Tag Archives: war

One Year From Now: The End of The American War In Afghanistan

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama has made one thing abundantly clear throughout his tenure in our nation’s highest office: Afghanistan will be done by 2014. Well, 2014 is now less than one year away, and the President is not shying away from his objective. Social media posts have gone out which announce the President’s goal and carry the message “One year from now we will be out of Afghanistan.” Just check the President’s Facebook page for more inspiring images and quotes. 

obama afghan exit strategy

Turning our backs on them

While that may give the American soldiers, their families, and the rest of our nation a nice fuzzy feeling that after more than a decade of war America will finally be free of major conflict, Afghanistan is little better than it was in 2001 when America invaded. The Taliban never went away fully, and most realistic scenarios involve engaging with the Taliban and bringing them in on a governmental level once America leaves. Which means that America pummeled a “terrorist” group for almost 13 years, spent countless lives and dollars, and in the end, that group still has a say in the government, women are second class citizens, and not even the closest American allies can be trusted.

Are there a few new schools? Sure. Are there areas that are much safer than they were before? Of course. But does Afghanistan have a culture that demands western-style democracy over central asian style tyranny? Do the people of Afghanistan want Karzai or a different warlord? How quickly will Afghanistan revert back to what it has always been: a tribal territory with different factions that has ignited at various points of friction essentially continuously since the Mongolian empire?

What the war failed to do was create enough value and security in Afghanistan for the quality of life to measurably improve. War by definition destroys, and there is no structure in place to rebuild the rumble like Germany after World War II. Afghan businesses are not very international, so they rely on domestic demand, many on a hyper-local level. Because conditions have not improved, business has suffered dramatically, almost to the point of no repair.

ROOM FOR HOPE?

The only bright spot in this sea of black holes is mining. The surface of Afghanistan might be rocky, arid, and not suited for much agriculture, but underneath the barren rocks is a treasure trove of minerals. Some experts have estimated the value of various elements to be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Being able to tap this resource and funnel the profits to governmental programs like social assistance and education would vastly accelerate the pace of change and development. And since the value of minerals and raw metals — particularly for electronics — is only increasing as supply in other countries wanes, a strong mining strategy should pay off heavily in the long term.

Yet historically, mining is one of the most corrupt industries. Extracting minerals is very capital-intensive, dangerous, and slow. In a place like Afghanistan, where opportunity is rarely presented, the chance to siphon off money would be too tempting for some, to the point where western governments (that should in theory bankroll these projects) might withdraw their support. A lack of infrastructure to deliver materials from mines to ports, security threats from rogue soldiers and extortionists, and zero immediate positive social impact are the main reasons why this hasn’t happened already. It’s not going to get better anytime soon, but the alternative to not creating a plan is worse.

In the absence of a strong national conviction to adopt a western-style culture of equality, any progress is going to be difficult to come by. If there was a sustainable solution, it would’ve been found years ago. Now the best that the US can do is throw in the towel and leave some security experts for an indefinite period of time to try and consolidate the central government’s reach by keeping malicious forces at bay, at least for the near term. It sounds horrible, because unfortunately, it is.

UN Passes Resolution Naming Palestine A State

Posted on by
Reply

In the most recent flare up in violence between Israel and Palestine, things looked set for a ground invasion by the Israeli army into Palestine. Luckily, and just in the nick of time, the plan was averted, sparing countless lives and major amounts of damage to Palestinian infrastructure. Then, just yesterday, in a move that has Palestinians celebrating in the streets, the UN overwhelming approved Palestines bid to up their status from observer to a nonmember observer state. It might sound like a technicality, but that word ‘state’ is oh so important. 

UN resolution recognizes palestinian state

Some good news in the gloom

The event overall was not a surprise, most countries in the world side with the Palestinian cause. The only nations that opposed it were Israel, America, and the nations that lie well within the American sphere of influence. Surprisingly, western countries like France and Italy also sided with the Palestinians, which may reveal a greater shift in the political approach to the Middle East.

Now, Palestine has greater access to the UN including international courts, and it will use this as bargaining power with Israel. Even in places like America, most people believe the best option for lasting stability is a two state solution. The problem is Israel’s defense. Since many Middle Eastern leaders and people despise Israel for its conception after World War II, returning to the pre-1967 borders probably won’t be satisfactory. In the case, Israel needs distance between them and people that might attack them. This has been the logic since the Six Days War: lock down Palesine to keep a buffer between Israel and other threats.

