Reflection: World Politics

I thoroughly enjoyed everything about the World Politics class, even the enormous amounts of reading, which were interesting and impressive enough to make up for the time consumed reading them. In my first semester out of high school, the discussion-based, largely independent format of the class was a big change, and everything I had always wished my classes were more like. The wide range of different views and theories taught in the class was nicely reflected by the variety of interests and political opinions held by the class members.

The class discussions were my favorite part of not just World Politics, but all my current classes at AU -- the setup was simple, but open to a huge range of ideas and directions to go in. Just a prompt and the beginning from the readings and Professor Jackson, and a few periodic nudges in some of the more interesting directions (because in this class there was no right or wrong direction to go in), and the students took care of their education on their own. It became so interesting to participate in the discussions that there were times that I could’ve let a class period last another hour, just so we could clean up loose ends of whatever fascinating idea we had stumbled upon. In fact, discussions were sometimes so fulfilling and interesting that I became suspicious about whether or not PTJ was subtly manipulating us into discussing a topic that he specifically thought would give us insight into World Politics, which totally destroyed my ability to trust that he had no hidden agenda whenever he brought up a subject. Sometimes the connections we made and the insights we gained seemed a little too perfect, which made me paranoid -- was international relations really so complex and intertwined a subject that mere freshman college students could have a semi-intelligent debate over it, or were we all just being fed information in a form slightly more subtle than a lecture? Either way, I learned (by doing, rather than just listening) a lot more about how international relations and global politics works than I would have in a differently-styled class.

World Politics is not just a class for those interested in IR, it helped me to understand my other classes better than I would have without it -- Comparative Politics, Law, Economics, even the essays I had to write for College Writing. If I get the chance to have another class like this one, I will most definitely take it. Anyway, this class was like a breath of fresh air, and if other college classes are similar to it, a brilliant introduction to my college experience. In high school, no matter how interesting the subject matter can be, the way the classes teach always restricts the enjoyment I could get out of the subject. World Politics made me more confident that I could in fact choose to learn and figure things out by myself and with peers, not just from experienced experts, although they do help me to remember what I’m talking about in the first place.

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.”

~ Paul Simon

Reflection: The End

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60yecA1hEU

Well, we've reached the end of our glorious mission together in World Politics.  Honestly, it's been an amazing ride, and I'd do it all over again.  With less articles though.  I was honestly amazed that I was exposed to so many different points of view in our class.  I can safely say that one of the reasons I decided to come to American was its predisposition to have liberal-leaning students.  Needless to say I was surprised when half of our class seems to lean more towards the right (you may blame that on political shifts in current affairs, but that's besides the point).  But really, would it have been better as an echo chamber?  Probably not.  I don't know how you did it, Professor Jackson, but bravo.

I was very interested in the strategic aspects of world politics, and how we can relate everything we see to life around us.  I mean, I can't even name all the times we would be arguing about something on the floor and something about realism/liberalism/constructivism would come up because it honestly did actually apply there in that situation.  The application of what we've learned is really evident in all we do, and it's important to remember that going forward.

But to be honest, this class helped affirm what I believe I want out of my college experience and what I will be doing going forward.  To be honest, I came to AU believing that SIS would be at least one of my majors here, econ being the other.  I now realize that International Relations really isn't for me.  My opinions could change later on, but I don't see SIS being in my future.  I think the times in class where we discussed economics and poverty seemed to be the most pertinent to me, and I feel that has given me reason to believe that I chose right in being an economics major.  World Politics was still an amazing class though, and everyone should experience it.

Reflection: The Crazy World of World Politics

So the semester is coming to a close and in a month I will have a completely new lineup of classes to dive into. Yet World Politics will stay by my side in the form of a research project. I’m not going to lie and say I’m thrilled about all the research I will have to do, but it will be a good test of the material we learned in class. Speaking of tests, I never imagined a college class without any conventional exams. Having class based solely on discussion and a few essays and simulations was an interesting and unique experience. While I honestly disliked this unorthodox class structure, I’m sure I learned a lot more from this class rather than a one where a professor simply lectures about world politics.

I was surprised by the sheer variety of ideas the class exposed me to. Not only did I have to mind-numbingly read sophisticated books and articles, I had to understand where my classmates were coming from too. The class discussions intrigued me as to how well people can make a coherent argument backed up by evidence. I didn’t realize how different another person could interpret a text than the way I read it. What initially shocked me was how lively and interesting the discussions were. When researching for colleges, I heard that American is a very liberal school, yet I think both sides of the political spectrum were present during discussion. This class truly tested my critical thinking skills unlike any other class. If one class had to represent AU, this World Politics class would definitely take that spot.

Sovereignty and Difference — Narrowing Down what Qualifies

Sovereignty can certainly be a tool to protect those who are “different”. While difference is not the only thing associated with sovereignty, sovereignty is essential to protect differences that are present in society, especially those of groups or cultures that are diametrically opposed to each other. However, historically, there have been several different factors that make this a viable option.

One obvious way sovereignty protects difference is the protection of minority groups from persecution. There are two ways for a minority group to protect itself -- one, change society around it to accept them, or two, form their own safe haven with rules that applied to them and borders that defined the extent of the rules. This second approach worked much better a long time ago, when minority groups usually all lived in the same geographical area and their oppression originated from an external force, but there are also variations to it, most obviously, in the definition of what constitutes a difference. One example is America, which broke off from England to become an independent sovereign state. America became sovereign because of difference, even though they weren’t a different cultural or ethnic group in the traditional sense. Even though at the time of the American revolution, Americans identified themselves as English, the colonists’ differences from other Englishmen is what caused their separation. While they didn’t have a radical cultural difference from the rest of Britain, they were treated by the British government differently than other british people, in a negative way, especially with regard to economics. Eventually, the American colonists’ differences with the British government became so great that it trumped the colonists loyalty to Britain and self-identification as British, and caused them to gain independence, and sovereignty to retain their independence from interference by the British.

An interesting parallel between Rosenblum’s book and the revolution is that in both instances, the group seeking independence was geographically grouped together and isolated from the motherland -- Earth and Britain respectively. In these situations, it’s not a lucky chance that both groups happened to be isolated and could therefore easily form a sovereign state, but they wouldn’t have developed the differences that would cause them to feel the need to form a sovereign state, had they not been separated. (While the first colonists were persecuted minorities fleeing England, this same movement of immigrants was not the one that would later push for American independence.) It was their geographical difference, in conjunction with their differences in values, that made sovereignty a plausible way of protecting differences. This ties in with the still-valid notion that a nation-state, fixed and geographical in definition, is the only truly accepted sovereign entity. Therefore, while sovereignty does indeed protect difference, it only protects a specific kind of difference, one that is partially based on geography, and cannot be a solution to the protection of all forms of difference.

Reflection on World Politics

This semester World Politics class has been a great look in to the world of International Relations. Before taking this class, I did not know much about the art of international relations and how so many things, such as identities and perspectives, affect the way countries interact with another.

It was also interesting to look at the different ways scholars look at countries' behaviors and classify these behaviors into theories, mainly realism, liberalism, constructivism and other versions of the three. Struggles for power, social and national identities, and international cooperation all can affect the way countries interact with one another, depending on which theory you look at.

Also, examining international issues and realizing that there are so many ways to look at them and interpret them depending on which IR theory you employ showed me that International Relations isn't an exact science, it's not black and white. It's an art, a game of chess, trying to predict the opponent's next move and strategizing to benefit yourself and (maybe) your allies.

