Category: National

For all the “shock and awe” scenarios at play in the attack on Iraq, perhaps the most shocking development so far was the gory grenade-and-rifle attack on American troops — perpetrated by an American soldier. Fifteen were injured and one — 27-year-old Army Captain Christopher Scott Seifert — was killed at a brigade headquarters in Kuwait.

The suspect, who apparently acted alone, has been identified as Sgt. Asan Akbar, an American convert to Islam. The erstwhile Mark Fidel Kools has been described as a “loner” better known for an “attitude problem” than competence. Akbar lobbed four grenades into three tents and then shot soldiers with his M-4 rifle as they tried to escape.

Two things.

First, the U.S. command needs to further review its policies regarding American Muslims on the battlefield. We don’t need a politically correct army. Their understanding of Islam and possible language skills, however, can be of obvious use, especially during an occupation.

But better screening certainly seems in order. By all accounts, Sgt. Akbar was of dubious ability — not just loyalty.

Second, throw him in with the Iraqi prisoners where he belongs.

There are valid reasons why the United States has invaded Iraq. America’s own national security in the era of transnational terrorism and mass-murder weaponry in the wrong hands is a decent argument for pre-emption. At least when you’re pre-empting a thugocracy that has defied United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 and refused to disarm for the last 12 years. And lest we forget, appeasement of pathological despots and mass murderers is never good advice.

The case for “liberating” Iraq, however, is spurious, if well-intentioned.

It is not the job of the U.S. to “liberate” other countries. It goes for Cuba or North Korea or anybody else we know is stuck with a despotic government and a crummy quality of life. It’s still not our job to change their government. And Iraq is no exception. It is the job, alas, of Iraqis to liberate themselves from a rogue regime. Even though we presume to know what’s best for them, it’s not our role to save them from themselves through invasion and occupation.

Of course overthrowing one’s oppressors is a daunting task, but there’s ample precedent.

This is not unlike the formidable charge of the Iranian people, who felt the need to be liberated from the Shah’s powerful regime. Cuba’s Battista and Nicaragua’s Samoza were chased into exile. Marcos was given the Filipino heave-ho. The Berlin Wall came down. The Soviet Union imploded. The list goes on. None required liberating invasions. All required indigenous opposition and subversion — with their own inimitable rallying points and politics.

The liberation of Iraq is not to be confused with the liberation of, say, Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq. Any more than the liberation of Belgium or Poland, which had been invaded by the Nazis.

And speaking of Nazi Germany, no, it wasn’t our job either to liberate the German Jews. Holocaust or ethnic-cleansing scenarios can’t be ignored because they are crimes against humanity. That’s why there will always be a need for a worldwide forum and lever, whether it’s a League of Nations or a United Nations. Ironically, that multi-national peace-creating-and-keeping, nation-building, war crimes-punishing option, however frustratingly imperfect, is now close to obsolescence.

Put it this way. If it were the proper role of the American colonies to overthrow the mother country, it is also the proper role of the Iraqi people to unyoke, i.e., “liberate,” themselves. It can be done.

Just not by us.

There are reasons to get physical with Iraq, but “liberating” them from their own government isn’t one.

Let’s get this part straight.

I don’t much like the idea of France, let alone Cameroon or Syria — Syria! — having to sign off on United States security. Neither do I like the 12 years Saddam Hussein has been able to defy the United Nations. He invaded and trashed Kuwait, lobbed missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, lost a war, agreed to disarm — and didn’t do it.

But I do like the idea of taking the war that was declared on us on Sept. 11, 2001, right back to the terrorists. Indirectly, Saddam Hussein is part of that menacing mix. He’s not al-Qaeda, but he’s an enabler with a sadistic, murderous track record. In the world of transnational terrorism and civilization-altering weapons of mass destruction, the cost of counterpunching may be unacceptably, obscenely high. That’s why President George W. Bush replaced the Cold War policy of containment with that of pre-emption. It so happens that Iraq is the first test case.

I also like making the U.S. — and the Middle East — safer places. I even like re-making Baghdad into Babylon.

Having said all that, however, here’s where we are. Being basically right doesn’t preclude the possibility of being wrong-headed and counterproductive.

President Bush’s rush to attack and invade, delaying enough to placate Colin Powell and maybe coax a rubber stamp out of the UN, has painted the U.S. into a foreign policy corner. “On your mark, set, set some more” just doesn’t cut it after you’ve drawn that line in the sand. Troops on ready lose their edge and morale, if held too long. You either declare victory, go home and ignore the Iraqi spin on who blinked — or you go to war.

