follow-up is required. It's worth remembering that, despite Henry V, the French never became English.

Maintaining the moral high ground | It's difficult to quantify the importance of this, but why should we need to? Just war theory has been around since St. Augustine. Our own Declaration of Independence invoked a decent respect for the opinions of humankind. Richard Overy's fine history of World War II devotes an entire chapter to the Allies' triumph in what he calls 'the moral contest.' Kennedy rejected a surprise attack against Soviet missiles in Cuba because he feared losing the moral advantage: Pearl Harbor analogies were enough to sink plans for preemption in a much more dangerous crisis than Americans face now. The Bush NSS acknowledges the multiplier effects of multilateralism: 'no nation can build a safer, better world alone.' These can hardly be gained through unilateral action unless that action itself commands multilateral support.

The Bush team assumes we'll have the moral high ground, and hence multilateral support, if we're cheered and not shot at when we go into Baghdad and other similar places. No doubt they're right about that. They're seeking U.N. authorization for such a move and may well get it. Certainly, they'll have the consent of the U.S. Congress. For there lies behind their strategy an incontestable moral claim: that in some situations preemption is preferable to doing nothing. Who would not have preempted Hitler or Milosevic or Mohammed Atta, if given the chance?

Will Iraq seem such a situation, though, if we're not cheered in Baghdad? Can we count on multilateral support if things go badly? Here the Bush administration has not been thinking ahead. It's been dividing its own moral multipliers through its tendency to behave, on an array of multilateral issues ranging from the Kyoto Protocol to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the International Criminal Court, like a sullen, pouting, oblivious, and overmuscled teenager. As a result, it's depleted the reservoir of support from allies it ought to have in place before embarking on such a high-risk strategy.

There are, to be sure, valid objections to these and other initiatives the administration doesn't like. But it's made too few efforts to use diplomacy--by which I mean tact--to express these complaints. Nor has it tried to change a domestic political culture that too often relishes having the United States stand defiantly alone. The Truman administration understood that the success of containment abroad required countering isolationism at home. The Bush administration hasn't yet made that connection between domestic politics and grand strategy. That's its biggest failure of leadership so far.

The Bush strategy depends ultimately on not standing defiantly alone--just the opposite, indeed, for it claims to be pursuing values that, as the NSS puts it, are 'true for every person, in every society.' So this crack especially needs fixing before this vehicle departs for its intended destination. A nation that sets itself up as an example to the world in most things will not achieve that purpose by telling the rest of the world, in some things, to shove it.

What It Means?
Despite these problems, the Bush strategy is right on target with respect to the new circumstances confronting the United States and its allies in the wake of September 11. It was sufficient, throughout the Cold War, to contain without seeking to reform authoritarian regimes: we left it to the Soviet Union to reform itself. The most important conclusion of the Bush NSS is that this Cold War assumption no longer holds. The intersection of radicalism with technology the world witnessed on that terrible morning means that the persistence of authoritarianism anywhere can breed resentments that can provoke terrorism that can do us grievous harm. There is a compellingly realistic reason now to complete the idealistic task Woodrow Wilson began more than eight decades ago: the world must be made safe for democracy, because otherwise democracy will not be safe in the world.

The Bush NSS report could be, therefore, the most important reformulation of U.S. grand strategy in over half a century. The risks are great--though probably no more than those confronting the architects of containment as the Cold War began. The pitfalls are plentiful--there are cracks to attend to before this vehicle departs for its intended destination. There's certainly no guarantee of success--but as Clausewitz would have pointed out, there never is in anything that's worth doing.

We'll probably never know for sure what bin Laden and his gang hoped to achieve with the horrors they perpetrated on September 11, 2001. One thing seems clear, though: it can hardly have been to produce this document, and the new grand strategy of transformation that is contained within it.

John Lewis Gaddis is the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University, and author, most recently, of The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

The following are two comments from an old debate on foreignpolicy.com about the above article, that could along with the article spark a good discussion:


Posted by Joe Miscione on November 15, 2002 at 10:50:24:

I read the article on Bush's foreign policy. Its a pretty persuasive article, but I think Bush's new policy represents a shift in the wrong direction. I do not think that we should be concerned with 'making the world safe for democracy' by trying to build democracies around the world... this is precisely why Sept 11 happened and why most of the world hates us (remember, Osama's #1 complaint is that we have troops in Saudi).