But you can’t keep an entire population in what is essentially a vast prison because of the threat to your security. The conditions imposed in Palestine by Israel are inhumane, and a solution must be found. The UN’s decision is a major step towards legitimacy, and will hopefully start to change the dynamic between Palestine and Israel, not nearly enough to put them on level-footing (we are decades away from that) but it’s a step up, and a cause to celebrate.

Israel Readies Ground Assault on Gaza

Posted on by
1

When the rockets began hitting the ground in Israel, the world tensed. The globe had been witness to this before, and the ensuing retaliation on the part of the Israelis. In an area of the world that has really never seen lasting peace since the beginning of civilization, the armies mobilize. Israel is now days or maybe hours away from sending ground troops into Gaza.

palestinian flag

The Right to Defend

Hundreds of Palestinians have already perished in the Israeli missile and aerial attacks since last week. Gaza is very densely populated because of its tiny size. Palestinian and Hamas fighters are concentrated in the heart of civilian areas. Normally, this would shield them from a western style power that is restricted by the laws of war. But Isreal has seen too many rockets, and has been dealing with this dilemma for too long to care anymore. They are going after Hamas no matter where they are.

THE RIGHT TO DEFEND

In the United States, where support for Israel is deep and unwavering, no one wants to see war. But one cannot deny that rockets shot at Israel with the intention of killing people constitutes an attack worthy of defense. The response will not be proportional, nothing in war ever is. Therefore, not much is going to come from the US in terms of disuading or outright stopping an Israeli ground invasion.

Egypt, the normal moderator between Israel and the Arab world, is, for the first time, led by a Muslim Brother and not a dictator propped up by the west. So far, their position has not changed significantly. They continue to negotiate for a cease-fire and for peace. With the history of wars between Israel and Egypt, and Egypt having been on the losing side, there is almost no possibility that Egyptian forces will be sent to mediate the invasion. Though they are prodding — along with Qatar and increasingly Turkey — for peace, there is not much they can use for negotiation.

THE MISSED OPPORTUNITY

The circle of violence has become institutionalized. It is the classic chicken vs. egg dilemma: Israel responds to attacks, killing many people, which causes new animosity and the need for revenge, which propels Palestinians to mount resistance movements and fire more rockets. Israel attacks again, and the cycle is repeated.

The only way to break the cycle of this violence is to improve living conditions in Palestine enough that people start feeling less animosity towards Israel and instead start to place a greater value on what they have. It is up to Israel and the world to rebuild Palestine the way that it rebuilt its own country after World War II up until this very day.

Now, as it stands, the Israeli grip on Palestinian land and the destructiveness of its attacks — which level entire blocks of cities, destroy communication, leadership, and infrastructure — means that the standard of living will never improve, it only continues to worsen. No amount of controlled buffer zones will provide lasting security for Israel. Its only option is to mount a humanitarian campaign to improve living conditions for Palestinians, open up trade, and integrate Palestinian businesses into their economy. If enough Palestinians are dependent on Israel for financial success, it will become less of a target.

The chances of this happening are close to zero.

Barack Obama Wins: Victory Speech [VIDEO]

Posted on by
4

President Barack Obama has won the 2012 election. Reelected comfortably for four more years, the election was over quickly, avoiding the horrible nightmares of provisional ballots, lawsuits, and recounts. When the dust settled, Obama cruised to victory in the majority of the battleground states, including the bell weather state Ohio.

barack obama michelle obama

Hope.

Elation abounds across the nation. Everywhere, those who voted for Obama are excited to see the man who reformed health care, took our nation out of a decade of war, opened up society for everyone, advanced the cause of all groups, and most importantly earned the trust of the nation that when a difficult decision needs to be made, he is the one to do it, can continue America’s crusade towards the future. We deserve it.

But the single biggest reason to be proud of America today is that even when corporations and special interests are able to do and say whatever they want — to drown the voices of actual citizens, to compromise equality, fairness, and our physical safety, to yield disproportionate influence over those who make policy — when it comes to the polls, we each get one vote. And we all voted. We voted to say that as a society we are equals as humans. We broke the teeth of the rich donors and businesses who wanted to profit at the expense of our nation, not for our nation as they so claimed.

And it is reckoning time for the Republican Party, whose fracturing divisions and increasingly marginalized positions will mean that if it remains unchanged, it will rapidly lose influence. They must accept that the majority of Americans want a better place to live, not a place that removes obstacles for some people to succeed, while leaving everyone else outside the gate. They must accept that religious influence to the point of clouding reality has no place in real political debate. They must accept that compromise is the only way forward.