However imperfect, and often maddeningly, hypocritically so, the UN has a role. It offers the auspices of legitimacy. There is, at least, a sense of some accountability. For all its flaws, its global forum represents hope for the planet. It’s why the U.S. pushed for its formation — and pays a quarter of its budget.

But when the world’s only superpower picks up its cards and shuffles off to a unilateral declaration of war, the UN is truly rendered obsolete. And the U.S. helped make it so.

Worse yet, the precedent is set for others to bypass the UN. Don’t think China, for one, hasn’t noticed. It doesn’t think an invasion of Taiwan, for example, is anyone else’s business. Including Taiwan’s. And how do you think the International Atomic Energy Commission regards American complaints about Iran unilaterally accelerating its nuclear program?

We can surely agree that America doesn’t need to be lectured to by France — unless we need advice on truffles. But France isn’t really the problem. Russia and China, two countries that really matter and have been on board in the fight against terrorism, are adamantly opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq as well. Even the Irish won’t let us use their airfields. Turkey, which is saddled with Iraq as a mutant border neighbor, can’t even be bribed into being a self-interested ally.

When you gather your close, staunch allies — at a table for four — and two thirds are Spain and Portugal, you are coalition challenged. While the U.S. disingenuously points to support from the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” no one is impressed by the lightweight likes of Eritrea and Estonia. The only countries actually willing to contribute troops are England and Australia. And that contribution could cost Tony Blair, America’s best friend in the world, his job.

Would that it only mattered on the logistical front. We can certainly win a war by ourselves against anyone. But whereas victory is said to have a thousand fathers, this one may be a bastard.

As many have noted, winning the peace can’t be done unilaterally. Especially in an alien culture, amid those already too disposed to see us as the essence of arrogance and hegemony. Yes, they’re wrong — at least on the hegemony rap — but a billion Muslims misperceiving the U.S. is not just THEIR problem. In the aftermath of 9/11, it’s very much OUR problem.

Those who were not signatories for military action are not going to be much help in the reconstruction of Iraq. They now think we’re arrogant, if not hegemonous, too. And that perception is also our problem if we want help in post-war Iraq. And we do.

Let’s face it. An American-occupied Iraq under Viceroy Tommy Franks stands a very good chance of not playing well in the Arab world. And that includes Iraq, whose populace just might not act as if they have been liberated. Some will likely turn on their “invader,” regardless of how we couch our arrival. Others will simply resume the historic Kurd-Sunni-Shiite fratricide.

Policing this mess — while pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure rebuilding — will be reminiscent of the ill-fated involvement of the U.S. Marines in Lebanon in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The likelihood of terrorism against Americans — at home and abroad — will only ratchet up. The color orange could become a permanent alert hue.

And lest anyone forget, the genesis of Islamic fundamentalist hate — and jealousy — for the U.S. is not our quenchless thirst for oil or the stationing of U.S. troops, including women, on sacrosanct Saudi Arabian soil. No, it’s ultimately the bloody, Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sure, the Palestinians are more at fault by virtue of intentionally targeting innocents — but Israeli policy is hardly innocent. Nobody gets more American foreign aid than Israel. For our $5 billion a year, we should at least be demanding that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon start dismantling the provocative settlements in the occupied territories. A regime change in Israel would also be welcome. The recent Bush Administration “road map” was a good idea — two years ago.

For all the trauma and tragedy that gripped this country after 9/11, there was at least the consolation that the truly civilized world was with us. If it were “us” against “them,” it helped mightily that there were more of “us” than “them.”

The unilateral Iraqi fiasco, however, has squandered much of that good will.

It’s sobering and disgusting to see so many around the world perceiving the U.S. as a bully and its president as a gunslinger. We could continue to say, in effect, we don’t care what others think, we’re going to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. That plays well to a lot of domestic constituencies, if the polls are truly reflecting public opinion. And it makes eminent sense to look out for number one first.

The irony, however, is that with the backing of most of the world, that formidable task becomes much less daunting.

The University of Michigan awaits word from the Supreme Court regarding the status of affirmative action at its law school. Meanwhile, athletic scandals at St. Bonaventure, Fresno State and the University of Georgia have disgraced those institutions.

They are connected. It’s all about admissions and standards.

