Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty
By-Rula Jebreal
To Beat ISIS, the Arab World Must Promote
Political and Religious Reforms
By-Rula Jebreal
The Daily Beast,15 .09.2014
If the U.S. does nothing, the Arab world will continue its slide into sectarian bigotry, political repression,
and madness. This will come back to haunt the United States.
Last week’s counter-terrorism conference in Jeddah can be summed up in two words: lost
opportunity. Why? None of the participants were representative of an independent, democratic or
critical voice in the Middle East. Rather, the Muslim scholars who participated were voices of
their inept governments, who condemn every dissident voice as a terrorist.
In the backdrop of the conference, President Barack Obama made his case for war against ISIS
in Iraq to the American public last week as well. Obama also sent a direct message Muslims
around the world that ISIS is not really Islamic and America is not at war with Islam. This
message was meant to hit the heart of the Arab Muslim world, but it fell on deaf ears.
Nonetheless, Secretary of State John Kerry is lobbying Arab allies to play a central role to insure
the success of the initiative, since ISIS poses a much greater threat to them than it does to the
United States. While this is a more responsible strategy on the part of the United States, the truth
is that Arab and Muslim states continue to pursue myopic and delusional policies that produce
more extremism, rather than countering it.
The United States has learned the hard way that it can’t withdraw its involvement in the Middle
East. Even local Middle Eastern politics, such as the composition of Iraq’s government, cannot
be treated lightly. If they are ignored they can become national security threats. Whenever Sunni
minorities, in the case of Iraq, or Sunni majorities, in the case of Syria, are excluded and
prosecuted by their governments, it creates the fertile environment in which Sunni jihadists
thrive.
Jeddah’s counter-terrorism conference did not address this overarching ill of the Arab world.
Look across the region: zero sum politics are the name of the game, and are only fueling the rise
of extremism. For example, a win for Shi’ites is considered a defeat for Sunnis, and vice
versa. In Iraq, the exclusionary and sectarian policies of Nouri al-Maliki resulted in ISIS
becoming an appealing alternative for the majority Sunni population. The transnational jihad
narrative became a bond for Sunnis, only after they were treated as outcasts by their government.
The Egyptian government is contributing to this rise in extremism also. Cairo’s policy of
crushing the Muslim Brotherhood shows that President Abdul Fatah al-Sisi has not sufficiently
appreciated history. His single-minded, iron-fist policy, which brands any opposition a terrorist,
serves only to create stronger degrees of radicalization within the movement. Today 20,000
Brotherhood members are rotting away in Egyptian jails, awaiting a death sentences by hanging,
often experiencing such horrific torture that they consider those gunned down in the Rabaa
massacre to have been lucky. This situation is very similar to the circumstance that produced Al
Qaeda’s top leader Ayman Zawhiri in the 1980s.
The truth is that Arab and Muslim states continue to pursue myopic
and delusional policies that produce more extremism, rather than
countering it.
More than oil, Saudi Arabia’s chief export is Wahhabism, which it has promoted around the
world through its embassies and mosques to eventually be cloned by jihadist groups, like ISIS.
Wahhabism is the most conservative, oppressive and exclusionary form of Islam, which
considers all non-Wahhabists enemies — especially Shi’ites. Osama bin Laden was steeped in
Wahhabism, as are many Sunni Jidahists in Iraq and Syria today, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Glancing at historical facts, the evidence is undoubtedly clear. The fundamental cause of the
production of extremism in the Arab world lies in a culture of oppressive political exclusion,
coupled with religious bigotry. It is up to the United States to do more to encourage inclusive
politics in Arab states, as it recently did in Iraq when it forced Maliki out of the prime minister’s
office because of his exclusive and sectarian policies.
The United States must review its policies across the Middle East. Standing by Saudi Arabia and
ignoring the oil giant’s double dealing is already proving harmful to American interests in the
region. It must take a stand against Riyadh’s promotion of exclusionary Wahhabism.
Likewise, pressure must be placed on Egypt to abandon its witch hunt of the Muslim
Brotherhood. In undertaking an effective counter terrorism strategy, the United States must
partner with the Arab states to undertake political reforms that ultimately lead to underwriting a
social contract in which every group of the population are represented and protected.