Sovereignty Protecting Difference

I agree that sovereignty can be a tool in protecting those who are labeled "different." In Horizons, the space-residing humans are under attack by the regular humans because of the space-residing humans' different appearance. Establishing "a nation with the power to protect its own" can better protect and cater to the needs of the particular group, in this case the space-residing humans. With having their own sovereignty, these humans can more easily protect their needs and security. If things don't mesh (the interests of different groups) it is easier to just keep them separate.

Also, with their own sovereignty, groups can more easily target what their needs are and either implement effective policy or communicate them to other groups.

Overall, sovereignty is beneficial to groups that are "different" because it allows them to focus on their needs and protection from infringement and attack from other groups.

Reflection on North Korea

North Korea fired artillery at South Korea and claimed it was a "response" to South Korea's naval drills. Heightened tensions have frightened people into thinking that this could be the beginning of war.

I don't think this is war, but I think it is a way for North Korea to display its power and capabilities after being pushed to the back burner by sanctions. North Korea might have felt the need to assert its still existing power in the global sphere.

Also, traveling home for Thanksgiving made me think of the TSA and their new security measures. When I arrived home, my family asked me if I was "felt up" by the TSA. I told them that security wasn't any different from what I have experienced before, but I did hear about the pat downs and body scanners that the TSA was now using and people's protests about the new security measures. It is interesting to see how people support increased security to keep them safe from attacks, but once this security creeps up on their civil liberties it is no longer appealing. It creates a double standard. People want to be protected, but don't like certain protection measures implemented.

Reflection: Does North Korea have anything to be thankful for?

My Thanksgiving went pretty well, though it would have went better had the Red Sox actually made a trade or signing or something as an early Christmas present.  While this was a disappointing development (or lack thereof), I was happy to see my family again.  Although, I have to say that I was surprised that my usually up-to-date family was unusually silent on one of the more controversial and alarming issues in world affairs lately and that is the sudden escalated tension between the South Korea-United States and North Korea.  While we were passing around the rolls I was just waiting for my grandmother to say in her abrupt and loud tone about "what the hell is going on with North Korea." Perhaps my family is unconcerned with the thought of a (more) assertive North Korea, or perhaps they are much too concerned that they didn't even want to discuss the possibility of a nuclear standoff in East Asia, and possibly in the Western Hemisphere.

A best guess on my part is that my parents side with the former way of thinking.  Like it was discussed in class, I feel that North Korea is merely showing its teeth in an era where we've become accustomed to a more liberal, transparent world power apparatus that such a display of a realist method is distressing to nations and people across the world merely because it has become an antiquated technique among developed and even developing nations.  North Korea knows internally that it's going to be difficult to assert their (imagined) authority over the countries of East Asia once their "fearless leader," Kim Jong-Il passes away.  It's similar to what will certainly be a problem for Cuba once the man who is now supposedly working behind the curtains, Fidel Castro, finally kicks the bucket.  Also, as was noted in the New York Times this morning, South Korean officials and diplomats feel that after Kim Jong-Il dies, it will only be a matter of time (likely a few years) before the government collapses. China, through the new WikiLeaks story, has shown impatience with North Korea, perhaps signaling that their mutual friendship that has spanned decades may finally be coming to an end.  North Korea doesn't really have any other friends in the world; China is their last hope.  I mean, if the United States were a nation run like North Korea, and we had a dynasty family running things in our country, wouldn't it be rather destabilizing once the leader died and a transfer of power is taking place?  North Korea may not get another chance for a governmental change for years, as Kim Jong-Il's heir apparent, his son, would probably lead the country for decades to come.  The government, wanting to keep its authority over its people intact, and at risk of losing their only real ally, will attempt to

Reflection: Thanksgiving and East Asia

This Thanksgiving I was thankful that I have a family that’s there for me. Living such a long time away from home reminded me how I took a loving family for granted. Even though I’m no longer a permanent resident of my house, I didn’t feel any different. I felt exactly the same as I did in high school, just enjoying the break with family and friends. My home computer was taken over, but that’s forgivable when you got a shiny new laptop for college. Besides the good food, I missed the average conversation at the dinner table. I also missed my dog so much. It felt weird saying goodbye to my parents when I’m going to be back in just two weeks. I find it funny that people quickly change their minds as to where they want to be. When you’re at home, you wish you were at college; when you’re in college, you wish you were home.

This Thanksgiving I was thankful of my family, as well as for not living on Yeonpyeong Island. I don’t know what’s scarier, the possibility of a full scale war or living in constant fear of attacks. While I’m pretty sure North Korea doesn’t want a full-on war, I’m not optimistic that the whole situation will end on a happy note. South Korea so far hasn’t taken North Korea’s taunts strongly enough to take it to the next level, but the new President might respond differently. The reluctance of China to condemn North Korea’s actions is too bad. I don’t think it would be in China’s best interest to associate itself with such a country as North Korea. If China wants to grow into a major superpower, it would be beneficial to ally itself with countries that have good reputations. Even though I understand that China doesn’t want to look like its taking orders from the U.S. and South Korea, I think China would gain an improved record for helping tame a problematic neighbor.

Reflection: Throwing Money at the Problems of Today

The discussion in class last Tuesday focused on the allocation of resources toward global problems in our contemporary society.  If the world were to suddenly create 50 billion more dollars, without worry of inflation, what would we spend it on?  What is the most efficient way to go about using the money to solve a universal issue?

In the lecture we read/listened to, the man seemed to give credence to the theory that it would be better to use that money toward abolishing hunger in the world's developing nations, or using it to fight an epidemic like AIDS.  Certainly these are noble causes, but he seemed to brush off the threat of global warming as unimportant and irrelevant.  Perhaps hunger/poverty issues should take precedent over global warming, as no one really ever died over global warming.  However, if it is a global inheritance of this money, shouldn't the funds be used to fight an issue that affects those in Switzerland as well as those in Swaziland? I'm pretty sure bioterrorism isn't a majorly pertinent issue in those nations, but the threat of global warming doesn't know borders.

Investing in a "Manhattan Project" of the 21st century could help spark initiative in the world to pay more attention to green technology.  We could save our planet and secure our economic security for decades to come.

Poverty can't be solved, and to be honest terrorism can't theoretically be solved either.  However, global warming can only be solved in a subjective light.  We can't all agree even at this time that climate change is real, and much less whether it is man-made or merely natural.  Perhaps funding should be put aside for the advocation of global warming measures, since a great segment of the population (including an alarming number of people in our class) still believe global warming to be a false prophecy of the future.

I'll actually quote a Republican to finish this reflection.  Before he began his run to the right in order to get re-elected, Senator John McCain noted this about global warming in a debate between his Republican counterparts during the presidential campaign:

"If it's real, then we can help save ourselves from a global disaster.  If it's not, then all we've done is left our children and our grandchildren with a cleaner world."

Maybe we should just have some tax cuts?  50 billion dollars could give every person in the world about $8.15.  Pretty sweet deal.

Reflection on Columbus

Reading about Columbus in The Conquest Of America was a very thought-provoking experience. Columbus comes off in the book as a highly eccentric person at best, and a total lunatic at worst. He seems so irrational and downright deluded that it’s almost hard to hate him, because if he really was so out of his mind as to punish people for suggesting that Cuba was an island just because he wanted to have reached Asia, how could he have hoped to comprehend or draw any logical conclusions from his interactions with the native americans? While I had always known Columbus had all the closed-mindedness and religious rigidity of the times, I had never heard just how bizarre a person he was. Perhaps his exploits in the new world weren’t quite what would be expected of a typical European explorer. If another person had discovered America instead of Columbus, surely they would have had a different approach.