As Obama says in his acceptance speech, we are hopeful. Sing it, Mr. President:

The Final Presidential Debate: Recap

Posted on by
1

The final presidential debate took place last night in Florida, with President Obama and Mitt Romney meeting for the final time before election day. With a focus on foreign policy, the debate went almost exactly as expected. President Obama walked away with a strong victory, but Mitt Romney did avoid the sort of hawkish tilt that has stained many Republican candidates in the past. 

horse and bayonets

It’s almost time to choose

It is much different to talk about foreign policy than to actually do anything on an international level. President Obama has taken a much softer and diplomatic approach than W Bush and many presidents before him. Obama has come under much criticism from the conservative wing for “apologizing for America.” This is nothing but selfish propaganda reflecting the fear that many conservatives feel when thinking of the world at large. Romney tried to make him look weak, and promised to restore the greatness of leadership.

It would be nothing short of impossible for Romney to lead the world as Obama has. Obama, from the sheer fact of being multiracial, compounded by his compassionate approach to every country in the world, has better united the world just by being a symbol. If there were a worldwide election, Obama would win with at least 90% of the vote. He is widely respected for his cool approach, which is extremely well marked thanks to the  glaring contrast between the “style” of W Bush.

When the conversation last night got to what each man would do regarding difficult situations in Iran and Syria, the American public got equal answers. Romney was unable to provide enough differentiation against what Obama was already doing, and his responses were nearly identical. This is not because Romney feels the same way as Obama, but because it almost never matters what the President himself thinks regarding foreign policy. Unless it’s something very big, It is almost always a decision made in the best interest of America taking all information and possibilities into account, from advisory teams comprised of foreign policy experts. Whatever Obama’s aides are saying to him now about the situations in Syria and Iran would be identical to what a President Romney’s aides would tell him.

Where the candidates did diverge was the size of America’s military. Romney has criticized Obama for wanting to “weaken” the military, and called him out for a reduced number of warships and fighter planes. Obama responded that the military has changed: we don’t have the same number of bayonets or horses, either. It is true that the role of the military is changing, but it is changing because it must.

Responding to the security challenges present in the world today, Obama has done a good job to reorient the focus of the defense department onto real threats. Beefing up cyber warfare protection, using drones to dismantle terrorist networks, and placing more emphasis on the Pacific region, are all examples of the reorientation. What Republicans refuse to understand is that the power of the United States military is still immense, and unrivaled in technological terms. It must stay this way in order to retain military dominance. Obama is the man to take us there over the next four years.

The Final Presidential Debate Preview

Posted on by
1

The final presidential debate falls tonight, capping the three part series and ushering in the sprint to election day. The topic this evening, foreign policy, might be one of the most divisive in general terms between the Democrats and Republicans. It is really two competing visions for America’s role in the world, divided by the means to the same end: a stable world in which America plays the lead.

But the substance is important. Republicans want to lead through force, by perpetually hanging the threat of war over the heads of our non-friends to keep us and our friends safe. Democrats, led by Obama’s efforts, see a much more internationally-led effort for world stability, where the United States uses diplomacy backed up by the strengths of our military.

There are too many schools of thought to determine who is right. The globe is a patchwork of interlocking cultures, just like the tectonic plates beneath our feet, that move and jostle, and sometimes erupt in a violent and harmful fashion.

Force, as a threat to keep nations in line, is less tenable than cooperation. Force can have a negative effect, a backlash, that unifies a nation, even when they are unifying behind an incompetent leader who is behaving dangerously. Cooperation helps the people of other nations, leading to progress and new connections that can have a long term effect on global stability. The European Union just won the Nobel Peace Prize, and for very good reason. Europe, since history began, has been at war, culminating in the two world wars last century. The European Project began as a way to integrate the countries so thoroughly that war could never been an option again. In that regard, at least for now, it has succeeded monumentally, to the point where the recent European generations know nothing of war.

Romney will have a hard time taking on Obama overall with foreign policy, and will focus on Iran and China tonight, trying to make Obama seem weak. While the nations who will be watching will take the debate with a grain of salt, messages to them can still get through. From Republicans, the message is: watch out, America will still come in there and get you. From the Democrats, the message is: watch out, the world doesn’t tolerate what you’re doing, and you’ll find it very difficult to go it alone. We’ll see what the American people respond to more, how well Obama can tout his credentials, or how well Romney incites the thirst for violence among the conservatives.

Obama At The UN Summit

Posted on by
Reply

The world’s leaders gathered in New York this week at the headquarters of the United Nations to discuss the world order. Obama spoke, offering his thoughts on Iran and Syria, criticizing both of them but urging patience. Obama avers that the world can deal with Iran without the use of force, though all signs point in other directions.

urging patience for Iran

“Nobody start any shit until November 7th, OK?”