In the best of all higher education worlds, here is what would happen.

Starting tomorrow race will not be a factor in admissions. For example, to accord a designated race more weight than a perfect SAT score, as UM has been doing, is outrageous. It’s as unfair to all as it is insulting to black Americans.

Starting tomorrow student athletes will have to be student-athletes. There will be no more athletic scholarships for those who wouldn’t otherwise qualify as student-students. The athletic loophole — almost exclusively for the revenue sports of basketball and football — is what causes schools, such as Georgia, to recruit academic misfits and then offer them sham courses taught by coaches.

This is what causes schools, such as St. Bonaventure, to bring in recruits with credited courses in welding on their transcripts. The SBU president, who was just jettisoned, even signed off on that one. This is also what causes schools, such as Fresno State, to hold their nose, open their wallet and hire the likes of Jerry Tarkanian.

And starting tomorrow “legacies” and “development applicants” will need the grades to go with the genealogy and philanthropy. For example, Duke University acknowledges that it has accepted 100 to 125 underqualified students annually due to family wealth or connections. It’s hardly unique.

In their heart of hearts, the scions of fortune and clout just might want to earn their way too. If not, too bad. If standards are to be color-blind, they can also be class-blind.

Timing is everything in politics. Had Florida Sen. Bob Graham been Al Gore’s choice for a running mate in 2000, he’d likely be Vice President Graham now.

Instead, he’s a 66-year-old senator recuperating from heart surgery who has just filed the necessary paperwork to run for president. Sure, he’s qualified to be president, but that’s never been enough. America’s political landscape is littered with the shattered hopes of intelligent, knowledgeable, competent men who couldn’t win this country’s ultimate popularity contest.

Graham is not exactly charismatic, and although he’s a political icon in Florida, he’s not particularly well known outside the Sunshine State. While he did gain exposure by heading the congressional inquiry into Sept.11, he’s still not considered a prime time “player” in Washington. Then there’s that weird habit of documenting everything, including the minutiae of his daily life, in those little notebooks. Some 4,000 — and counting. Imagine how that will play on Saturday Night Live or the Fox Network.

Moreover, he’s not far enough to the left to appeal to Democratic Party activists who exact inordinate influence in the early primaries. He’s the only one in the hunt, for example, who’s actually signed death warrants. He’s relatively late to the ’04 fray and needs to raise at least $20 million to be viable.

The odds are long, and his campaign seems likely to parallel that of President Orrin Hatch.

The Graham candidacy, however, represents more than a last chance scenario for Florida’s popular three-term senator and two-term governor. It’s also a statement about the competition. Call it a vote of no confidence in the underwhelming candidacies of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Much more telling, however, had to be the formal papers filed with the Federal Election Commission by former Illinois Sen. Carol Mosely-Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Mosely-Braun and Kucinich?

Why not George McGovern? He’s still alive. Why not Jimmy Carter? He still has eligibility left.

In fact, why not Ted Kennedy? He still has the Camelot connection. Or why not Jesse Jackson? He still has but one illegitimate child.

To Graham, an expert on national security who is at odds with the president over Iraq, the prospect of a re-elected George W. Bush couldn’t be more frustrating. A case can be made that President Bush, although beset with a troubled economy, an impending $400-billion deficit, homeland security anxieties and a polarizing, imminent war with Iraq, is still on track to be re-elected in 2004.

By default.

How’s that for motivation?

Tom Friedman, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, brought his first-hand, even-handed Middle East observations to town last week and spoke to a crowd of 1,500 at USF. Too bad his $45,000 speaking fee couldn’t have been picked up by the Bush Administration. They were the real target audience.

Friedman framed the impending war-in-Iraq issue in a broad, post 9/11 context. The Cold War status quo of two super powers, he noted, has given way to the “World of Order” and the “World of Disorder.” The latter includes “failed states” such as Liberia, rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq, “messy states” such as Colombia, Pakistan and Indonesia, and “Mafia and terror groups” energized by “super-empowered, angry persons,” of which Osama bin Laden is the archetype. Such individuals, he stressed, are the “real weapons of mass destruction” because, as opposed to Saddam Hussein, they are not deterrable. These “undeterrables” hate us more than they love life.

The daunting task facing the “World of Order,” i.e., the United States, emphasized Friedman, is to “lift up the “World of Disorder.” And that starts with Muslim nations that spawn those super-empowered and angry enough to have perpetrated 9/11. Such anger, stated Friedman, is grounded in three factors: U.S.-Israeli foreign policy, Arab humiliation for falling so far behind the Judeo-Christian world and rage at their own repressive governments.