The strategy of General David Petraeus in Iraq, and the success of the surge, was based on a
political deal, that included Iraqi militia groups (the so-called “Sons of Iraq”) to band together
with the Americans to fight al Qaeda. In return, Sunnis became part of the Iraqi central
government and were paid almost $40 million. This is a successful example that can be
replicated across the region. If the United States and Iraqi government want to defeat ISIS, they
must now ensure the inclusion and protection of Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Yazidis, along with the
majority Shi’ites. Only then will the counter-terrorism effort truly destroy ISIS for good.
Eventually, a process of reconciliation must be initiated between Shi’ites and Sunnis. This
centuries-old dispute is played out today in a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which
has produced a monster that threatens the national security of not only Middle Eastern nations,
but also the United States. It must come to an end. The Obama Administration can no longer
hide behind the excuse that this is a local issue — it is quite the opposite. Local policy issues in
Muslim countries are transforming into US and European national security threats. The Obama
Administration must pursue a policy of severe sanctions against any and all countries that
finance jihadist — even if they are our own allies.
What will ultimately turn the tide in the Middle East are groups that actively advocate for a
democratic culture and its values around the Arab world. A campaign to promote these ideas on
every level must begin, as part of the counterterrorism initiative launched by Kerry. Grassroots
activism that makes a strong demand for democratic values can work in parallel with counterterrorism strategies to achieve more concrete results. Moderates can never become mainstream if
the leaders the West continually chooses to back are military dictators or internationally
politically connected despots — generation after generation.
ponsored Content by nRelate
Elena Scotti/The Daily Beast
Brandy Zadrozny
10.11.14
Glock Family Goes Down, Guns Blazing
King Lear, strippers, and show horses: Inside the $500 million lawsuit that could bring down Gaston
Glock’s gun empire.
Guns, money, sex, and betrayal: Rarely do the news gods smile down on us with such charity.
But Helga Glock, ex-wife to Gaston Glock Sr., the gun industry’s most successful and secretive
tycoon, has given us all that and then some with a new lawsuit filed in an Atlanta federal court
earlier this week.
In the complaint—filed in Georgia, where the Austrian company’s U.S. headquarters is based
and most of its business conducted—Mrs. Glock’s attorney accuses the 85-year-old gun
manufacturer of a racketeering scheme that spanned decades and the globe, all in an elaborate
plan to steal the business that Mrs. Glock and the rest of their family had helped to build from a
mom-and-pop machine shop into a company with $400 million in sales each year. An enterprise
so successful—it supplies U.S. police with two-thirds of their firearms and dominates the civilian
market—that Mr. Glock’s criminal dealings have cheated her out of around $500 million, the suit
claims, making the case one of the largest civil suits ever under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act.
This isn’t the first time the Glocks’ legal dramas have played out in the media.
The family’s dirty laundry was aired in 2011 during divorce proceedings that would end the
Glocks’ 49-year-long, if not happy then lucrative, relationship. The short story: After Glock
suffered a stroke in 2008, his nurse-slash-mistress Katrin Tschikof, 50 years his junior, restricted
the family’s access to the ailing magnate. And in a tale more suited for TMZ than The Wall
Street Journal, by 2010, Gaston Glock had locked his wife out of their mansion in Austria, fired
his three children—Brigitte, Gaston Jr., and Robert—from the family business, and stopped
speaking to his grandchildren.
Helga and Gaston’s divorce was final on June 28, 2011. By the following day, Mrs. Glock (she
kept her name) was no longer a part of the company. He married Tschikof later that year and
appointed her to the company’s advisory board.
It would be simple to frame Helga Glock’s newest court battle as one brought by a lover scorned.
But this is strictly a business case, her Atlanta lawyer, John Da Grosa Smith, told The Daily
Beast.
Helga and Gaston Glock met in 1958, married in 1962, and a year later co-founded Glock KG.
With the savings they had put aside for a condo in Vienna, the newlyweds bought land for a
factory to make a gun he had designed for the Austrian army. The Glocks had day jobs—he as an
operations manager for a company that made car radiators, and she as a secretary—but at night,
the couple and their growing family worked to build the business.
That factory, as BusinessWeek reporter Paul Barrett chronicled in his book Glock: The Rise of
America’s Gun, and noted in a 2012 interview, “was almost uniquely efficient, and the gun has
been uniquely profitable as a result. His costs are so low that he was able to sell the gun very
cheaply and basically grab the market away from companies like Smith & Wesson.”
By 1980, the Glock family was living atop their factory, making curtain rods as well as weapons.