What I would advocate is a more isolationist policy wherein (how's that for a pseudo intellectual word!) we leave the countries of the world alone unless they pose a clear and present danger to us or if there is genocide going on. I feel that we waste far too much money on foreign operations, especially those that are hold overs from the Cold War (South Korea). I agree with Bush's policy of creating a military force that is 'untouchable' in the world and in using it in places like Afghanistan where there is clear and present' danger to the USA. Also, we should use it in such a way, as we did in Afghanistan, that we put the fear of God in all repressive regimes around the world, serving notice that if they mess with us, their regime will be destroyed (sort of a 'Don't Mess with Texas' on a global scale!). So, we should use this military as a deterrant not as an offensive force unless absolutely necessary.

We cannot convert the world's dictatorships into democracy by use of military force as Bush seems to want. However, we can lessen the threat of terrorism and improve our own society by adopting a more 'hands off' approach and funnelling the resources we currently waste overseas into our own domestic programs. The only way democracies will come to be in places like Saudi and Iraq is if there is a groundswell of the people. I realize that this is difficult, but it is not impossible especially with the free flow of information and the 'global village'.

Anyway, to be completely honest, I could careless if the Middle East becomes democratic. All I care about is that Americans are safe and happy. It really upsets me to see Bloomberg announce that he has to cut $245 Million from the public schools budget at the same time that we are spending that amount in a week on ill conceived attempts to change a world that does not want to be changed. I really think Bush needs to stop his 'change the world' crusade, and start to concentrate on domestic problems. I am sure this will not happen, but all will be taken care of when my boy Gore rises from the ashes in 2004 and takes the crown (er...office) that is his birthright!!!!!!

Please send replies to joemiscione at hotmail dot com. I love a good debate!


Posted by Simon on December 02, 2002 at 17:25:51:

Well, I can't promise a 'good debate', but I will certainly try to debate!

Joe, why do you assume that making Americans 'safe and happy' is mutually exclusive to democratising the Middle East? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that the rise of non-state actors increases mutual interdependence. That is not to say that September 11 was a justifiable response from some unhappy people - it is to recognise that failed states (Afghanistan, Lebanon, even Palestine, in a broad sense) are ideal breeding grounds for terrorism.

To say that America should focus only on 'clear and present danger' is to beg the vital question, not answer it. September 11 should remind us that the notion of 'clear and present danger' has changed drastically since the predictable days of bipolarity: we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto!

I liked the Gaddis article. Like other contributors to this discussion board, however, I wonder whether Gaddis is painting a stumbling policy in grand tones. For example, Bob Woodward has recently revealed that as early as September 12 2001, the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were discussing an imminent attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced whether Bush's foreign policy is a grand strategy or a knee-jerk attempt to settle an old score. Only time (and the extent of American commitment to a post-Saddam Iraq) will tell.

The content of this page —graphics, text and other elements—is © Copyright 2007 prospective author, and Raioo, Inc., only when stated otherwise, and may not be reprinted or retransmitted in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the publisher.



Where Moroccans Click!
Create an account in seconds
to start new topics, leave comments, express yourself, make Moroccan friends and Morocco-loving friends, build long lasting connections, buy and sell, join groups and events, share photos, cook, message, and more.





10:25 pm    April 10, 2003
justicelover
3
Thank you amine for this wonderful contribution. Nass2alo laha nassra baghdad wa 2iiykada hadihi le2omma min sobaatiha.
·

9:54 am    April 10, 2003

Rasta Gnawi message
2
A small contribution in Arabic as we ponder the "big" issues. Sorry. I can't get the font any bigger. May be Lmoudir can help with this.
Amine


??? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????????

??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ? ???????

? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????

??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????

???????? ? ???? ? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????????

? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ????????

??? ??? ??? ???? ? ??????? ? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????????