The onus is on the U.S. to be “the best global citizen we can,” stressed Friedman. We also need to make the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis a priority and “get our own energy house in order” and stop treating Middle Eastern countries like “a big, dumb gas station.” And it’s counterproductive “to come at the world with a sense of contempt.”

For their part, the Islamic nations need an “authentic Muslim progressive ideology.” Staying mired in “awful, authoritarian governments” is an unacceptably dangerous status quo.

As for Iraq, per se:

*”Iraq has the greatest human and economic potential in the area.”

*”Iraq has everything to do with regime change — not weapons of mass destruction.”

*”Taking Saddam out is a war of choice — but it’s a legitimate choice. It is because he is undermining the UN; it is because if left alone, he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors; it is because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny; and it is because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won’t keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction.”

*”(Intervention) is worth doing if we have the support of the American people and the United Nations and allies. Iraq is all about day three. Just like Pottery Barn, if you break it, you own it.”

*”The U.S. can destroy any country on its own, but the U.S. can’t build any country on its own…We need a long-term partnership with the Iraqi people.”

*”Bush’s aspirations in Iraq are audacious, and he has prepared us for Granada.”

*”The Arabs will get behind this, if we do it right. While Osama bin Laden has authenticity, he’s no longer seen as a Robin Hood. Saddam Hussein may be more popular in the streets of Paris than Cairo.”

As for the Bush Administration, Friedman didn’t agree with the rush to massive troop build-up. He’s also concerned about “prehistoric” ideologies reminiscent of the Cold War.

He has, however, “no beef” with the FBI, CIA or Tom Ridge about domestic security. “They are doing the best they can,” he averred, “and we have to do ours — the press and the public.” Friedman’s advice: “Suck it up and learn to live with it. Let’s leave the cave dwelling to bin Laden.”

Friedman underscored that he has taken his own advice. “The only survival purchase I’ve made since Code Orange is a new set of Ben Hogan Apex irons.”

Al Gore took one for the team and, make no mistake, one for himself. Trent Lott should be taking notes.

In the case of Gore, the former vice president could see that he was not generating the kind of genuine enthusiasm or book sales a candidate — even one with a presidential popular vote majority in 2000 — would need to unseat an incumbent president with impressive poll numbers. Moreover, Gore would also need to overcome the duplicity of Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gore, however, rightfully gets credit for doing the right thing.

By opting out now, he gives other candidates more time and exposure to make their cases to the Party and to the voters. More importantly, he doesn’t prolong the possibility that a Gore nomination would inspire a retrospective grudge match with President Bush. A Gore-Bush replay would inevitably focus America on the recent rancorous past — and not the future. That’s a skewed priority that this country — beset with a tenuous economy and a worrisome war on terrorism — can ill afford.

Of course, Gore’s decision is self-serving. Right now the tea leaves don’t look good for any Democratic challenger in 2004. The Dems’ next best shot is in ’08. That’s when the electorate — possibly poised for another presidential pendulum swing — may be looking nostalgically at the Clinton-Gore economic record.

So, good move, Al. You’re still viable in the “never say never” election year of 2008. Plus you get Party plaudits for stepping down early when your sheer name recognition had you topping any ’04 Democratic wannabe field. You also got a “Saturday Night Live” gig you might not have been offered had you announced your no-run plans a couple weeks earlier.

Now it’s on to being a statesman and a reasoned, yet outspoken, voice of the loyal opposition who still has at least another campaign in him. Just don’t revisit the class warfare strategy. Look decisive, not divisive.

On balance, well done, Al. Your Party thanks you — and you did yourself a favor. How’s that for a two-fer?

As for Lott, the Senate Majority Leader To Be (Again) should do everyone — except the Democratic Party — a favor and resign. Preferably yesterday. Senator, at least look like you’re taking one for the team. In reality, of course, you’re merely pre-empting the embarrassingly inevitable: being voted out like a “Survivor” loser.

By staying on — for however long — you have become the Democrats’ favorite high profile Republican, a virtual mole. For as long as you hang tough, the Party is precluded from expanding its influence and appeal among black Americans. You cast shadows of disingenuousness and racism on Republican stands ranging from welfare reform to the minimum wage. By your groveling in sucking up to blacks, you are no longer credible — to any constituency — on racially sensitive issues such as affirmative action. Now you’re FOR it?