While Gaston designed firearms, the rest of the family kept the factory going. In 1985, after
winning contracts with the Austrian army, the Glocks brought their business to the States,
creating the U.S. subsidiary Glock Inc. Shortly after that unit was formed, the complaint alleges,
Mr. Glock transferred 50 percent of the ownership of Glock Inc. out of the parent corporation—
for the insanely low price of $75,000—and into Unipatent, a shell company that he controlled
completely.
Ms. Glock says she knew nothing about the transfer, and didn’t learn about it until a quarterdecade later, during their divorce proceedings.
By the 1990s, Glock’s focus on law enforcement was working, after a vocal majority called for
better firepower, after failed revolvers caused a few high-profile shooting deaths of officers. The
company continued to do exceedingly well, likely beyond any of their initial expectations.
And Gaston’s deceit continued, Helga Glock claims. In court documents, her lawyers colorfully
relay the saga of how a billionaire ex-husband conspired with associates to steal half a billion
dollars from the family that helped him build an empire.
Interspersed with quotes from former associates culled from past legal proceedings include one
from Peter Manown, a former Glock vice president who a decade ago admitted to stealing
millions from the company: “[Glock] spends money on mistresses, on houses, on sex, on cars.
He bribes people. He’s just a bad guy.”
The complaint goes on—for 350-plus pages—to detail just how bad. This is, of course, only one
side of the story. The general counsel of Glock Inc. in Georgia did not return calls for comment
and Gaston Glock did not answer his phone in Austria.
According to the court filing, Gaston Glock Sr. carried out his schemes by paying himself
inappropriate royalties; setting up a network of sham international companies from Bermuda to
Hong Kong; laundering money through phony companies, leases, and loans; and paying Glockowned companies that provided neither services or products.
When Helga Glock would ask questions about the business, she says Glock Sr. would reply, “I
strongly hope you will trust me, won’t you!” or “Trust me, it’s all for the family,” she states in
the documents.
Meanwhile, Glock entertained clients and associates with lavish dinners and visits to a sinceclosed strip club, Atlanta’s Gold Club, Mrs. Glock’s complaint states. Glock used those strippers
to represent the company at trade shows and flew them around on the corporate jet.
The complaint further alleges that Glock had a personal slush fund that he used to “cavort with
women around the world.” One sham corporation was allegedly set up for the sole purpose of
owning homes “to house and entertain his metro-Atlanta-based paramours.”
When Charles Ewert, nicknamed Panama Charly for the regions in which his shell corporations
were located, partnered with Glock, they carried out elaborate schemes to stash profits away
from his family and fund his grand private lifestyle, according to the complaint. Ewert later tried,
but failed, to have Mr. Glock murdered, to hide his own $100 million embezzlement. Helga
Glock maintains her ex-husband never told her about the incident. (Ewert was convicted on
charges of attempted murder in a Luxembourg court in 2003 and sentenced to 20 years in
prison.)
Besides working methodically worked to hide funds from his family’s reach, Glock convinced
both Helga Glock and his children into donating their company assets and waiving inheritance
rights in exchange for being made the beneficiaries of private foundations in Austria, Mrs.
Glock’s suit claims. After his divorce, Glock used his power to remove his ex-wife, his children,
and their descendants from these foundations and made himself the sole beneficiary.
These foundations that were supposed to ensure the financial stability of his wife and heirs now
fund a horse farm, where an Olympic show-jumper named London lives. Glock gave London to
his new wife as a present and, at $15 million, it is one of the most expensive horses ever
purchased.
“From what she’s now discovered, Ms. Glock accepts as true that Mr. Glock betrayed her trust in
so many ways in the course of their business partnership and has amassed much of the stolen
assets in foundations that he established and ultimately controlled in Austria,” John Da Grosa
Smith said.
Smith also oversaw the reversal of an embezzlement conviction of former Glock executive Paul
Jannuzzo, reports Paul Barrett in BusinessWeek, which is notable in that Jannuzzo was found to
be less of a criminal and more a victim of Gaston Glock’s personal vendetta.
No doubt Smith hopes to paint Glock as a monster once again, and the theatrical complaint pulls
no punches. Glock’s actions, Smith writes, “resemble the senseless and self-destructive rage of
Shakespeare’s King Lear, when he foolishly mistreats a loyal but candid daughter, Cordelia, in
favor of cunning and ruthless flatterers. Perhaps neither pathology nor psychology can provide a
satisfactory explanation for why an aging billionaire would spend his twilight years seeking to
terrorize members of his own family.”