The question, however, becomes how different? After all, while Columbus was undoubtedly someone who would seem strange to anyone, in any time era, were his overall actions in the Americas that far from the norms of the times? While his sponsors were taken aback by his enthusiasm, and his crew noted how odd his behavior was, he ultimately did not get labeled as someone who was famed as being chronically deluded. Even modern times, with the sharp increase in acknowledging Columbus as being nothing close to a hero, usually emphasizes the quest for gold and ill treatment of the natives he recorded in his letters, not his convictions that mermaids existed. Perhaps we are viewing him from too far in hindsight, from a time when logic rather than faith was the norm, for if he had truly been considered as strange as he would today, the reputation would have followed him. We see mild versions of this even nowadays, with the flaws and eccentricities of various public figures being brushed over as not being a big deal in their lifetime, only to provoke outrage much later on. What is considered normal for a culture steadily changes over time, and it was clear that even if Columbus's actions did not represent an average European, they were not wild enough to severely damage his reputation as the great discoverer of America for many centuries.

Reflection: Native American Museum

Visiting the Native American museum was interesting to say the least. As discussed in class, there is almost no mention whatsoever of the horrible treatment of Native Americans by the “new” Americans. While going through the exhibit and not seeing any harm caused to the Native Americans, I thought the museum must have a section reserved for all the atrocities. I assumed this was the case because the museum wouldn’t want to make the whole place depressing by adding relocation and deaths after many of the tribes’ history. They might as well share the tragic stories in one big swoop. I was shocked to learn that this wasn’t the case at all. They simply left out a gigantic section of Native American history. I’m extremely surprised that Native Americans haven’t spoken up against what I see as the bending of truth. They aren’t telling the truth when they don’t tell the whole story.

To put this in perspective, Congress in 2003 authorized the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture to be built in 2015. Suppose they decide to totally emit the history of slavery. Without a doubt that would spark a major public outcry. I don’t understand why Native Americans as well as the general public aren’t outraged at the museum’s portrayal of history. I know that the passing of time comes with a “relaxing” of past tragedies. It seems that this happened such a long time ago, that it doesn’t really matter anymore. No one alive today was involved in slavery, yet I bet many people would care if museums didn’t mention it at all―even if the United States wants to keep its terrible past to a down-low. I think this is an injustice Native Americans and the country should fight to correct.

Reflection on Columbus' Motives

Was it gold or god that brought Columbus to the new world? Was it gold or god that made him treat the Indians so poorly? Columbus claimed it was god and his desire to spread the greatness of Christianity, but was it really?

One of my favorite musicians, Julian Casablancas, once said "Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer." This can be applied to Columbus and his "holy" mission. Columbus was motivated by greed for gold and power and that was why he treated the Indians with injustice If he were really embarking on his voyage to spread Christianity I don't think he would have looked upon the Indians with superiority, but would rather treat them with compassion, like Christianity teaches.

Greed always encourages us to act unfairly toward others because we are blinded by what we desperately desire.

Redskins vs. The Many Native American Nations

The Museum of the American Indian is a much more acceptable depiction of Native Americans than the exaggerated, easily-represented, old-fashioned stereotype used to symbolize the Washington Redskins. In the pop-culture encyclopedia from which simplistic concepts like sports teams are taken, the native american is a feather-adorned, red-skinned, warpainted, weapon-wielding noble savage. Like all stereotypes, this image takes a grain of truth and treats it as though it is the whole truth. As shown by the museum exhibits we saw, native americans are a vastly complex, varied series of different nations, all of which have unique identities. The “Native American” is not a single idea, but a term that can only be used correctly when referring to all the indigenous people of the Americas.

The depiction of the Native American given by the Museum of the American Indian is one of a number of different people who are described as human beings, with the histories of any other number of world civilizations and the same modernization and variation that other cultures have today. The pop-culture depiction embraced by the Redskins strips the humanity out of native americans, reducing them to an outdated cliche that, after bombarding the population enough without opposition, begins to affect peoples’ thoughts about real Native Americans. Without a strong presence of real Native American culture to be an alternative, the cliche is sadly all the exposure some people receive to the idea of Native Americans. And when this is the only idea they have to work with, Native Americans logically seem like an idea that isn’t real, and can’t really exist in the modern world, and become in peoples’ subconscious minds an extinct concept, like crusaders or Arthurian knights.

Largely because of this, the fact that Native Americans are real people who not only live in the present and are nothing like the stereotypes depict, but are also a people who still struggle with ongoing problems left over from the European conquest, slips many peoples’ minds. This is not just a matter of cultural knowledge and sensitivity, but poses another hurdle for the problems of Native Americans. When a marginalized group, such as African Americans during various periods of history, are given attention and presented accurately, people quickly begin to figure out the injustices and problems they deal with, dismissing flawed conceptions of the group in question as they go. But when a group is pushed to the side and never gets a chance to speak, overcoming any problem becomes much harder. And because the stereotypes of Native Americans is so pervasive (and not nearly as widely derided as stereotypes of most other minorities), Native Americans not only have to make their voices heard, but have the added task of doing away with the stereotypes first. After exposure to Native American cultures, such as the exhibits of the museum, it is simple to see that it is a more acceptable depiction, because it is a more accurate depiction. Unfortunately, too few people get that kind of much-needed exposure.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

Benjamin Franklin

Is Columbus to Blame?

I think Columbus did have a bit to do with the direction of how the native people of America were treated. Columbus came to the "new world" with a slight superiority complex, thinking that "civilized" European culture is what these "uncultured" people with no religion needed.

Columbus couldn't accept that the natives had a different culture, language, and religion that served them perfectly well before the Europeans cam along. I think Columbus' treatment and view of the natives set a precedent for how others treated and viewed the Indians. Good relations in the beginning between the Europeans and the natives could have led to better ones in the future. The constant push of Christianity and European culture and values on the Indians, however, diminished the potential for cooperation, made the natives feel threatened, and caused conflict.

Blame Columbus

It is completely fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he “discovered” the Americas. Columbus essentially decided how the Native Americans were going to be treated the moment he stepped foot onto the “New World.” While he can’t be blamed for bringing diseases like smallpox to the natives, he is at fault for setting the tone for the negative treatment of Native Americans. He promised gold and slaves for the Queen of Spain, even though Queen Isabella didn’t want slaves. Had Columbus looked at the Indians as people of equal stature instead of savages to be exploited, the terms between the Europeans and the Native Americans could’ve been a lot friendlier. As the leader of the settlers who reported back on what he thought was Asia, he set the tone for future interactions between Native Americans and Europeans.

Leaders are what they are because those who listen to them follow them. Because the European crew have never met Native Americans before, they would have looked to Columbus for guidance as to how they should relate with them. While nothing is certain, if Columbus acted courteously for the good of both sides, history could be dramatically different. The treatment of these people as objects may have become the precedent for the future practice of slavery in the United States. Just like how we learned how our parents dealt with a situation we’ve never seen before, they did the same thing. Columbus could have peacefully traded goods instead of winding them up and shipping them off as slaves. Today we often blame our leaders for screwing up and causing problems. We should look at Columbus with the same eyes we do with our present leaders.

Blaming Columbus

Can we blame Columbus for what happened to the Native Americans? Surely he was no saint, and certainly had no respect for the indigenous people here, but we cannot blame him for Europe’s response to the new world. Even if Columbus had been an idealistic, altruistic adventurer who respected native people, was willing to be fair with them, and wanted to explore more than to make money, it would not have had any impact on the way the Native Americans were treated.