·

4:03 pm    April 9, 2003
SANFOR_7
1
Okay, it's like this, If I lose, winner takes my happy meal. If I win, I take the burger AND the toy. To some people that's more important.
·

Adnane Ben.'s notes (341)
 
2012
Fri 4/27 6-9 pm: Amazigh Spring Concert in NYC..
 
2011
Algeria and Tunisia Are Trying To Breathe..
 
2010
Another Wonderful Film from Algeria: Mascarades!..
Talk Back to Your Energy Core..
What a complicated war! what a warm music!..
Can Anthropologists and Social Scientists Help Prevent or St..
Moderate Muslims: What Does it Mean?..
Craigslist Accordion..
Royal Air Maroc: Deal or No Deal?..
You mean people in politics do not necessarily have universi..
Morocco Pays Full Repatriation Fees of a Deceased?..
A Bottom Line or a Red Line Petition?..
Michael Moore On The Planned Islamic Center in New York..
Middle Eastern Gnawa..
Islamophobia on the Rise in America? ..
Heavy Metal Morocco..
The Maghrib that I love..
Some Congressman Blows Up Over National Debt..
Moroccan Avatars I..
The Saidia Beach in Morocco is Angry!..
My Squared Kufi: Family ..
Spiritual Poems Performed by Moroccans..
Palestinian Avatar..
Gmail Buzz..
The Saviors of Humanity in the 21st Century: McAfee of the S..
 
2009
Moroccan Turns Waste into Effective Use..
:) سبب توقف ا..
The Charter To Dismantle The Arabs..
Abd Al-Qadir Al-Jilani: On The Meaning of Ritual Worship and..
A Perspective on Woman Virginity: Sheikh Khaled Al-Joundi..
WHY IS the Arab world -- let us speak with terrible sharpnes..
Lammalless Lands Again Yet Another Funny Video ;) ..
Free-spirited Young Moroccans..
Georges Moustaki: Le Métèque..
Wali of Oujda Giving Students a Final Exam on the First Day ..
Modern Morocco Lives Off Old Baraka..
Algeria Unleashes Its Sitcom Wings: Jam3i Family..
Human Tetris: I haven't laughed like this in a while! :)..
La7kaam Game Japanese Style..
Nedjim Bouizoul: The Gypsy Maghrabi Genre is Born..
Follow raioo's twittering zawej..
Mostapha Skandrani: The Mozart Chaabi Virtuoso..
USAID Opportunity in Morocco..
Urban Road Biking: America Takes On a New Passion!..
Michael Jackson: May God Bless You Brother..
Kesang Marstrand and Khobz Sh3ir..
Lesson of Respect..
تـلـمسـا..
Will Morocco's Saidia Beach Survive? Fadesa = Fade7a ~..
The First Moroccan Parliament Representative of Moroccans in..
How To Cook Bibi ..
Nouria El Yacoubi From Figuig: Moroccan Champion of Karate C..
Akhir Phenomene Maghribi F Miricane..
Moroccan Behavior Towards Law Enforcement: A Car Boot Case S..
I Play Soccer (El'Foot) Like a Binocular-Equipped Japanese ..
Moroccan Weddings Under One Roof..
Government Motors Propaganda, But Still Better Than McCain..
BAC 2009..
My Dream Gadget..
The Future Of Cigarettes Looks Brightly Blue..
Dialogue with a Moroccan Farmer Faqir (1975 Kevin Dwyer)..
Nador and Hashish..
Please Complete Survey about Language Code-switch..
Moussier Tombola: Dédicasse au Maroc..
Become Who You Are ~ Nietzsche..
ABDERRAHMANE PACO: THE LEGEND..
From Torino to Morocco..
Morocco Therapy..
Sourate Arrahmane in Kabyl Berber..
Deux Zach C'est La Guerre, Attention Le Loup Est Revenu.. FO..
Bird-Men ~ Any Moroccans Dare?..
From The Treasures Of Arabic Morphology: Min Kounouzi Assarf..
Words of Advice From A Moroccan Sheikh..
Sheikh Party? Sadaqa? Entertainment? Serious Worship? What i..
Boston 5K Race/Walk To Send Medical Equipment To Morocco..
Muslim in SLAMI ~ MY RESPECT!..
What is Saved of My Old Animation Archive: Sheikh Wins!..
Sala Morocco's Cha3bana et La Tradition Du Malhoun..
WOW! The Most Beautiful Moroccan Song of 2009 by Malhoun X..
Great American Public Entertainment in Paris: Street Dancers..
My Interview About The Role of The Internet in The Life of M..
Tai Chi Semlalia: Classic Moroccan-dubbed Martial Arts Film..
Nice Songs About Henna Tradition in North African Weddings..
Oujdawood is Whipping Some Film Ass!..
Houari Manar: A Rising Star, A Gloomy Rainbow For Others..
Why Did Boston's MACCA Drop The Moroccan in MACCA?..
Moroccan Mobile Consulate: Boston March 21-22, 2009..
Why Mother Damia Has a Moroccan Tatoo and a Jewish Innoculat..
Do you love me? do you, do you?..
James Brown's Cape Finale (Boston, MA '68)..
James Brown: Please, Please, Pleeeease.. and Nomore Trivial ..
Obaid Karki: British Depravity in Dubai Sex-On-Beach..
حلاقة الم..
Raioo Speaks Arabic: Type in Arabic Without A Sweat!..
How To Type in Arabic Using Your Keyboard for Windows..
ATMAN: Algerian Batman Spoof..
Is Hollywood Abusing Morocco?..
Abdelkader Secteur: L3id Lekbir..
Abdelkader Secteur: Kelb wel 7mar 7ashakoum!..
Pro-Israel Rally Features Low IQ..
How is the economy crisis in the west affecting Morocco?..
Nice Programming from elmuhajer.com: The Culture of Immigrat..
Libyan Soccer Video Game Star in the Making..
Obama's Stimulus Package Already in Effect in Morocco..
Bush and the Mysterious Handshakes..
Never Get a Police Ticket Again!..
Middle East, USA and Israel As seen By Michel Collon..
 