The #1 Exercise That Accelerates AGING (Stop Doing It!)
Sponsored Content by nRelate
Tim Tadder/Corbis
09.29.14
How We Compute: Flexible Hardware
Required
In 1965, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted that the processing power of computers would
double roughly each year going forward. For hoodie-clad, Silicon Valley-types, this means more
transistors in a dense integrated tube. For the rest of us, Moore’s Law promises something far
more intuitive: an increasingly flexible, multipurpose relationship to our technology.
In a computerized society, the pace of technological innovation helps shape nearly all our day-today habits. Enabled by ever-sleeker and swifter computing devices, our lifestyles and business
practices have also grown increasingly sophisticated, multifunctional, and mobile over the last
fifty years. Just as there are no longer room-sized supercomputers that carry out single functions,
no individual fulfills one role, performs one task, or connects with one peer at a time anymore.
Computing has evolved from a 9 – 5 desk job into something more open-ended and creative.
Wherever you are, whatever you’re doing, computing power is now available. To support this
truly modern lifestyle, people are utilizing a wide-range of devices that are significantly less
cumbersome than their university-dwelling predecessors. One such device is the almighty
smartphone. Another is the convertible 2-in-1 PC, a multipurpose machine that adapts to meet its
users’ needs as they navigate busy schedules.
In order to understand how we arrived at this moment of maximum versatility, we need to take a
look back at how computing has evolved to meet today’s boundless lifestyle. From the dawn of
supercomputing to the 2-in-1 PC, this is not so much a history of computers as it is the story of
how we compute.
Nowadays tech developers are constantly striving to create the most integrated, streamlined
consumer experience possible. By comparison, the earliest computers were so convoluted they
required users to master a skill set almost as narrow as the machine’s functionality. Take, for
example, the very first supercomputer, the CDC 6600, which began analyzing photos at the
CERN laboratory outside Geneva in 1964. To keep this top of the line behemoth performing its
dedicated function, trained specialists had to familiarize themselves with its unique, byzantine
operating system. Far from encouraging creative exploration, the first computers practically
inhibited it. The story of how we compute begins here though, with multimillion dollar machines
the size of automobiles that could only be accessed by trained professionals on-site, during work
hours.
It wasn’t until the PC revolution of the 1980s and 90s that computing power finally made the
leap from the tech lab into home and office. Designed with consumer usability in mind, these
multi and general-purpose computers featured recognizable software applications, such as word
processors and, after 1989, web browsers. Compared to the CDC 6600, which cost roughly $60
million in today’s money and took up the space of several filing cabinets, these PCs could cost as
little $200 and fit onto a table (hence the term “desktop”). Smaller sizes, prices, and learning
curves meant greater access. Between 1993 and 2003, the number of American households that
owned a PC tripled. Yet in spite of the sudden rise in computer literacy, society’s computing
habits remained mired in 20th century office politics at the turn of the millennium. Using a PC
still meant tethering oneself to a desk for a pre-determined amount of time, which could have the
perverse effect of making computing seem more like a chore than an opportunity.
For people eager to unlock the creative potential and serendipity of the machines sitting on their
desks, this constricted arrangement would never suffice. Thankfully for them, technology
continued to evolve beyond the desk and we’ve arrived to the modern day where at the breakfast
table you can use a sleek piece of technological hardware to access the majority of human
knowledge. Today’s computing populace is learning that their devices can be as flexible as they
are. Whether its crossover dubstep sensation Skrillex mixing a new track in the backseat of
taxicab, or teen fashion wunderkind Tavi Gevininson Skype interviewing “super heroine” Lorde
from the other side of the planet, today’s hyphenated humans don’t feel they need to
compartmentalize their interests or passions.
At last count, the list of portable machines keeping us connected has swelled to include
smartphones, tablets, laptops, and, most recently, smartwatches. On one side, this arsenal of
mobile devices allows us to create, play, and connect whenever inspiration strikes. Serendipity
rules. On the other, there’s something slightly counterintuitive about a mobile lifestyle that
requires us to own so many different tools. That’s why over the past few years, it’s become clear
that the next era in computing will be defined by streamlining existing services, and reducing the
number of devices we need without sacrificing any of their functionality or versatility.