Clearly with less than two months before election day, Obama does not want to sink the USA into another foreign conflict in the Middle East. With Russia backing the Assad regime in Syria, there is little that Obama can do without the risk of igniting a giant conflict and at least some sort of cold war-type stand off with Russia. Even if the rest of the world stands with the Syrian rebels, Russia is too big an obstacle for everyone to tackle when the limping economy is what is on most people’s minds. Democracies are, after all, controlled by the people.

But the thorn in Obama’s side, Israel, has been warning that it will strike Iranian nuclear complexes in order to stunt their enrichment programs and buy more time as the Iranian regime urges the world that it is going to use the nuclear capability for civilian electricity. No one outside of Iran, and some inside Iran, want them to have a nuclear weapon. This is not necessarily because the regime has promised to annihilate Israel, but because of the way that Iran fits into the world’s terrorist networks, providing arms and funding to groups such as Hezbollah. Iran would be much more likely to give a nuclear device to a terrorist group and let them try to reach a western target. This is more dangerous, since terrorists do not need to worry about the safety of a massive population like a sovereign government does.

Either way, these will be two big issues that face the next President. If Obama is re-elected, we will surely see some sort of ramping up of the aide provided to Syrian rebels, perhaps even the coordination of humanitarian buffer zones inside the Syria borders. As with the Libyan campaign, America will probably take a back seat role with NATO calls the shots. If Russia pushes back, the world should ignore it, knowing that Putin would probably not stretch his military forces away from Russia while so many protests keep popping up at home. If Russia laments the loss of its final naval base in the Mediterranean, tough shit, they should refocus their efforts on the Arctic anyway, with the melting ice opening up a bonanza of energy exploration, they could probably use their ships up there.

If Romeny is elected President, there is no telling what he would do. He would probably begin to act even more belligerently with Iran, solidifying the Iranian people with their leader and encouraging Iranian sympathy amongst other Middle Eastern nations. The sanctions in place are crippling the Iranian economy and causing unrest among the population there, effectively separating the government’s agenda from what the people need. The further apart those two things drift, the harder it is for the Iranian government to justify what it is doing. If it reaches a tipping point, there could be large scale protests and the possibility of policy change. If Romney postures like a guy ready to punch someone, Iran can say to its people: we need this weapon to make sure this guy never comes near us. The world will become a very dangerous place.

Obama’s War Comment

Posted on by
1

In the back and forth exchange between the two men vying for the presidency in November, Obama has been much more subtle, preferring sly jabs to the more outward Romney attacks. This is typical of any presidential election, where the incumbent tries to act presidential while the challenger needs to rile everyone up. But last week Obama made a sharp comment about Romney’s dialogue over the way that Obama has been dealing with other nations, that went along the lines of “well, go start a war then.”

teddy roosevelt mitt romney warmongering

Teddy would not be happy with Mitt

This is significant because Romney has revealed himself time and time again to lack any sort of foreign policy experience, but worse — he lacks any sort of interpersonal ability to act diplomatically. Romney is the sort of guy who is used to always being on top, it’s what money provides him. He equates this feeling with how he thinks America should act in the world. His approach of never apologizing for America, of viewing negotiations as weakness, and of insulting entire ethnic groups to raise money, do not make for a good working relationship with other countries who were so tired of Bush that they would vote for Obama to be the president of the world.

Obama can’t wait for the debates, where he can get into the intricacies of the ways that countries work together, while Romney huffs about needing more money for defense and standing up to other nations. It will be the same old tired debate that Republicans have been pushing for generations and Romney will look like nothing more than a Bush with 60% less gray hair.

Obama has been cautious of the way that the campaign trail affects world events, and especially the relationship with China. Romney, who is himself responsible for the growth of China’s manufacturing by sending American jobs over there, has been on the attack that the US isn’t doing enough to stop China from manipulating its currency. Romney would come out and criticize them (saying that he “would” means that he “is” but that he can’t be held “responsible” if something goes sour).

Any rational person would look at what the Federal Reserve does on a daily basis and argue that every single nation manipulates their currency to their advantage. Currencies shift up and down like the tides. Going after China over its currency is really the only way that Romney can criticize Obama, without doing any emotional damage. Which is why the individual attacks don’t matter.