2008
Gaza 2008 Crisis: Is Winning the Heart of the Eagle The Answ..
Islam and The Current Economic Crisis..
If Only Obama Picks Peter Schiff As Special Advisor..
Beat Box Man From Doukala..
I Don't Trust Moroccan Officials: Why?..
So You Think You Can Dance Like a Moroccan Gypsy?..
My First Moroccan Almond Truffles!..
Cooking with Alia..
Town Hall Meeting in DC Regarding MAC (Moroccan American Coa..
Highlights of a Meeting: El Yazami President of the Council ..
Please Donate For Mariam: A Cancer Child in Boston from Iraq..
Congratulations Barack Obama!..
American 401k and Moroccans..
Mounib Feeling Well and on TV..
A Beautiful Moroccan Quran Recitation by Abdel Hamid Hssayn..
Tzawaj Magalha Liya Grows Wings!..
How to eat a watermelon..
Looking for US-based Travel Agent to book a flight or tour t..
Drop Down Pants! ..
Muslims in America: An Experiment...
Buy From Your Local Farmers Market !..
Yassir Chadly: An Inspiring Multi-dimensional Moroccan in Am..
Moroccan Club Dance Night: 30+ Proper Attire Brown Camel-ski..
Conversations About La7rig (Illegal Immigration)..
Shakira Wa Akhawatouha..
Moul Taxi: A Trip to the Airport..
Morocco on Bizzare Foods with Andrew Zimmern..
Hanane Fadili Strikes Again..
Freedom of Expression According to Raouf Ben Yaglane..
Cheikha Djennia & Cheikh Djilali Tiarti..
My Taste of a Christian Moroccan Interfaith Dialogue..
Angels singing Allah Ya Moulana by Nass Elghiwane..
A Call From Algeria to Help Suffering Little Boy Mounib!..
La Secheresse... de l'internet et de ezzehar..
Parents and Family from the perspective of an immigrant..
Do you want to Volunteer Abroad? VOLUNTEER in Morocco ~ Sign..
Moroccan Playing Cards Game ronda v1.0..
Sid El-Miloud 2008: Koul 3am Wentouma Bkhir..
NEW: Raioo Groups..
Call to Moroccans in Greater Boston: Help Provide Meals For ..
Moroccan American Television Program..
A promotional video for the Al Huda Summer Camp in Maine..
Une compo intitulée Alger..
Sidi Mohamed Ouali (Ou3li): Berber..
Moroccan Amazigh girl name "illy": DENIED...
What's That Song in the Kia Spectra Commercial?..
A Beautiful Burda Recitation!..
 