Just like the smartphone condensed the digital camera, mp3 player, and cell phone into a single
piece of hardware last decade, today the convertible 2-in-1 PC is integrating tablet and laptop
technology into one seamless computing experience. Rather than force users to select between
the convenience of a touchscreen tablet and the professionalism of a laptop keyboard, 2-in-1 PCs
empower users to customize their device depending on their mood and environment. When
you’re a dad streaming movies with your kids, it’s a tablet. Then, when duty calls, it transitions
easily into laptop so you can tap out an email or memo and get back to quality time with the little
one as soon as possible. For those of us who no longer distinguish between our leisure and career
devices, the 2-in-1 PC is the latest in technology that adapts to the way we compute.
By clicking ‘submit’ you are agreeing to receive marketing communications from Lenovo and
are providing express consent to receive these messages. You may unsubscribe at any time using
the link included in each email message.
This content is partner content, and was not necessarily written or created by The Daily Beast editorial
team.

The Most Corrupt Countries in the World
Sponsored Content by nRelate
Anthony Devlin/WPA Pool/Getty
Tom Sykes



Dame Angelina
10.11.14
WTF Is Damgelina Doing At The Palace?
Angelina Jolie is a great humanitarian. That doesn't mean she should have been made a dame by the
Queen
Let there be no doubt; Angelina Jolie is a remarkable campaigner and philanthropist who has
given her time, face and money to causes – specifically the attempt to stamp out sexual violence
in warzones – which many celebrities wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.
For this she has been rightly hailed. She is a person trying to use her massive influence to do a
great deal of good.
And what follows is in no way a criticism of her.
But, at the risk of making myself unpopular, wishing (or even managing) to do good works on a
global scale doesn’t justify Angelina Jolie being made a dame by the Queen yesterday, on the
orders of the former foreign secretary William Hague, for ‘services to UK foreign policy’.
The work Jolie has done is noble and of global importance. But a damehood
should not be dished out in thanks for sprinkling a little stardust on William
Hague's shoulder
Damehoods – the title is the female equivalent of a knighthood – are supposed to be specifically
reserved to reward public service and/or great achievement in the cause of the United Kingdom.
The Crown’s website says they are to recognise significant contributions to national life.
99% of the time, they are awarded to British or Commonwealth citizens, but they can once in a
blue moon be awarded to foreigners on an ‘honorary’ basis (the honorary nature of the honor
means Angelina will not in fact have the right to be addressed as ‘Dame Angelina’ in the UK)
Irishman Bob Geldof was famously made an honorary knight for his work for Live Aid. Even
though this was a massive and unparalleled achievement, and the campaign indisputably brought
great credit on Britain, it was still a somewhat controversial award at the time, even though Sir
Bob lives and works in Britain.
The announcement that Jolie would be made a dame was made during the summer, when Jolie
was included on the Queen’s Birthday Honours list. But on Friday, she attended an investiture at
Buckingham Palace and was granted a private audience by the Queen.
The resulting pictures of Angelina, dipping her head as she receives the Sovereign's benediction,
have gone around the world.
And some cynics like me can't help wondering if publicity was the British government's
principal intention when nominating her for the honor.
Her citation at the time the award was announced said that the award was for her campaigning
work fighting sexual violence and for “services to UK foreign policy”.
Inquiries by the Royalist to the UK Foreign Office, which recommended Jolie for the award,
reveal that Jolie is being honored for co-founding the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative
(PSVI) along with former U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague in 2012.
The Foreign Office refuted suggestions that the award was only being made because of Jolie’s
celebrity, saying, “The award is made entirely on merit. It entirely reflects the work she has
done.”
The PVSI aims to increase internationally prosecutions for sexual violence and support countries
in preventing and responding to the global issue.
In 2013, Jolie attended a PSVI conference with Hague, bringing together representatives for 125
countries, eight UN agencies, and 900 experts and survivors from around the world.
Undoubtedly Jolie’s work with Hague has served to raise awareness of sexual violence as a
global issue.
And if one warzone rape can be prevented thanks to Angelina’s work, then she is to be saluted.
The work she has done is noble and of global importance. No one disputes that. But a damehood
is not and never has been a reward for good intentions. Nor should it be dished out in thanks for
sprinkling a little stardust on William Hague's shoulder.
Honors are awarded for results and achievements that, frankly, make the UK look good, and add
to the life of the nation, be that sailing around the world or organising the London Olympics.
“To receive an honor related to foreign policy means a great deal to me, as it is what I wish to
dedicate my working life to,” Jolie said in a statement at the time the award was announced.