What matters is the overall tone of Romney’s campaign and the way that he would always wield American military might over diplomatic reasoning, or, at the very least, speak loudly while swinging a big stick. Iran, Russia, China, all of them are in the Republicans’ sites as if they owned the world and they were criminals that needed to be put to death. The reality is, of course, a world where we must all live together whether we like it or not. No one wants more war, least of all an untested Romney, but in order to make that less likely, he has to cut off his own bravado.

Rage: The Middle East vs. Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The amateur video that caught the world’s attention is leading to regional unrest in the Middle East that is igniting like kindling. More than a week after it reached international notoriety, the rage and protests show no sign of dwindling. But what is this video really? Was it actually a critique on the Islamic faith? Or was it just a plot designed to infuriate muslims? 

There are many more than two sides to this story, but the two main sides are as different as the United States and Pakistan. On the one side, American standards of free speech have dulled our sense as to what is offensive, and cartoons and caricatures of Jesus are so common that they don’t inspire much of a reaction anymore. But it is more than a desensitization, America is a much more liberal place than traditional muslim-dominated nations. We believe in what we believe in, and accept that which other people believe in. The right of the individual trumps all.

In the Middle East, the idea of free speech is not universal, and many of the places that are trying to move in that direction have only recently been freed from tyranny which oppressed and punished overt dissent. The Koran forbids the portrayal of the prophet Mohammed. The Bible does not forbid the portrayal of Jesus, as every single church in the world will reveal to an outside observer. Though we in the west deem free speech as an inalienable right, it is not viewed the same way in other places. This is a fundamental difference where America has a 270 year head start. It’s going to take some time before the idea that an individual can say whatever they want to say, even if it’s not true, spreads across the world (that is, if it even remains this way in America).

The true shame here is the lives that have been lost, and an opportunity has been lost too. The film took an extremely negative view of the prophet Mohammed, and mocked him and his followers for believing in him. If (and this is not likely considering how much of an attack it was) the film was meant to open a dialogue about Islam and the way that it is interpreted today, it failed miserably. While there is a universal need for respect of all religions, there are also some aspects of civil rights under certain religions that are being ignored. The role of women in some muslim countries (like Saudi Arabia) is deplorable, and they are still centuries away from a society where a woman can have something even close to a “right.” Homosexual in Iran? Ha.

A square peg cannot be jammed into a circular hole unless parts break off. This is the case of the culture of the west and the culture of the Middle East. Each side sees the other through a lens of disdain, unwilling to work together but forced to by the globalization of technology. YouTube and the like are worldwide, therefore the American value of free speech is no longer limited by borders. Continuous violence spanning generations, suicide bombings, wars, everything that has happened in the Middle East has left a bitterness. So when a video like this comes out, it does nothing to help, it only piles a little more hatred atop the mountain that has already accumulated. Everyday that the situation doesn’t get better, it gets worse. Everyday that we go without addressing our fundamental differences in worldview in an open, positive, and constructive manner, is a step away from mutual respect and peace.

Supporting The Troops: Republican Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Mitt Romney’s epic failure to mention the sacrifice of our troops in his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention two weeks ago reveals a growing hypocrisy between the Republican party and how they perceive our military. Contrary to what every Republican will tell you, Obama has been a great Commander in Chief, and his actions reflect a true care and respect for our troops as human Americans and not as pieces of military hardware.

obama commander in chief

Republicans really, really, REALLY need to check what the word “support” means

First, Republican notions that Obama wants to eliminate the defense department is nothing more than desperate fear-mongering. If anything, Obama is working to strengthen our nation’s defense against the real threats of today. His reorientation towards the Pacific is in response to the rapid military rise of China. His use of drones — while not without moral controversy — has enabled the coalition troops on the ground in Afghanistan to inflict greater damage to rebel groups while staying further out of harm’s way. His support of coalition forces to topple Qaddafi in Libya is an example of how America should use its military advantage.

Yet Republicans attack Obama relentlessly for his lack of supporting the troops. But what sounds more like support: keeping troops on the other side of the world to die in a desert with no value to America while they train transition forces who turn their guns on the American soldiers as soon as they’ve been trusted? Or, bringing our troops to our shores and bases where they can be close to their families while actually defending America, our borders, and our close allies? If you think that sending troops to die is supporting our troops, you have lost your mind.

America will always have a potent military to maintain a favorable world order. Obama’s record shows that he knows how to use it. Romney’s complete lack of experience in foreign affairs, his multiple gaffes overseas, his disregard for the troops as nothing more than expendable assets, combined with the comparison he made of his sons campaigning for him in 2008 to military service, proves that he might be one of the last people that we would want to call Commander in Chief.