And one more thing. Enough of the Dixiecrap and enough of the apologizing.

Unless you want to apologize for not resigning yet and then apologize for taking so long before you finally do it. In which case, apology accepted.

This forum has taken up the subject of Islam — as in, it IS about Islam — several times since 9/11. No need to repeat the refrain. But recent events out of Iran, where security forces continue to battle thousands of student protestors, have prompted further reflection. The protests are picking up in frequency and ferocity. They are unabashedly political, pro-Western and pro-Democracy.

I was in Iran prior to 9/11, and now feel increasingly compelled to revisit the experience for perspective. And hope.

Ultimately we have more in common than conflict with most people, Muslims included. We have nothing in common with evil zealots, but we have enough in common with the rest. And that’s good, because one-fifth of the planet practices Islam.

Tehran is a noisy, nondescript, motorcycle-and-car clogged city of more than 10 million people — most of whom appear to be crossing the street at any given time. It’s also the capital of an official Islamic republic where an estimated half the population of 70 million is under 21. Two-thirds are under 25. They’re not particularly interested in repealing the 21st century — or revisiting “Great Satan” rhetoric.

The worst kept secret in this “axis of evil” theocracy is that there are double standards and privilege — just like in non-theocracies. The gated communities of North Tehran still stand in unegalitarian contrast to the impoverished communities of South Tehran. Foreign videos, stylish ensembles, chic coiffures and very open bars remain the cloistered rage behind certain stately, closed doors. American television is beamed in by satellite. “Baywatch” may be the most popular program in Iran.

Societal contrasts are as blatant — and ubiquitous — as Iran’s well-wrapped women, otherwise renowned for their beauty. Although most of their femininity is shrouded in public, their shopping habits aren’t: chadored speed bumps cruising through gold and diamond stores.

Along the streets of major cities such as Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan, it’s common to see modern office buildings juxtaposed to magnificently tiled, minaretted mosques. Colorful billboards draw the eye to commercial messages for toothpaste, pasta, toilets and mobile phones, as well as ideological ones featuring Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, (his successor) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, (the wary reformist) President Mohammad Khatami and martyrs du jour .

Pragmatism is alive and well evidenced by tourism strategies that exploit remnants of the reviled reign of the late Shah. His well-maintained, palace-dotted estate in North Tehran, for example, is now open to visitors — notably Germans, Japanese and French — as are museums that feature the Crown Jewels and the Peacock Throne. And dour likenesses of Khomeini are everywhere available — and still selling like kabobs — on postcards, pins, paintings, posters and probably placemats.

The people I met along the way — and yes, there are mild mannered mullahs — were uniformly open, gracious and typically taken aback — seemingly flattered — by an American in their midst. Some NATO allies haven’t been so hospitable.

The reality is that for Iran, there are more threatening villains than the erstwhile “Great Satan.” Iraqis, after all, are the real — eight-years-worth-of-devastating-war — enemy. When Iranians just want to feel superior — beyond being non-Arab, Farsi-speaking Persians — there’s always the lowly Afghanis, who were even then straining resources as refugees from Taliban barbarities.

Now more than a dozen years removed from the death of ultimate zealot Khomeini, there’s a sense that so much that impacts Iranian lives today — U.S. trade sanctions notwithstanding — has increasingly little to do with America and nothing to do with Americans. It has much more to do with Osama bin Laden, oil prices, refugee problems, a population explosion, xenophobic attitudes, theocratic bullying and governmental meddling in the economy.

Iranian opinion

I’ll cite two, arguably representative, Iranians, whom I believe spoke for more than themselves:

*Akbar Heshani of Isfahan is well-traveled, educated, fluent in English and successful in the Persian carpet business. He makes frequent forays into the desert to buy carpets directly from nomadic tribes. But he has the world view of someone who has lived in the West.

“First of all, I think America is a great country, and I love Americans,” said Heshani. “I think a lot of Iranians would say the same thing.

“But there’s also a lot — at least to me — that doesn’t make good sense. You have more freedoms than we do, and I won’t kid you, a lot of average Iranians would like more access to the internet, better television and videos, wine to drink at a restaurant, and so forth.