“Working on PVSI and with survivors of rape is an honor in itself. I know that succeeding in our
goals will take a lifetime, and I am dedicated to it for all of mine.”
My beef is not with Jolie, whom I congratulate on her work, and admire as human being simply
trying to do a little bit of good.
But that British government should have allowed our unique honors system to fall so
pathetically in hock to celebrity cheapens it imeasurably.
Comedy Central
Lloyd Grove
Jon Stewart and 'Meet The Press' Would
Have Been One Unhappy Marriage
NBC reportedly aggressively courted The Daily Show host to front Meet The Press. Thank goodness it
didn’t work out.
Chuck Todd took over Meet the Press barely a month ago, and already the chattering class is
nattering for his head. Apparently, the Goateed One is no miracle-worker, and the program
remains in third place, behind ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos and CBS’s Face
the Nation with Bob Schieffer.
But is it really possible that Jon Stewart could have saved NBC News’s ratings-challenged public
affairs program? It seems NBC News President Deborah Turness believed so. According to a
fresh report in New York Magazine, before settling on Todd—NBC News’s former White House
correspondent and host of MSNBC’s Daily Rundown as well as the news division’s longtime
political director—she desperately wooed the Comedy Central star to take over the broadcast
network’s signature Washington Sunday show.
After politely considering the idea, Stewart declined, the magazine reported.
In some ways, the maelstrom of gossip still swirling around MTP’s future is reminiscent of (stay
with me) a famous fable from the Torah. When Moses was a baby on Pharaoh’s knee—or so the
story goes—he playfully snatched the Egyptian monarch’s golden crown, prompting a very
alarmed Pharaoh to put his surrogate son to the test.
Two bowls were set before the infant—one containing gold and jewels, the other hot coals. If
Moses reached for the riches, Pharaoh and his soothsayers reasoned, it would prove that he was a
threat to Pharaoh’s reign, and must immediately be put to death. But if the little tyke grabbed the
coals, he’d be allowed to live.
The baby was naturally attracted to the bowlful of gold and jewels, but an angel intervened and
pushed his hand to the other bowl. He grasped a glowing coal—ouch!—put it to his lips, and
burned his tongue. But, even with a pronounced stutter for the rest of his days, Moses
survived.
Perhaps David Gregory—the former MTP moderator who was fired after five-and-a-half years in
which the show sank from first place to third—will explore the deeper implications of the Moses
anecdote in the book he’s said to be writing about his spiritual journey in Judaism.
For now, however, Turness can be cast as Baby Moses and Stewart as the bowl of sparklies
(leaving Todd, I suppose, the unenviable role of a pile of coal). According to the latest report—
which relies on “three television sources with knowledge of the talks”—Turness and her team
were so keen on scooping up the late-night satirist that “they were ready to back the Brink’s
truck up.”
It goes without saying that much stranger things have occurred in the television biz. My attempts
to obtain guidance from NBC News have been met with silence, and Todd emailed that he had
“nothing to add”—hardly a denial.
Acknowledging the obvious, that Stewart is “not a traditional journalist,” New York’s Gabriel
Sherman wrote that “he can be a devastatingly effective interrogator,” and theorized: “It makes
sense that NBC would make a run at Stewart. The comedian-cum-media-critic possesses
something that broadcast executives covet: a loyal, young audience.”
It’s palpably true that Stewart and his team of a dozen-odd writers have built The Daily Show
into a powerful Monday-through-Thursday franchise at 11 p.m. It’s also the case that his regular
audience skews young—80 percent of them between 18 and 49, according to studies—and that
Stewart’s smart, satirical, and often hilarious commentary is frequently cited by other media
outlets and serves as an agenda-setter for the liberal-elite punditocracy.
“For older folks, it’s probably too early in the day for bleeped fbombs, dick jokes, or Stewart’s fluttery sendup of Lindsey Graham as
Scarlett O’Hara.”
And, while most of his interview guests are authors and fellow entertainers flogging books,
movies, CDs and TV shows, Stewart has shown that he can get up for the game—and make real,
not fake, news—when he lands a big Washington fish such as the president of the United States
or the secretary of Health and Human Services. Stewart’s relentless dismantling of poor Kathleen
Sebelius and her weak defense of the botched Obamacare rollout probably led to her early
departure from the job.
And yet.
