Remembering the Afghani People

I found this article this morning on CNN.com. It goes right along with what we discussed last week in section:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/bush.nato.france/index.html

Last Friday we talked for most of the last half of section about the peacekeeping, occupation, and nation building going on in Afghanistan, and what, if anything, the United States and her allies could be doing to better serve the native Afghani people and protect themselves. I think this article is telling us just how complicated a question this is. About five and a half years after the War on Terror began with the invasion of Afghanistan the member-states of NATO are still increasing their troop presence and vowing to extend their commitments. It would almost seem as though we’re simply throwing as much manpower as we can into the country and hoping that eventually everything just works itself out. Every single recent news article I found about Afghanistan pertains to one of three subjects: Increased troop deployment (see above), casualty counts for skirmishes with the Taliban, or how Afghanistan is being used as a pawn in US-Russian conflicts and Georgia and Ukraine’s bid to join NATO (again, see above). It leads one to wonder if we’ve lost sight of the fact that there are actually, non-terrorist people living in Afghanistan, and that our top priority should be their well being after our disposition of the Taliban regime, and NOT our political agendas. We did, after all, invade their country, the least we could do is be polite houseguests.

The fact that NATO strategists feel we need more troops isn’t just unsettling because of the ever increasing death counts. It tells us that about five years after the Taliban fell and democracy was instituted, the elected officials, backed by the combined armies of the west, don’t have control yet. The “hearts and minds” of the majority of the people may have been won over, but the Taliban will continue to operate without the hold over the populace they once had, and as long as they do, we’ll just keep sending troops. So where did we go wrong? One may say that the framework wasn’t in place. The Taliban kept order through fear despite waning infrastructure, something a legitimate government is hard pressed to do, and though the people would rather be governed democratically, it just can’t be done properly until the basic necessities of their country are met. With the Taliban attacking all attempts that NATO and the US make at creating such infrastructure, a stable state could be a distant hope.

It begs the question, what’s the point? Our leader has placed our armies in the middle of a vicious cycle. We leave until there’s stability, we can’t have stability without infrastructure, we can’t have infrastructure until the Taliban is gone, and the Taliban won’t be gone until we send many more troops, the opposite of us leaving. Perhaps it could be worth it if it really was stopping terrorism, but since 2001 we’ve seen many more instances, most notably in the transit systems of London and Madrid. US forces are in Afghanistan for the long haul, with neither their physical or ideological goals within reach. In order to best serve the needs of the Afghani people, which should be our main objective now that the Taliban regime is disposed of, we must either reassess our situation and role as occupiers and peacekeepers, or face a never ending cycle of war and death which will hurt us as much as them.

One last note I thought of while typing this. In Afghanistan, the people were very supportive of us, and the United States had and still has numerous allies trying to make things right. And yet, the War on Terror will be entering into its sixth year with no end in sight. What does that say about Iraq, where the people are much less cooperative, we have no allies, and there’s significantly more resistance?

China Provides Information about Iran

On Yahoo! News today, I read an article discussing intelligence that China gave the U.N. about nuclear activity in Iran. I found this article very interesting for several reasons.

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=Anumkftz0gNFoF1Ox6AV9P8UewgF)

Firstly I was quite surprised that China was publically taking any action at all against Iran. This is, after all, the same China who had vehemently stated its disagreement with US nuclear containment policy regarding Iran, and who, with Russia, fought against attempts to penalize Iran for defying the U.N. Security Council. The fact that China is willing to provide evidence which would most likely aid the US in its efforts to impose penalties on Iran seems a little odd.

As the article states however, this move by China appears to show a growing wariness about Iran’s determination to become a nuclear stronghold. In my opinion this apparent change of heart on China’s end could have occurred for several reasons. One potential explanation is that China considered the fact that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons it could increase the instability of the already tumultuous Middle East. Possession of nuclear weapons by Iran might cause Israel to feel more threatened than it already does, and/or it may cause other countries in the area to attempt to develop nuclear technology to balance against Iran. I would assume however that Israel is not the biggest concern of China.

Another possibility could be that China questioned Iran’s ability to control their nuclear weapons, should they have the chance to obtain them. The “crazy colonel” idea that was discussed in lecture could be applied here, for if Iran is willing to defy the U.N. who knows what its leaders would decide to do with their nuclear weapons. Furthermore, since Iran is a somewhat turbulent country located in a very turbulent area, there would be no way to gauge what safety precautions would be taken to ensure there were not any accidents with the weapons. While I think this may have played a role in China’s decision, I believe there is an even more pressing issue that influenced China’s actions.