The culture of Europe at the time was one that combined the early renaissance values of developing new ideas, expanding fields of knowledge, and outwards-thinking expansionism; with the religion-infused, narrow-minded concepts that had been internalized and strengthened throughout the dark ages. Europeans had a great drive to become a successful, enlightened people; but were limited by the decades to centuries of a stagnant social condition, lack of attention to the evolution of schools of thought on multiple levels -- political, technological, scientific, artistic, philosophical --, crushing poverty, and religious fanaticism brought on by the massive death rates due to both the Black Plauge and the devastation that followed; that had drastically slowed the development of European society. When Europe emerged from the dark ages, they were socially not far removed from the crusades, invading and slaughtering to heroically spread the word of Christ among heathens. They were taking risks and venturing into the world with their rising power, but did not have the knowledge and development to match. In short, they were rather like uneducated enthusiasts secure in the knowledge that they knew best. It is ridiculous to think that upon discovering a new land, filled with an abundance of resources and populated by a people who seemed primitive savages to the best of their knowledge and were most certainly not Christian, Europeans would collectively decide to be respectful and diplomatic with these new people and lands, even if an important adventurer had protested.

Europeans at that time did not have the standards to measure up to that we do. They were convinced that the people they had discovered were lower than they were, and did not deserve to have their way of life respected, not when it so neatly fit their ideals about spreading the Christian and European way of life as the superior way. They were struggling to emerge into a period of renaissance, and would not have dreamed of leaving alone land and resources that were so abundant and easily taken. Perhaps if, by lucky chance, Columbus had been an unnaturally learned, experienced, and enlightened person who also had an immense amount of power; he might have been able to stall the European conquest of America slightly, or maybe inspired a school of thought that pushed for a less brutally oppressive campaign. But even so, the discovery of the new world was such a godsend, and arguments against its conquest so unsupported, that it never would have been left alone. Columbus may have done nothing to make the plight of the Native Americans easier, but he had a minimal impact on the European approach to the Americas after discovering them.

The Representation of "Indians"

Americans have become accustomed to calling Native American "Indians" because of that little mistake Columbus made. Mention of "Indians" conjures up images of dark skinned people clad with feathers and war paint.

This particular image of Indians is very "Hollywood" and "whimsical," taken advantage by the Washington Redskins to represent their football team. The superficial notion that Indians are "redskinned" and savage warriors does not do justice to the complex cultures of the various Native American tribes.

Exploitation of this stereotypical image undermines Native American as a people. Plastering the image of a so called "Indian" on football helmets, hats, flags, banners, souvenir cups along side colts, dolphins, and bears and having a "redskin" parade around as a mascot doesn't seem right.

Cultures deserve to be respected. Preserved and taught about in museums is one way to do this. What I particularly liked about the Museum of the American Indian is that it conveyed that Native American culture is not a dead one and a thing of the past, but rather a living culture that is still practiced by an array of people who are not "redskinned"and adorned with feather headdresses.

Reflection: The Shining City on the Pale Blue Dot

First of all, let's settle this now.  The woman giving the presentation on behalf of the World Bank seemed to brush off New Jersey as this cesspool of corrupted garbage.  Let me tell you something: this country would be nothing without New Jersey.  You all can live with tuberculosis?  Didn't think so.  What about living without college football?  Yeah, me neither.  New Jersey makes this country's trains run on time.  Plus, we have several bad sports teams to ridicule to make you all feel better about your own pathetic teams.  Who would be your punching bag then?  That's right.  New Jersey is just around to make all of you complacently say "hey, at least I don't live there!"  Whatever, we don't want you anyway.  

Anyway, the woman who came from the World Bank explained the priorities that the World Bank has recognized throughout its history as an international entity.  These priorities sound familiar when discussing the problems facing citizens in the United States.  Lack of shelter, lack of healthcare, lack of food, clothing, etc.

We talked about the issue of equality in class.  While I agree that that a capitalist society should run on the principles of winners and losers, the "survival of the fittest" mentality that was brought up in class is an extraordinarily primitive principle.  Yes, we at American would probably feel that it doesn't matter if we help the destitute, seeing that we are on the "top of the class" relative to them.

I'm not saying that the incomes of everyone in the country should be equal, but there needs to be equal opportunity for all.  And in that, in an ideal world, our social programs would be effective in providing people with the opportunity to better their lives.

How can we solve this, then?  The woman from the World Bank gave very daunting statistics regarding the allocation of money that developed countries have exhibited in previous fiscal years.  1.4 trillion dollars is spent, per year, on defenses.  A vast majority of that money comes from the United States.  In this country of ENORMOUS affluence, it is a disgrace that we spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on instruments of destruction and war, while it has become damn near impossible to get a 30 day extension on unemployment benefits for those still out of work.  We need to reexamine our priorities in this country, or soon we will find our citizens dying in the streets of Kabul as well as in the streets of Washington.  

I see the argument for war, but the way I see it we should spend our money more on instruments of peace and prosperity.  Peace is better than war, because life is better than death.

Also, talking to Erin earlier in the week made me realize that it has been 14 years last week since the death of famed astronomer Carl Sagan.  His ideals regarding the fate of humanity, particularly when it comes to the exponential defense spending of developed nations, are aptly shown in his speech below regarding the photo taken of Earth by Voyager 1 in 1990, when it was 4 billion miles away from Earth:

That's here, that's home, that's us.  On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.  The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, ever mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "supreme leader," every "superstar," every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there -- on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage, in a vast, cosmic, arena.  Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on he scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.  Think for a moment of the rivers of blood, spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters -- of a fraction of a dot.

Our posterings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.  In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere -- to save us from ourselves.

Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand.  It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and preserve and cherish, the only home we've ever known.  The pale blue dot. 

Reflection - World Bank

I found the presentation from the World Bank to be an excellent one, although it was unfortunate that we could not go visit the World Bank at the same time. I think the World Bank Organization is a great thing for the world to have. It is dedicated to the betterment of the world by helping out countries that are in need while also encouraging them to improve on their own by using incentives and developing infrastructure. This gives rise to wealthy states with healthy economies and stable political systems, which in turn lessen the need for the World Bank’s help and makes the world as a whole a better place to live in.

The World Bank also has careful policies to maximize its effects. Its policies regarding investment returns for the countries that give it money to fund its programs greatly incentivize the countries in questions to do everything possible to make the programs succeed. Also, higher donations mean higher amounts of discretion over spending, which gives the country that gives the most money the most power because money can be used as leverage in international politics, fostering more cooperation and providing better conditions and advantages to the countries with increased power. This helps not only the countries being helped, but the countries doing the helping, thereby increasing the amount of people helped without having to increase the amount of money spent on programs.

The Bank also has careful restrictions on the qualifications for getting money, and discretion over which organizations in a country gets the money, which decreases the likelihood of the money being eaten up by corruption and incompetence before it has an impact on the people who need it the most, as happens in general block grants. I really admire well-constructed and efficient organizations that once started are self-powered, generating wealth and stability in the world leads to more funding for the bank, which in turn generates even more wealth and stability.

I think this kind of organization is the kind that gets to the heart of the problems of inequality and hardship in the world. It is difficult to be totally altruistic when your country has limitations of its own, but it is unanimously agreed upon (by people with balanced and healthy minds, at least) that leaving poor countries in the dust is unfair. However, this conflict is often incorrectly branded as a choice between two separate paths. In reality, helping other countries helps the whole world; the world, especially now after so much globalization; has become small enough that we can view it as a closed system in which (in most cases that is -- irrational and/or fundamentalist religious states still pose a problem in this area) a weak country weakens everyone else. and a strong country strengthens everyone else.

Reflection on Education

Class discussion on Friday moved to the subject of education. Does everyone deserve the right to an education? I think everyone does deserve the opportunity to receive an education, but that opportunity is scarce and close to non-existent in many developing countries.

Ideally, everyone should have access to a school. Children who live in Africa, for example, should be able to walk to a local school and learn about things beyond their villages.