2007
In Memory of My Father-in-law, Si La7bib..
Al-Qaeda Freak Show in North Africa..
The Girl Who Picked Up A Moroccan Rose..
Les Oiseaux De Figuig!..
Paul Bowles: A Witness of Moroccan Traditional Storytelling..
Mick Jagger of Algeria!!..
ZOGO: Rock Fusion Hailing from Algeria Lalaland!..
Cheb Mami, The Fugitive Prince!..
Local Moroccan Businesses, freelancers and services Deserve ..
From Los Angeles to Casablanca!..
Halloween SPECIAL 2007: La Mort D'une Souri!..
Looking for a Moroccan folkloric harvest hymn....
Allah Made Me Funny @ Boston..
MPK20: Sun's Virtual Workplace..
Morocco Mall 2010: Largest Shopping Mall of North Africa..
U.S. House Passes Historic Ramadan Resolution..
Looking for Arabic or French to English Translator..
Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi..
My Top 5 List of Quran Recitors 2007..
Samurai Jack of Algeria..
This Moroccan Barry! and his Baraka Men La3yaqa..
Doodling: Sheikh L7ouma..
How Moroccans Put Together a Government..
Hillareous Cat Wrestles Mouse claymation!..
ABSOLUTE RAIOO Summer 2007 Rai vol.2..
ABSOLUTE RAIOO SUMMER 2007 RAI Vol 1..
Oujda Folkloric Musicians after a long day....
Iwighd Adar by Amarg Fusion !!!!..
Alalla Yallali ft. Nabila..
Jews Support the Boston Mosque..
The a la Menthe: Maghreb French RAP..
Ya Ghrib !..... ft. Khaled, Lamine, Rai NB..
Hazzou Bina La3lam: Hajja Hamdaouia!..
Ha Elkass 7loo: Hajja Hamdaouia ft. Hamid..
Boston Moroccan Tennis Club: Mini Tournament 2..
Sidi Hbibi by Mano Negra - the unexpected :)..
Le Bachir ..
Cheb Mami.. L'ancien :) Pas Le Nouveau :(..
Summer Hidden Stress..
Fanfaraï - Rai Cuivre !..
Darouha Biya Mchaw L'Mekka w'Khallawni..
CHEB ANOUAR!..
Zoo Event Organized by Al Huda..
Navigating post-divorce..
Just what is Civic Engagement?..
To Fly Boston <-> Morocco or Not..
Meetings with Moroccan Consultative Council on Human Rights..
J'irais dormir chez vous au Maroc..
Support Morocco Autonomy Initiative to solve the Sahara issu..
Les Frères Zergui..
On the Word "Plethora"..
When The Moors Ruled In Europe..
Ya Rassoul..
BARRAKA duet Cheb Khaled & Chebba Zahouania..
Cheba Zohra & Mahadattes de Rilizane..
SKyouz Me While I Light My Spliff!..
HAMIDOU, Algeria's Playboy!..
First mnanauk. Then mahdisean!..
Karima Skalli, Nassima et Leila Hejaiej..
Rym Hakiki: Matsalni Ma Ansalek..
The Road To Guantanamo..
Matejebdoulich by Djenet..
Cuban Chaabi! Guantanamera!!..
Hadj Menouer: El Batoul !..
Parske Ana Nebghi Wahran Bezzaf!..
I declare Moe a Star!..
Ahl Zin El Fassi!..
Morocco on current TV..
My South Park Character!..
Ummah Films on current.tv !! HELP NEEDED..
Ana Smayti Sa3id!..
 
2006
Al-Hawli Jokes..
Zawiya Qadiriya Boudchichiya Open Air Speech..
US Patent by Sa Majeste H. Roi du Maroc..
Jahh Bless Mon! Feeling down to earth tonight!..
Cannot Believe These Idiots!..
NESS LA CITY: All?e Sans Retour! LOL..
When Lotfi Attar Rides Matabkish wave! You Lissann mon!..
KUDOS TO Cheikh Sidi Bemol & Band!!..
No Comment! DARRITOUNI.....
Mortality Meets Online Status..
Michael Richard Busted and Sorry!..
The UMMA Clinic..
Hanane Fadili Take on Shouaffa(tt)..
Hijab: Strict Code or Fashion Barcode ..
To The Fasting Darling..
Rimitti: Ana Li Ghrasset aNakhla....
Reminiscing Tex Avery Cartoons!..
Happiest Guy in Morocco!..
The Super-cool Hanane Fadili..
Cette Affaire d'Avions ? Londres..
Watch 2M Television..
American Muslim Fun Video Blogging!..
Open War in the Middle East?..
Touche Po a Mon Zidane!..
Ronaldinho Joined Zawya....
Marock!..
Draw Live!..
Zoo Animals Need e'space..
Les ABRANIS: Prodigy of Rockabyl..
Sofiane Saidi: Cet Algerien Trip-rai Hopper..
Lemchaheb Legacy ..
Zahra Hindi, Beautiful You!..
Jajouka's Winds of Moroccana..
Google Language Translation: English to/from Arabic..
Aziz Mekouar, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco to the US..
Google Shoots Microsoft.. One.. More.... Time!..
Monsieux Mehdi Ben Barka: Un Marocain Assassiné Qui Visait P..
Yale, Taliban and Weld L'Hashemi....
Near-eastern Muslim Scholars..
Three Algerians on Highway =]..
Moroccan Riverdance!..
Moroccan Candle-toe Dance..
Moroccan Qassida: Vraie Poesie!..
LA3MARNA Legacy..
Chilling Like a Mqedem in Morocco..
Alone in the Wilderness..
Are Iranians and Americans Blowing it Up?..
Are we a virus..?..
How come Morocco is silent to Dalfour, Sudan?..
Barreling Towards an Iraqi Civil War..
Pomme and Kelly ..
Intelligent Design and Evolution in not so American lands..
The Prophets animated by Steve Whitehouse..
More with Claudio Bravo..
Muslim Texans..
Hajj Stampede Gone Ugly!..
Self-portraits 001-002..
Why Faith?..
Online 7awli Souk!..
2006 !..
 