“But we don’t think, quite honestly, that Americans handle their freedoms with responsibility,” stated Heshani. “Your ‘free press’ is also free to pander to the worst in human nature. In fact, your media helped make the hostage situation, which was shameful and regrettable, much worse by playing to the crowd, which was the same 500 ‘students’ night after night at the U.S. Embassy. Your entertainment media gets violent and pornographic, and it’s reflected in kids getting murdered in your schools. With a ban on alcohol, we don’t have Iranians killing each other on the highways.

“I know this seems so repressive to Americans, but we don’t want your excesses,” added Heshani. “But as for our young people, who weren’t around for the Revolution, I think they would like some excess. I guess all young people do.”

*Eighteen-year-old Sepideh Siroos was studying architecture at the University of Tehran. Articulate in English, she chose her words carefully, well aware that nearby school officials were monitoring conversations between Iranian students and American visitors, especially the one who was a writer.

“I do not like the veil, especially in the summer,” she said. “But older women don’t seem to mind it so much.”

On a touchier subject: “President Khatami is a good man, but a lot of students want more change, more freedom. There is too much, how do you say, regimentation. You can’t think for yourself. I’m sorry, that is the third time I have been warned to leave this subject. You speak, please

Ever since 9/11, we’ve heard the hue and cry from various voices in this country that there needs to be much more of a public condemnation of that atrocity from Muslims. Especially the opinion-shaping influentials, whether they are religious or political leaders. Both American Muslims as well as those overseas, especially our “friends,” a number of whom pay fundamentalist protection money to stay in power.

We are yet to see such a massive outpouring of unequivocal condemnation. What we do get tends to come with qualifiers. Often with an undertone of moral equivalence. As in our innocent civilians had it coming because American foreign policy is too complicit with Israel.

It was, thus, with considerable interest did I note a letter in today’s St. Petersburg Times — from an Isam Sweilem — which was a response to a previous writer who had lamented that not enough Muslims were condemning terrorism.

Mr. Sweilem took umbrage at the allegation and “as a Muslim, as an Arab and as an American” then obliged. He condemned those who “benefited from the attacks on the World Trade Center,” as well as the anti-Chechen Russian government, Saddam Hussein and the “daily terror perpetrated against Palestinians.”

He then condemns those “who would use him (Saddam Hussein) as an excuse to attack and kill thousands of innocent people for their own gain.” F-16’s and Apache helicopters are also found condemnable, as are the “detention and imprisonment of the innocent.”

What is missing, however, is a condemnable omission. Nowhere does it condemn those who specifically, intentionally and horrifically target civilians, including children. Especially homicidal, suicide bombers. How did such evil, egregious acts not make Sweilem’s short list?

Also noteworthy was the context of his condemnations: “as a Muslim, as an Arab and as an American.”

In that order.

It’s axiomatic that one of the most popular people in any NFL-franchise city is that team’s back-up quarterback.

The reason: it’s easy to look good when your mistake-free, non-playing status is juxtaposed to that of the starter — the high-profile guy who periodically screws up and is the fall guy for the team’s underachievement. Selective recall predisposes fans to edit out the back-up’s shortcomings — and the reason he was relegated to back-up status in the first place.

Take the case of the Tampa Bay Buccaneer’s Shaun King, a former starter who actually backs up a back-up. King’s relegation, lest we forget, was a function, in part, of “small-hands” fumbles; inability — at less-than-optimum QB height — to see over interior lineman; and reluctance to work hard enough in the off-season. Notably, the expectation bar for King was set so low that in the win-at-all-cost world of professional football, King was merely asked “not to lose.”

In the case of presidential politics, the economy, foreign affairs, scandals and even philosophical underpinnings may prove decisive and carry the day in a given race. Pundits and party activists can then deconstruct the results until the next cycle. In 2002, it was, arguably, about presidential coattails and Karl Rove. As well as a Democratic message that was inaudible and a party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who wasn’t.

But ultimately it comes down to this. The “ins” never looked so good as when they became the “outs.”

Those who haven’t been in power start to look increasingly viable as memories of past failings fade. Incumbency inevitably yields screw-ups, a desire for new faces with fresh, new centrist ideas and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitudes. It’s the political counterpart of fickle fans calling for the head — or at least the job — of the incumbent signal caller who takes sacks, throws interceptions and fails to convert on third down.

The party carrying the sideline clipboard has one main responsibility. Be ready when the opportunity presents itself. In the mean time, continue to look good by default.

And never throw away those “It’s time for a change” bumper stickers.