The presentation given by the World Bank informed us that the organization helps developing countries foster good health and education. However, on many occasions the corrupt governments of these countries misuse the aid, so education and health issues are not resolved. I think the World Bank can be more effective if it was able to bypass these corrupt governments and lend the aid to non-profit and community organizations.

I think what the World Bank does is very helpful to those who live in developing countries. I believe that no one should be put at a disadvantage because of where they live, whether it be an affluent neighborhood in France or a slum in India. We all share ties to one another as humanity and to cut some of those ties is to damage our humanity.

Reflection: WBO and fairness

I think the World Bank Organization is a great organization. Lending out money to poor and developing countries helps the betterment of the world. When those countries that got the help develop, they return the money and continue the cycle. At first I wondered why first world countries would be interested in donating to the WBO. Then I figured out that the more a country donates, the more it gets to decide how the money is used. The nations in charge decide which programs and countries are appointed money. While this sounds bad at first glance, this actually means the third-world countries get a big assurance that the programs will succeed. If the program fails, the donators receive no return on their investment. Sure certain countries may be favored over others in development, but the quicker the process the faster the rest of the nations receive aid. Once everything plays out, every single country in the world should at least have a stable government with decent standards of living. Even though this may be too idealistic, I think the WBO has its heart in the right place.

The discussion about fairness is quite complicated and can’t be answered 100% for one side. If you saw someone on the side of the street visibly starving, you would be a heartless monster to let the person starve. However, starvation happens all the time in African countries, yet we don’t really lose sleep over it. We seem to be okay with this unfairness. The kids born to families who can’t provide for them really have no chance at getting anywhere in life or possibly even surviving to reach adulthood. Children born in the U.S. are much more likely to have plenty of food and live to 80 just for having the luck to be born there. I don’t think that’s fair at all, but we didn’t do anything wrong. We can’t immediately change the situation so that all kids have the same opportunities. However, organizations like the WBO help these disadvantaged kids. To put it in a simple, but not so simple terms at the same time, we can’t all agree that fairness is fair. But we can agree that we should do our best so that future generations are born into a world that is fairer. Fairness is confusing.

The Value of Different Perspectives

I believe that there is significant value in different perspectives on world politics. I think many agree that a narrow mind is not an intelligent one. Narrow world politics isn't very intelligent either.

Tickner focused on a feminism perspective and explained that there is value in looking at world politics in the light of feminism. This can extended to many different perspectives of different groups. Ultimately, world politics and the decisions made by political leaders affect people. So examining different perspectives of different groups, from women to natives, from the poor to ethnic groups, can give valuable information to the identities of these groups and how the decisions of world politics will affect them.

Although examining a subject like world politics through many different lenses and groups' perspectives can give rise to discrepancies among theories, I think having different ways to look at a single subject also gives rise to valuable options.

History in the Making. Or perhaps it's just a re-run.

What happens if we were to include every little minute perspective difference in every situation we see?  Bringing fringe groups to the table has really never been tried in the past, and is there a good reason for that?

Don't you sort of create a meaner spirit about....well, just about everything?  I mean, if the two political parties in Congress voted on things using criteria of their experiences and perspectives based on where they lived and their environment, would anything ever get done?  While this is theoretically the way our government is supposed to work, particularly the House of Representatives, we have seen that this is not the case, as members generally vote on party lines strictly, which has become especially evident recently.  You can't expect two people to fully agree on one thing EXACTLY.  There's going to be different perspectives about an issue or thought process, but in the end they will come together.  This is evident even in the United Nations, the supranational example of world politics.  While not all interests for every nation are met in each resolution, the continuity of things supersedes individual interests of nations

THAT SAID..:

Tickner mentioned that the idea of what constitutes good knowledge have been disproportionately weighed against the value of statistics and hard numbers.  We have, it seems in the past, come to the conclusion that the best way to ascertain knowledge appears to be looking at the background of an event on Wikipedia or in a history book/encyclopedia.  While such an exercise will certainly give you an idea of how an event or time period was carried out from a factual standpoint, how do you know what the true emotional background of the event is?  You rarely, if ever, hear of eyewitness interviews of someone who lived through the feminist suppression of early modern Europe and beyond into the 20th century.  And perhaps that has to do with the saying that she gave, that "history is written by the victors."  How are we supposed to know how men became the victors in our society though?  Ideas of what constitutes good knowledge, we prioritized numbers and statistics, and not the emotional background of the knowledge

The political elite in governments across the world need to take into account the implications, not just on the hard numbers or statistics, but also the emotional implications of the decisions they make.  Perhaps then we wouldn't be so eager to enter wars, and perhaps be more willing to worry about domestic issues.  Anyone can argue that Medicare wasn't exactly the greatest fiscal triumph in our government's history, but most people regardless of political affiliation agree that it has provided this nation with an unparalleled social net that has become a bedrock of this nation's ideals.  I think, eventually, the healthcare reform passed earlier this year will meet the same fate.

We do have to listen to more perspectives, because if we have a blinded view of history, what precedence does that set?  Remember, those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it.  Also, how can we understand world politics without understanding the people?  While it's interesting to talk about the actors in international affairs, it's really the people that are the foundation of what we discuss, seeing that they are the rational force behind decision making, but are rarely discussed in the context of world affairs.  Perhaps now we are seeing a shift away from the interests of the state to the interests of the people.

I feel that this is a pertinent quote/an excellent way to get out some of my frequent dislike of Ronald Reagan.  This is the speech Mario Cuomo gave to the Democratic National Convention in 1984, and I feel that it outlines well how we have to stop looking at the prices of stocks and start looking at the value of our people as a whole:

"In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city."

It's all about perspective

Of course there is an inherent value to analyze world politics from alternative perspectives. The question should rather be how different perspectives make up world politics. In IR theory, realism, liberalism, and constructivism are perspectives that explain how nations act in the international stage. If we view a country’s actions from only one lens, we turn a blind eye to what its real intentions are. If the U.S. saw China’s rise in a purely realist way, we might view China solely as a threat and pursue a relationship more as rivals. If we saw it in a purely liberal way, the U.S. might relax its stance and pursue a friendly relationship. In the first scenario, hostile situations will rise and war could happen. In the second scenario, the U.S. might become too complacent and quickly be overtaken by China. Because both situations are unwelcome, a hybrid of perspectives that strikes a balance is ideal.

The value of foundational or what-it-could’ve-been stories are priceless. Throughout history the strong and the majority have reined over the masses. For example, women throughout history have been silenced and oppressed. Even today in the U.S., women are still being marginalized. I recently read an article that states that for the first time in recent history, there may be fewer women in Congress in 2011 than 2010. Now this wouldn’t be such a big deal if Congress was around 50% female, except women make up about 17% of Congress. Even if Hillary Clinton had a real shot at the presidency, women still have a ways to go to be on equal grounds with men. Suppose women made up half of Congress when the healthcare bill was being pushed. I seriously doubt the bill would have taken so long and withered down the way it was. I remember reading about studies and surveys that show women are more proactive about health issues than men. I’m sure this is debatable, but I think healthcare reform is very proactive. When such a large segment of the population is not being heard, government cannot effectively provide its citizens with what they need. We will never know what would have happened had women had equal footing with men, but we can work to make sure we know what it means with examples in the future.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

When a subject or school of thought, such as World Politics, is taught and discussed in the same way, with the same assumptions, for a long time, it becomes easy to start assuming that that particular way is also the only correct way to go about it. This is more often untrue than not, and can even be a dangerous assumption to make. There is an inherent value in analyzing world politics from multiple perspectives, even more so than many other schools of thought, because the very concept of world politics incorporates bringing together many different perspectives on issues that affect many different actors, all of which are the ones who have said differing perspectives. Without that element present, world politics cannot legitimately include the word “world” in its name. And when dealing with a subject so dependent on multiple perspectives, brushing away different views on the subject itself as unnecessary or incorrect seems very hypocritical and self-defeating.