In my humble opinion, grafting Stewart onto a Washington Sunday show—a 67-year-old one at
that—wouldn’t have worked. Indeed, the body would ultimately have rejected the organ
transplant.
There’s no guarantee that Stewart would improve on Todd’s numbers. In terms of raw ratings,
Stewart’s current late-night audience is often smaller than Todd’s Sunday morning audience. The
Daily Show’s high watermark of 2.4 million viewers is around the same as MTP’s low, and
significantly less than Face the Nation and This Week.
It’s also a stretch to assume that younger viewers who love to watch Stewart and his team of
comedic performers at 11 p.m., four nights a week, puncturing gasbags and calling bullshit on
hypocrites, while tolerating the very occasional substantive policymaker interview, could be
prevailed upon to tune in on Sunday morning to watch him grill members of the House and
Senate, Cabinet officials, big-city mayors and the other usual suspects that populate MTP and its
rivals.
While Stewart enjoys a young and loyal late-night audience, the Washington programs enjoy an
equally loyal, if diminishing, much older Sunday morning audience which expects and demands
that their favorite anchors grill members of the House and Senate, Cabinet officials, big-city
mayors and the other usual suspects that populate MTP and its rivals.
For older folks whose viewing habits are deeply ingrained, it’s probably too early in the day for
bleeped f-bombs, dick jokes, or Stewart’s fluttery sendup of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey
Graham as Scarlett O’Hara. Why, they might even switch to amiable, Texas-accented, 77-yearold Schieffer, the television equivalent of comfort food.
From my two decades in the nation’s capital toiling for The Washington Post, I can confirm that
it is a cliquish, even tribal, community—The Post’s legendary editorial page editor, Meg
Greenfield, famously compared it to high school—and it is often baffling to outsiders who are
unfamiliar with its customs and ceremonies.
Consider the case of Iranian-born war correspondent Christiane Amanpour, who, for a miserable
15 months, parachuted into town to anchor ABC’s This Week before returning thankfully home
to CNN.
Stephanopoulos, Schieffer, Fox Television’s Chris Wallace (who anchors the fourth-place
Sunday show), and especially the late MTP moderator Tim Russert—who dominated the Sunday
show scene until his death in 2008—are all creatures of Washington, steeped in its folkways.
Russert was a top Democratic Senate aide and Stephanopoulos worked for the Democratic House
leadership before serving as one of President Clinton’s top advisers. Schieffer and Wallace are
supremely well-connected journalists.
While quick on his feet, funny, pointed and well-read, Stewart is a Manhattanite through and
through. (Okay, call him a Jersey boy who lives in Tribeca.) There is no evidence that he has
either the inclination or the patience to immerse himself in the politically parochial culture of
Washington; indeed, the opposite is the case (see his famously lethal takedown of CNN’s
Crossfire.) Can you imagine him happily presiding over a pundit panel, a Sunday show staple,
teasing out the policy prescriptions of Joe Scarborough, Peggy Noonan and David Axelrod? I
can’t.
So, for all the above reasons, and probably a bunch more, it’s a good thing that Deborah Turness,
aka Moses, reached for coal instead of glitz. But whether she can lead NBC News to the
Promised Land is another question entirely.

© 2014 The Daily Beast Company LLC
To Beat ISIS, the Arab World Must Promote
Political and Religious Reforms
If the U.S. does nothing, the Arab world will continue its slide into sectarian bigotry, political
repression, and madness. This will come back to haunt the United States.
Last week’s counter-terrorism conference in Jeddah can be summed up in two words: lost
opportunity. Why? None of the participants were representative of an independent, democratic or
critical voice in the Middle East. Rather, the Muslim scholars who participated were voices of
their inept governments, who condemn every dissident voice as a terrorist.
In the backdrop of the conference, President Barack Obama made his case for war against ISIS
in Iraq to the American public last week as well. Obama also sent a direct message Muslims
around the world that ISIS is not really Islamic and America is not at war with Islam. This
message was meant to hit the heart of the Arab Muslim world, but it fell on deaf ears.
Nonetheless, Secretary of State John Kerry is lobbying Arab allies to play a central role to insure
the success of the initiative, since ISIS poses a much greater threat to them than it does to the
United States. While this is a more responsible strategy on the part of the United States, the truth
is that Arab and Muslim states continue to pursue myopic and delusional policies that produce
more extremism, rather than countering it.