The more likely possibility in my opinion is that China took into consideration the threat of terrorism. If Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, there’s a strong chance they would be tempted, or simply be perfectly willing, to provide various terrorist organizations with them as well. This would pose an immediate threat since once a terrorist organization has nuclear weapons to use little can be done to stop them. I would imagine that thinking along these lines is what prompted China to take an interest in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, for terrorism is one of the few things which would affect the global community on an equal level, and not purely the interests of the US. My question now is will Russia follow China’s lead?

al-Qaeda and the UN

Articles: The New York Times and CNN

The articles above report about a 90-minute clip released by the second-in-command of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, defending the suicide bombings of UN offices in Algiers. It reminded me of Tuesday's lecture on just war theory, especially in regards to the shifting international environment, where the validity of the standards being applied to state actors is being called into question in light of the increased importance of non-state actors.

However, at least in this particular case, al-Qaeda seems intent on presenting its efforts in a traditionally legitimate sense. For example, al-Zawahiri accuses the UN of taking away Muslim territory through the creation of Israel and other means (righting a wrong). He then claims that they have never taken an innocent life (discrimination). As he is quoted in the article, any killing of innocents was due to "'unintentional error'" (necessity/utility).

As a tie-in to the terrorism lecture/reading, al-Zawahiri also shifts the blame for deaths in the conflict to al-Qaeda's opponents. This reflects the idea presented by Hoffman that terrorists will never identify themselves as terrorists--that in fact "terrorist" is often a relative term to be applied to one's enemies.

This is taken even further by al-Qaeda's openly-declared antagonism against the "collective authority" of the UN. This suggests that despite whatever pretty words and "just" reasons they may give, al-Qaeda recognizes no higher authority than its own judgments. While the ideas of a "just war" can be used in theory to determine whether it is right for a war to be fought or not, those same justifications can often be reduced to mere propaganda. This is how I see the case with al-Qaeda to be, although there is always the possibility of severe self-delusion. (The implication that enemies of al-Qaeda hide among Muslims only to use them as "'human shields'" gives credence to this, and I'm being at least half-serious.)

End of Ze World

After watching Dr. Strangelove and doing the WMD and terrorism readings, the idea of “the end of the world” sort of stuck in my brain. Obviously, this is a pretty depressing thought, and one that is hard to make light of—but I am going to attempt to do so using a Youtube video…Ah the wonders of Youtube.

The video is fittingly entitled “End of Ze World” and I am sure many of you have seen it at some point or another. Yes, it may seem stupid and it may have a few too many curse-words, but it does fit into our discussion of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the possible end of the world. So in order to continue to read this blog post, it would be helpful to watch the movie. Here is the link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

“Hokay, So,” Moving onto how this relates to our discussions in class, the clearest message from this beautiful piece of film editing is the fact that once one country launches nukes, every other country with nukes will respond and end up obliterating the earth, leaving us in a “nuclear winter.” This idea of mutually assured destruction present in the proliferation and possible launching of WMDs (especially nuclear weapons) indicates a possible stabilizing characteristic with such proliferation. As the movie shows, the cost of nuclear war is quite high—in fact it represents the “end of ze world—” thus it should make nuclear war unacceptable.

Despite this apparent stabilization provided by the presence of WMDs in our world, I think the movie proves that they are a lot more destabilizing, in that the US (in the movie) arbitrarily decides to nuke China, for no apparent reason. This could be due to a crazy leader or simply a miscalculation on the part of the U.S. government. Furthermore, the initial launch of one nuclear weapon sets off the chain reaction where every country with nuclear capabilities launches their missiles (France does after they “have a nap”).

In short, I thought this movie presented a comical yet accurate look at the presence of WMDs in our world today. No I am not suggesting this video be played at UN nuclear non-proliferation meetings, but for our sake, it both summarizes (in a relatively entertaining way) and mitigates the possible end of the world. And, in addition to the anti-proliferation message the movie also plugs the immense detrimental effects of global warming, thus encouraging change in the way we treat our environment.

What really is the rational thing to do?