Alternative foundational stories about global politics are valuable in its study, because they help us to look at things we take for granted in a different light, and realize that we may be drawing lines in the sand based on artificial assumptions that are not universal, but we have accepted as such in the absence of alternate explanations. When we only have one way of going about things, it becomes easy to define the “proper” approach to a problem, or the “valid” explanation of a phenomenon, without taking other approaches or explanations into account. When this happens, things begin to appear in terms of black and white, truth and lies, when really, the only thing they do is conform, or defy, the generally-accepted foundational story about a very broad idea. An idea that is usually a human construct invented to categorize a certain collection of the random and multi-faceted actions that make up world politics, not to label a discrete, single phenomenon. Adding different stories about the nature of an issue, or concept, or convention makes said nature more complex, more inclusive, and more natural, while avoiding the pitfalls, logical fallacies, and oversimplifications that come with making up laws and definitions based on the combination of a short period of observation and contradictory or incomplete informations passed down from past, perhaps obsolete times; all taken from one particular perspective.

For example, Tickner placed particular emphasis on marginalized populations, who are deeply affected by the exact same issues that policymakers and experts wrestle with in the elite sphere of international diplomacy, but unlike the latter, have no voice. This is a problem that badly complicates, misleads, and reduces the efficiency of the systems in place meant to deal with said issues. Marginalized populations such as the very poor, the uneducated, women (to varying degrees depending on the country), children, and minority populations not only have a perspective on global politics very different from the perspective of the powerful, highly educated, well-connected officials working in governmental state departments; but they are very different from each other; and very different from the rich, the educated, men, adults, and majority populations. The non-marginalized populations have not just a voice, but many different voices with which they can influence the experts who have the power to agree to make changes in some aspect of global politics, while the marginalized populations do not. This means that only half of a story is being told. It doesn’t make the half that is told invalid, it just makes it incomplete. No single story is the complete story, only when all different perspectives are taken into account, and all different versions of what makes up the foundation of global politics are told and given equal weight, does the “real” story emerge. Like the proverbial blind men with an elephant, a single story can be a very accurate portrayal of what it deals with, just as a blind man touching the elephant’s trunk can give a perfectly valid and accurate description of the trunk. It is only when the trunk is declared (by, perhaps, if we want to make this metaphor even more obvious; an english-speaking blind man to another english-speaking blind man, ignoring the non-english-speaking man holding the elephant’s ear) to be the whole elephant; that is to say, when a particular story is billed as the whole truth, do problems arise.

Reflection: National Security

The trip to the Pentagon on Wednesday meshed very well with the issues we have been discussing in class this past week. One of the topics we kept circling is why we, as a population, consider issues like terrorism to “qualify” as part of national security, while other sources of American deaths and danger, such as high speed limits, do not. Some of the debate seems to be about how according to public perception, terrorism is more dangerous, even though car accidents kill many more people on average. However, while this observation is very likely true, I do not believe it is the whole answer. Neither danger, nor the perception of it, are the qualifications for national security -- cancer is considered an extremely urgent and dangerous issue, but no one considers it part of national security. It seems instead that while national security includes domestic policy, it must also include an external threat to the country’s safety.

Of course, given the fact that in the national security strategy, securing the nation against threats to it means taking domestic actions that on the surface have nothing to do with a particular danger, this issue has a difficult time separating the domestic and foreign policy spheres. What is the best way to protect the U.S? Strengthening ourselves at home to eliminate weaknesses, or striking out to eliminate the threats themselves? The national security strategy stresses both approaches, but its obvious that the latter triumphs in matters of crisis. The discussion of overreaction seemed to constantly become entangled with the point that we have very different approaches to foreign and domestic issues. In foreign issues, we want government, strong government, and lots of it, to act directly upon the people and forces who threaten us and eliminate them. In domestic issues, we have an opposition that sometimes borders on paranoia to government intervention, from regulation of the economy to the clash between federal and state issues. We profess that this is because we would rather have the freedom to do what we want without going through rules and regulations, rather than put up with such interference and become safer and better off. Yet when foreign threat occur close to home rather than far away, we still allow the government to get deeply involved, to the point of wiretapping and holding people with dubious cause when the situation is -- in the point of view of the American people -- dire enough.

When we visited the Pentagon, I was disappointed that our planned briefing was cancelled, but it seemed appropriate that it was cancelled for the reasons it had -- a situation had cropped up somewhere overseas, and people were called away to attend to it. I don’t know if everyone would share this with me, but I am sure that if we were visiting the Department of Justice, for example, and our presenters suddenly got called away, I’d feel much less charitable towards them than those at the Pentagon. In foreign affairs, it is rather impressive and commendable that these people drop everything to ensure our security, whereas in domestic issues, it wouldn’t feel nearly as justified.

Perhaps it is because in foreign affairs, there is usually a clear-cut “them”. There is Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban. Even when there isn’t a face or title to attach to the threats, they are still a “them”. There are undemocratic regimes that strip women of natural rights, corrupt leaders that blatantly rig elections without consequence, and violent factions that kill people for being a member of a certain race. These are un-American. These are enemies of the United States. With domestic issues it’s much harder. There may be some labels we can apply, but they tend to be contradictory and vague, and highly dependent on the times -- CEOs, bank executives, criminals who deal in everything from drugs to high-level fraud, deluded liberals, teacher’s unions, corporate sponsors, crazy conservatives, oil companies, car companies, insurance companies...how vague and riddled with qualifiers are these “threats”, in the eyes of the public (and the media) as opposed to the seemingly clear ones faced in foreign affairs? How exactly do we “overreact” to the financial system’s failings without hurting ourselves in ways much more obvious than the convoluted, long-term, and highly indirect ways we hurt ourselves when we overreact to foreign threats? We overreact to foreign threats because we can, because there is, or we think there is, something there to react to and defeat. It is hard to secure our nation against domestic issues, because we have the notion -- sometimes correct, sometimes woefully shortsighted -- that domestic action will affect the American people much more than foreign action will.

Reflection: Oh The Places We'll Go

Congratulations!

Today is your day.

You're off to Great Places!

You're off and away!

You have brains in your head.

You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself 

any direction you choose.

The United States government has reached a critical junction that will decide the future of the nation: do we continue down the slippery slope of national security overreaction, or do we deal with the domestic problems that we face here at home?  After our trips to Christ House, and then to the Pentagon, it was obvious that the United States has chosen the former, at least for now.

There comes a point where the government is too involved in the security of their nation.  I'm not saying the United States is there yet, or we should just open our borders or end scanning in airports, but I find it odd that people are so frightened by any hint of government intervention in the economy, yet those same people are perfectly fine with the government monitoring every part of their lives from the day they're born until the day they die.

It's interesting to wonder why the US has clearly sided with the military/security end of this growingly one-sided dichotomy.  For those who say that we can have both, I would cite LBJ's problems keeping together the Great Society while fighting a massive war in Southeast Asia.  Still, though, the budget appropriated to the Vietnam War was smaller than the budget of the Defense Department today, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Perhaps the government is to blame for this problem.  After all, nobody has ever lost an election by looking tough on terrorism, yet countless members have been unfortunately voted out of office or barred from entering office due to their "extreme" belief that domestic matters should take precedence over involvement in foreign affairs.