2005
Derbouka Bled Attack..
Adopted HIV kids from Romania..
Operation Mapping Raioo Love!..
They burnt themselves.. Come'on!..
My Winamp Skin: The New Beetle..
The Forbidden Zone film that electrified me!..
Cousins skyblogging..
Chilean artist in Morocco..
Moroccan Blue tops colors!..
Osama in FAMILY GUY..
Baraka Art..
Itsy Bitsy knowledge..
The most misunderstood [and growing..] world religion, Islam..
Moroccan Christians..
Polygamy in USA..
Architecturing to joy!..
This Moorish cult in America..
The Magnificient King Vulture..
Al-Rashid and the Fart..
On the subject of Evil Eye..
Anecdote on Life and 3ibada..
Anecdote on Giving in Time of Need..
T-shirt design: L'Amoureux!..
Craig Thompson art..
The Real Origin of Smileys :)..
T-shirt design: Happy Sailor!..
T-shirt design: threadless in Kufi..
T-shirt design: Magic e-lamp..
My August '05 T-shirt Designs ..
Your Living Space..
The Raioo Story: 2. in the garden..
The Raioo Story: 1. intro..
Arabic Beat and Instrument Music Wanted!..
 
2004
RA?NA RAI Legacy..
Algerian Chaabi..
Nour L'Koufi (Gharnati)..
Hidalgo in Morocco..
Le Secret d'Elissa Rhais..
Imam Shafii. Soni N'nafssa..
Feqqas (Moroccan Biscuiti)..
Casablanca Connect..
 
2003
ZEBDA! Un Groupe Genial!..
Al Moutanabbi. Idha Ghamarta..
Imam Shafii. sa'fir tajid 3iwada..
boston.food.Tangierino..
Long Distance Honey ..
The Working Wife and Husband..
The Hammam Public Bath: Do you still go there?..
Hip Hop Classic Favorites!..
Down With Love..
Lord Of The Rings..
How To create a Moroccan remix of a video clip ? ..
 
2002
Why we don't eat Porc?..
Do You Play Music?..
Hidoura: Your Moroccan Natural Carpet..
Khaddouj Slam-dunking From Marrakesh To New York..


FAVORITES
Hmida Rass Lmida à L'Avare de Molière!
Moroccan City Names
Shining ability is a gift...
Halloween SPECIAL 2007: La Mort D'une Souri!
Cheikha Rimitti: 83 Years of Life...
Why do we pray ?
short ones
ABSOLUTE RAIOO Summer 2007 Rai vol.2
Cheba Zohra & Mahadattes de Rilizane
Close Encounters of the Moroccan Kind!
Biyouna
Another attempt at writing. Will this language ever feel natural?
North Africa Journal
Moroccan Tattoos
From Los Angeles to Casablanca!
Amina Alaoui Lyrics
Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi
Vulgarity as revolution: Lemsakh we tsalguit
Les Oiseaux De Figuig!
ghir bessyas a moulay!
QURAN FLASH
Moroccan Playing Cards Game ronda v1.0
A Call From Algeria to Help Suffering Little Boy Mounib!
.
.






about raioo ~ terms
All contents © copyright 1999-2017 for Adnane Benali and respective authors. Aside from properly referencing and linking content, No duplication, reproduction, or reprinting of raioo writings, artwork and/or related content allowed without written permission from the respective author or publisher (raioo.com).

where moroccans click!