It is an American assumption that, given the choice, any rational person would choose democracy over any other form of government. So what is rational, anyway? A few of the articles we read for the last few lectures pointed out that several government officials believe that religious extremists lack reason, for example. This seems to be an idea left over from the Enlightenment. Religion is just as reasonable a motivation as nationhood in many senses. The dedication to the protection of an artificial definition of territory made up of an ethnically heterogeneous population and that includes territories separated by oceans may seem a bit strange and unreasonable, too. I have heard arguments that religion is man-made, and therefore, fanatic dedication to a religious cause is silly. But if this is true, it still doesn’t give any more concreteness to the idea of a nation. If both are manmade, as some insist, why is the nation more rational than religion?
But I’ve digressed. I want to discuss the apparent inherent rationality of democracy. It is assumed that any government that isn’t one is oppressive in the American popular view. The literature on nation-building we read addressed problems of building democracies, but they never seemed to challenge the idea that a democracy is desirable in every society. Sometimes, in my view, democracy just can’t work. Some societies neither want nor function under democracy. I recall reading an article in Smithsonian magazine about post-Cold War Russia and, at the time, was surprised to find that the Russians interviewed lamented the transition to democracy and preferred a more authoritarian government. These were not people who had benefitted particularly from the USSR, but ordinary people. In Russia’s case, this seems to make sense- it is an enormous country that covers landscapes difficult to traverse. This kind of place might need a stronger government that can’t depend on the people to govern efficiently. Democracy in fact seems to be fading in Russia these days when at one point it seemed to be improving. Maybe this gives us a glance at what is actually needed or accepted as a government in this society.
The New York Times published an article on Monday that reported that many in Bhutan prefer to maintain the autocratic government in place rather than transition to democracy as the current government plans. In this case, it is those in power who urge democracy, not the average citizens. In fact, the government must use a lot of persuasion for popular support for democracy to catch. Of course, one could argue that it’s fear of changing the status quo that makes people reluctant to embrace democracy. But this doesn’t explain why populations often keep away from democracy even when their governments are in transition anyway. The United States and United Nations has to take into consideration that different populations have different values that may be incompatible to begin with. Therefore, imposing democracy is destined to fail in many situations. Maybe before we study the inputs and outputs of nation-building and the nuances of success we should find what makes a democracy tenable in the first place. Democracy may not always be the rational option.

Terrorism

I was reading the news on CNN.com and this article caught my eye, since it seemed to relate to Tuesdays lecture about terrorism. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/24/somali.fighting.ap/index.html)

The major issue I can see with Somalia is the sharp division between the cultural and political ties of the country. The article mentions that since 1991, when the dictator in power was overthrown, the government has been anything but stable. As the current government is backed by the West, the question of how to peacefully combine Western policies with the culture of Islam has arisen. And as part of the growing trend of terrorism, Somali extremist Islamic insurgents have felt the need to take this question into their own hands through acts of violence.

What really caught my attention however was the last line of the article:
"Last week, Islamic militants here welcomed being added to the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations, saying they only wished the designation had come sooner"

At first I found it a little funny - I mean who in the United States would actually find it honorable to be considered a terrorist? But the more I thought about it the more I began to wonder the criteria for this list was. What had these Islamic insurgents done that made them all of a sudden be terrorists in the eye of the United States? Does being on this list change the way the United States approaches these terrorists? Is this list even actually effective?

According to the US State Department website (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm), there are currently 42 groups around the world that the United States designates as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (or FTOs). The purpose of FTOs are that they “play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.” The terrorism business? Alright…

To be defined as an FTO the State Department looks “not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.” The site is also quick to point out that, “The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States”. By providing for threats of foreign relations, the United States gives themselves an official reason for acting against a specific threat anywhere in the world.

So are these Islamic extremist insurgents rightly called terrorists? Obviously yes. But what defines them as so?


To me, their actions appear to fall under the category of religion. Although from this specific incident it is difficult to say whether or not non-religious issues are addressed, as the insurgents are simply defined as an Islamic extremist group. This terrorist “clan” as the article describes them, used discrete violence in the instance the article discusses, as there were minimal casualties. I would have categorized this group as an international terrorist organization, but with the United State’s recognition of their activities, I think it could be argued that they are instead using transnational terrorism. I think this can be debated since this group is trying to not only influence the government in power in Somalia but also their Western support. While at the same time existing as an Islamic group helps to create ties to their “plight” across the Muslim (and in particular the Muslim extremist) world.

Why can't we be friends?

After reading the articles on Military Occupation for today, I started to realize just how complicated it is to occupy another country. It's costly, takes a long time, and success is a relative term. The hippie that I am makes me say that we should never go to war, but I am definitely aware that not many people agree with me, and that we have to react to threats throughout the world. But military occupations are even more complex than just going to war, and carries repercussions.
I just got a letter from a family friend who is stationed in Iraq- one of his good friends in the platoon was killed last week, and he reacted to it much better than I did, and I didn't even know Jon very well. I honestly don't believe that Bush, Cheney, or anyone in their administration takes the individual losses into account of the overall costs as heavily as they should.
US invaded Iraq because we saw Iraq as a threat and wanted to secure their nation. However when you consider the three factors for a successful occupation described by Edelstein, we can see where we may have started to go wrong. Iraqi citizens did not see the invasion as necessary, there is no perceived common threat, and we have not proven ourselves to be a very credible ally. Considering we started poorly, it's not too surprising that it's still not going well. And of course we don't want to leave until we can call ourselves successful. If we could just be more autonomous--let other countries do as they may, maybe we'd have a more stable economy, and not lose as many men and women overseas.