In 1979/1980, every night, you would hear Walter Cronkite, after he concluded each of his evening news broadcasts about the update on the hostage situation in Iran.  While the securement of the American diplomats was a serious issue and the Carter administration should be praised for bringing them home safe, you never would hear him say how many people died due to drug overdose on that day.  You would never hear how many kids went to bed hungry lastnight.  Or how many citizens live below the poverty line.  Are they not important?

Perhaps it's because when discussing security there is a clear enemy.  We see them on television, denouncing the United States and promising retribution for American occupation of land abroad.  The economy isn't going to go on CNBC one morning and say, "hey, sucks to be you guys, but I'm increasing unemployment another half a percent.  Oh yeah, and 4 million more Americans are now below the poverty line."  While it's obviously unclear what reaction would be in such a bizarre situation, one would imagine that it would bring the problems of economic instability to the forefront of American concerns, even more so than it is currently.

Neither problem is going to be "solved."  There isn't a magic solution of government programs and regulations that is going to solve the problem of economic insecurity in this country.  Likewise, the national security of the United States is   Poverty is always going to continue: so long as there are rich people there will be "poor" people.  Terrorism will live on anyway you look at it.

America's "day" is now, and for all we know, the sun may be setting on this day sooner than we realize.  What direction should we choose?  Should we secure our people from the ravages of economic and social neglect, or secure ourselves from those who will never like us anyway?  The economy is certainly not a friendly apparatus, but it is not malevolent.  Squashing terrorism is a futile exercise.  It's like a rash on your skin.  Keep scratching it, and it will get worse.  Let it alone, and it will eventually fade away.  Again, neither of these problems is going to be fully solved, but in my opinion the decision on the future priorities of the United States should be clear.  It's up to you.

You're off to Great Places!

Today is your day!

Your mountain is waiting.

So...get on your way!

Reflection: The Pentagon and the war on terror

Don’t judge a book by its cover. That’s the theme that came into my head when we toured the Pentagon. From first glance the Pentagon looks like a really scary place. The very first personnel you’re likely to see is a security guard with a serious looking gun. Mind you this isn’t the typical pistol you see police officers carrying all the time. After having to show two IDs, we walked passed another security check point. Eventually what appeared to be an officer called our group in a semi-militaristic tone. That’s when everything changed. The officers giving the tour were very friendly and joked often. The biggest surprise was that there are so many stores and restaurants within the Pentagon. There were even paintings and pictures all along the hallways to keep the place from looking shabby. I felt like I was walking around a mall. Maybe the Pentagon isn’t such a scary place if you work there. I found it interesting that the only actual room we went inside was the 9/11 memorial. When I remember 9/11, I usually only think about the World Trade Center. However, plenty of people died crashing into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania that day too.

Unlike car crashes and diseases, we have universal faces to blame when we talk about terrorism. If we didn’t have figures like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I think U.S. actions would be significantly less justifiable. There are probably terrorists in every corner of the world, so the U.S. needed a compelling target to explain the invasion of Afghanistan. The attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and the capture of Saddam Hussein represent quantifiable goals. The war on terror, as discussed in class, can never be won. Even if we capture Saddam Hussein, there will be other extremists who’ll take his place. Because there will always be people who hate the U.S. and western ideals, we are never truly secure as we might want to be.

Reflection on the Pentagon

Our visit to the Pentagon, made me think about national security a little bit more. Erin asked the question of since 9/11 how has security at the Pentagon changed? Our tour guide answered that additional security checkpoints were added and the entrance to the Pentagon no longer was directly connected to the Metro.

After every incidence of breached security, security measures change to protect against another breach. But because security evolves, won't threats to that security evolve too? Can we really completely deter and avoid threats and attacks as these may evolve to breach reinforced security? It's like creating a vaccine to protect against a virus, but the creation and administration of the vaccine only prompts the virus to evolve and become immune to the vaccine.

In that case, the nation may never be completely secure, only aware of threats and how to deter them.

Afghanistan, staying there makes us less secure

The fact that the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan right now makes me feel less secure. For one thing, we don’t even know if Osama Bin Laden is even in Afghanistan. He could be somewhere else plotting his next attack. I think deploying spies and gathering intelligence across the Middle East would be a lot more cost effective. The military spending used to station troops in Afghanistan could be used more efficiently. Secondly, having an American presence there in the form of military presence sends a terrible image to the people of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda persuades the locals to join them by saying America is a major threat to them. When you have American troops walking around with guns in the neighborhood, I doubt Afghans feel a friendly vibe from it. Add in the fact that innocent Afghans are sometimes killed from Drone attacks, and it doesn’t take Al Qaeda much to come up with a convincing argument that America is evil.

Keeping troops in Afghanistan not only makes us less secure from terrorists, but it also makes us more vulnerable to other global threats. There is the obvious fact that the troops in Afghanistan could be stationed somewhere where they could keep us safe better. I think the U.S. showed an imperialistic side to the world when it decided to keep troops there even when the rest of the world withdrew their troops. The other countries saw no need to stay in Afghanistan. While the attacks were definitely more personal for the U.S., Europe has been dealing with terrorist attacks for a long time prior to 9/11. Having other nations, especially allies, question U.S. motives can never be good for U.S. security.

The long-term presence of American troops in Afghanistan also shows the world that the U.S. may not be the all-powerful hegemon the world may thought it was. Had the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, found the criminals, and left swiftly, that would have left a strong impression of U.S. military might. I think if terrorists saw that they would be crushed if they mess with the U.S., they would be considerably less inclined to threaten it. The continued presence of American troops show weakness and inability to accomplish goals. At a time when the U.S. is trying to hold on to its economic power, showing military weakness only worsens its security in the global society.

The Difference between Security and Small Victories

Does the U.S. presence in Afghanistan make us more or less secure? It’s hard to say. On one hand, it seems to be human instinct to feel better when you are doing something to solve a problem, like securing against a terrorist threat, because then you know that at least you’re trying to do everything you are capable of and not needlessly endangering yourself by not acting. On the other hand, this does not mean that taking action for the sake of action will actually solve the problem -- sometimes, it just makes people feel better. However, given the fact that the nature of “security” is disputed, to say the least, how exactly can we tell if our actions make us more secure? One idea about the nature of security is the extent to which people feel secure, because there is no way to know about every single possible danger that could easily crop up at any moment. Another similar idea is that security involves dealing with any danger at hand, because if we cannot be safe from unknown unknowns, we should at least guard against what we know to be a danger, lessening the amount of danger however slightly. Do either of these idea apply to the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

First of all, it is true that in Afghanistan, the U.S. is seeking out a real, tangible danger to U.S. citizens, unlike the operations in Iraq, where the dangers to the U.S. were speculative at the very best. The Taliban in Afghanistan were responsible for supporting and giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and therefore are a direct threat to the U.S.’s security. However, and this is a rather large “however”, how exactly do we mitigate that threat? The Taliban is not a nation-state that can surrender and “lose” a war, and Al Qaeda is not a single entity that can be defeated by a strong enough push from the U.S. Fighting the threat in Iraq has greater similarities to fighting organized crime than to fighting a war, and we measure the success of fighting crime by fewer deaths due to crime, lower crime statistics, fewer criminal convictions. Organized criminals do not all stand up, organization by organization, and surrender to the police. The same concept applies in Afghanistan. Just because the criminals are foreign, it does not mean they are the work of a foreign state. Therefore, while having troops in Afghanistan can make us “feel” safe, we cannot really expect to have a single clear-cut victory, because for one, unlike in domestic affairs, the U.S. cannot police the whole world simultaneously and indefinitely; and for another, terrorist attacks on the U.S. are not nearly frequent enough to provide reliable statistics.