The United States has learned the hard way that it can’t withdraw its involvement in the Middle
East. Even local Middle Eastern politics, such as the composition of Iraq’s government, cannot
be treated lightly. If they are ignored they can become national security threats. Whenever Sunni
minorities, in the case of Iraq, or Sunni majorities, in the case of Syria, are excluded and
prosecuted by their governments, it creates the fertile environment in which Sunni jihadists
thrive.
Jeddah’s counter-terrorism conference did not address this overarching ill of the Arab world.
Look across the region: zero sum politics are the name of the game, and are only fueling the rise
of extremism. For example, a win for Shi’ites is considered a defeat for Sunnis, and vice
versa. In Iraq, the exclusionary and sectarian policies of Nouri al-Maliki resulted in ISIS
becoming an appealing alternative for the majority Sunni population. The transnational jihad
narrative became a bond for Sunnis, only after they were treated as outcasts by their government.
The Egyptian government is contributing to this rise in extremism also. Cairo’s policy of
crushing the Muslim Brotherhood shows that President Abdul Fatah al-Sisi has not sufficiently
appreciated history. His single-minded, iron-fist policy, which brands any opposition a terrorist,
serves only to create stronger degrees of radicalization within the movement. Today 20,000
Brotherhood members are rotting away in Egyptian jails, awaiting a death sentences by hanging,
often experiencing such horrific torture that they consider those gunned down in the Rabaa
massacre to have been lucky. This situation is very similar to the circumstance that produced Al
Qaeda’s top leader Ayman Zawhiri in the 1980s.
The truth is that Arab and Muslim states continue to pursue myopic
and delusional policies that produce more extremism, rather than
countering it.
More than oil, Saudi Arabia’s chief export is Wahhabism, which it has promoted around the
world through its embassies and mosques to eventually be cloned by jihadist groups, like ISIS.
Wahhabism is the most conservative, oppressive and exclusionary form of Islam, which
considers all non-Wahhabists enemies — especially Shi’ites. Osama bin Laden was steeped in
Wahhabism, as are many Sunni Jidahists in Iraq and Syria today, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Glancing at historical facts, the evidence is undoubtedly clear. The fundamental cause of the
production of extremism in the Arab world lies in a culture of oppressive political exclusion,
coupled with religious bigotry. It is up to the United States to do more to encourage inclusive
politics in Arab states, as it recently did in Iraq when it forced Maliki out of the prime minister’s
office because of his exclusive and sectarian policies.
The United States must review its policies across the Middle East. Standing by Saudi Arabia and
ignoring the oil giant’s double dealing is already proving harmful to American interests in the
region. It must take a stand against Riyadh’s promotion of exclusionary Wahhabism.
Likewise, pressure must be placed on Egypt to abandon its witch hunt of the Muslim
Brotherhood. In undertaking an effective counter terrorism strategy, the United States must
partner with the Arab states to undertake political reforms that ultimately lead to underwriting a
social contract in which every group of the population are represented and protected.
The strategy of General David Petraeus in Iraq, and the success of the surge, was based on a
political deal, that included Iraqi militia groups (the so-called “Sons of Iraq”) to band together
with the Americans to fight al Qaeda. In return, Sunnis became part of the Iraqi central
government and were paid almost $40 million. This is a successful example that can be
replicated across the region. If the United States and Iraqi government want to defeat ISIS, they
must now ensure the inclusion and protection of Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Yazidis, along with the
majority Shi’ites. Only then will the counter-terrorism effort truly destroy ISIS for good.
Eventually, a process of reconciliation must be initiated between Shi’ites and Sunnis. This
centuries-old dispute is played out today in a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which
has produced a monster that threatens the national security of not only Middle Eastern nations,
but also the United States. It must come to an end. The Obama Administration can no longer
hide behind the excuse that this is a local issue — it is quite the opposite. Local policy issues in
Muslim countries are transforming into US and European national security threats. The Obama
Administration must pursue a policy of severe sanctions against any and all countries that
finance jihadist — even if they are our own allies.
What will ultimately turn the tide in the Middle East are groups that actively advocate for a
democratic culture and its values around the Arab world. A campaign to promote these ideas on
every level must begin, as part of the counterterrorism initiative launched by Kerry. Grassroots
activism that makes a strong demand for democratic values can work in parallel with counterterrorism strategies to achieve more concrete results. Moderates can never become mainstream if
the leaders the West continually chooses to back are military dictators or internationally
politically connected despots — generation after generation.