In addition to this, given this idea that we cannot completely win against a danger that is not a single entity but simply a series of actions stemming from the same general idea, there’s the question of whether, if we cannot possibly foresee all the dangers that could arise, if simply feeling safe and secure means security. I believe that sometimes it does, but only if it does not influence our actions that could raise the total number of seen and unforeseen threat even higher. As discussed in class, it frequently is true that if we act as though we are at war, we tend to induce actual war. If we are sure that we are at war in (the distinction between “in” and “with” does not have as much meaning to the people in Afghanistan who are affected by our presence as it does to us, far away in the United States) Afghanistan, the obvious reaction in Afghanistan would be to react accordingly. Therefore, in theory, having troops in Afghanistan could actually be seen as making us less safe in the long run.

Of course on a smaller scale, this is much more complicated. The fact that our problems in Afghanistan were caused by what we did more than what we, at this moment, are doing makes a lot of difference. On a small scale, we are technically lessening dangers of more 9/11s by weakening and disrupting the organizations who caused it. However, our troop presence in Afghanistan does not make us, as a nation, in the long run, more “secure”, because there is no discernible, naturally-occurring, obvious end in sight, no victory like the toppling of the Nazis in World War II. The only way to solve this overarching threat is to allow the ideas and social conditions that fermented the ideas to die off. In the meantime, we are racheting up resentment towards us by acting (or at least being perceived as acting) as though we are at war in a situation where conflict cannot be framed in terms of war. Also, in the meantime, we may prevent some particular American deaths by weakening our strongest enemies and derailing specific plans, but to say that these few acts actually makes us more secure, as a nation and in the long run, is a gross oversimplification.

The Facade of Security

The United States having troops deployed in Afghanistan does not necessarily make me more secure, but I do believe that it is supposed to make me think and feel like I am secure.

Deploying troops in Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks was a way for the United States to target the terrorists that carried out the attacks and eliminate the threat they posed. It was also a way for the United States to show they were actually doing something about these attacks on the American people and securing the safety of the nation. It was a way to persuade the American public that the nation is secure because the government has deployed military force into the territory of the enemy. Having troops deployed may have the effect of reassuring Americans and making them feel like they are secure.

War, however, does cause conflict (obviously) and creates opposition at home and abroad which can make citizens, in reality and regardless of how they feel, not secure, but rather vulnerable to attack.

Securing Ourselves, but Keeping Promises Abroad

It's difficult to discern the true threat that various militant groups in the Middle East pose to US security, and also to my individual personal security.

I have mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan.  I'm pleased that this administration has placed more focus on the country in its national security strategy, which was sorely lacking in the previous administration.  Afghanistan certainly is more of a threat to the security of the United States than was Iraq, and it only seems fair that more military emphasis be placed on a country that was actually a threat to the US than was just a threat to itself (I'm not putting down the unparalleled effort our troops exhibited in Iraq, and they deserve all the praise they get and more).

However, I have to keep asking myself, what is a "win" in Afghanistan?  There isn't going to be a signing of a surrender by the Taliban or Al Qaida on an aircraft carrier, or a white flag being raised from their headquarters.  Because, think about it, what is the "headquarters" of these organizations.  They aren't nation-states, and therefore it's more difficult to gauge success against a group that (for the most part) doesn't have a clear leader, finite military forces, and a known area of influence.  It's easy to have the standard bearer of an enemy in war or conflict be the Nazis in WWII.  It had a clear leader, it had a finite military in the German forces, and it was known what territory it was taking or already occupied (to as best extent as it could be known).  So what's a win?  The Taliban or Al Qaida isn't going to surrender as it's not a nation-state, and it's certainly feasible to think that continued influence by the United States in an effort to suppress a terrorist organization would only embolden those who are fighting against us.

It brings up the question of how these terrorist organizations cause the US such a problem in the first place.  And when you think about it, the policy of intervention in foreign affairs on the part of the United States seems to have dug the US its own grave.  While protecting US interests is important, we have tended to overreach into foreign conflicts.  Korea, Vietnam, and various proxy wars have shown that there hasn't been much success in proving to the world of the US hegemony over global affairs.

But how has this foreign policy caused the problems we face today?  Terrorist and fringe organizations tend to arise from certain socioeconomic factors: income inequality, exploitation, corruption, and downtrodden and war-torn economic conditions.  That's why the US was eager to aid Western Europe following World War II, because the State Department was sure that various left-wing organizations would gain more steam among the disposed population of Europe.  The United States, however, has provided the Middle East with not a solution to those problems, but the actual problems.  Beginning with the Eisenhower administration, the US has acted strategically with regards to the Middle East, due mainly to the vast and valuable oil reserves that are prevalent there.  In places like Iran, the CIA ousted a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, and installed a corrupt government which eventually cracked in 1979.  And to this day we wonder why the Iranian and US governments have not always seen eye to eye.  Same goes for Iraq.  In the 1980s, the Reagan administration sold weapons to both the Iraqi and Iranian governments in order to essentially have the two militaries destroy themselves in order for the US to exert more control over the region without a hard opposition.  The Reagan administration was also not averse to propping up regimes in foreign countries with our military, much to the detriment of the population in those countries.  We have ourselves to blame for the rise of these radical groups in the Middle East.  It's not a coincidence that our increased involvement in the affairs of the Middle East has been met with the increased membership of those populations with terror networks.

It reminds me of an episode from the West Wing, where a former president who can be easily be seen to reflect Ronald Reagan dies, and the current president's speechwriter Toby can't find any good things to say about what the Lassiter administration did for his eulogy, especially in regards to foreign policy:

"And I look at these great....and terrible old men, and I think: these men spent the better part of the late twentieth century trying to play God in other countries.  And the regimes they anointed...are the ones that haunt us today."

Think about it: if you were living in Afghanistan, and you saw how much oppression foreign governments brought to your country, how would you react?  Would you willingly go through your life without food, water, housing, schools, infrastructure, etc?  Joining a terrorist organization may seem like an inevitable fate, so long as you don't want to starve.

The deploying of troops in Afghanistan seems to perfectly reflect the internationalist spirit the United States has embodied in recent decades following WWII.  But has this spirit really made us safer?  Being the hegemon is nice and all, but it provides dissident nations and populations with something to be united against.  So long as there are terrorist or non-state organizations, the realist world model will live on.  There will continue to be a balance of power act against the United States, so long as we continue to "meddle" (that's a strong word) in the affairs of other nations.

We have been placed in a tough situation: do we move forward, have a potential insurgency in Afghanistan, and reclaim our identity as the infallible hegemon?  Or do we move in a more isolationist direction, possibly decreasing the influence of our nationalism over time, but also decrease the nationalism of other rogue nations/organizations?  If we stay, we will be seen as the country that isn't able to secure a win in the War on Terror, assuming the present course is stayed.  If we leave, we'd be seen as giving up on our friends (although Karzai is no friend) and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Overall, when you weigh the real current and potential future costs of the presence of US troops in Afghanistan to the potential benefits of a "victory" in that nation, it seems that there aren't enough pros to continue our mission in Afghanistan.  In the short term, we will lose more troops, while gaining little in terms of international recognition and support.  In the long term, we will make ourselves less safe, as we would create more resentment toward us abroad.  You never know, the dissidence may not be limited to the Middle East.  Europe and Asia could begin to spark an anti-American revolution soon.  It's unlikely, but not impossible.

I realized that there's another quote from the same West Wing episode that is pertinent to this, so I'll close with it:

"Why do they hate us?  Because we support their oppressors...we ARE their oppressors.  You start saddling up camels in every country in the Middle East, you better be prepared to spend the next 50 years sifting through sand.  Because this isn't some run on the beach.  This is the new world order."