NOTE: This reflection will not include anything on the Stewart/Colbert Rally, I didn't go and everyone else and their mum is writing about it so go there if you can't live without it.
This week we tried to get back on track with the syllabus, the Risk game having gone on longer than expected and the schedule being thrown off. Anyway, the discussion in class were very interesting and raised some interesting points about security and what should be part of it and what should not be. But all that was covered in my blog post and while interesting, is not what I want to talk about today.
Last night I watched Black Hawk Down with some of my friends in the sky lounge. For those of you who don't know, the movie dramatizes the events of the Battle of Mogadishu when US forces attempted to capture Mohamed Aidid who had been inter-directing UN food shipments and intentionally starving hundreds of thousands of Somalis to death. 160 US troops entered the city and attempted to capture Aidid and his lieutenants. The operation initially was successful but soon Aidid militiamen began attacking the troops and successfully downed two Black Hawk helicopters. The ensuing battle pit 160 light US infantrymen against 3000 entrenched Somali militiamen. By the time the battle was over, 18 Americans were killed, 84 wounded and 1 captured (later released). Shortly thereafter, the main US combat presence was removed from Somalia.
I had known the general outline of the event beforehand, but seeing it dramatized put the issue in stark relief. There is, of course, a dilemma here: should we have even been there? Should we have restricted our use of firepower? Should we have left after we suffered such an inglorious defeat? This example, of course, dealt with food and a very clear issue of a despicable man starving millions -- but what about democracy? Should we spread that at the end of a sword?
Well, this certainly ties into our class discussion on Tuesday (guessing based on the readings) but I shall briefly address the matter.
It would seem to me that there isn't any sense to ask a mom in Kentucky to send her kid over to Iraq to die for a system we're strong arming onto the population. But just because we got into the war stupidly doesn't mean we have to leave stupidly. I still support the current, conditions based withdrawal that is on the table. The invasion of Iraq cost trillions of dollars, killed ~4,500 Americans and ~150,000 Iraqis. And for what? A corrupt, dysfunctional government susceptible to influence from malicious neighbors? A government that fails to provide services and basic security?
----
Astrik’s son Hambartzum listened politely. He assessed what he had just heard about democracy and new freedoms, and then pronounced:
“I am free to read the newspaper I want, but what I will read is that my mother is dead.”
- http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/defining-freedom-in-baghdad/
Now, I'm not totally unreasonable -- I do think there are situations that require a solid dose of hot lead and cold steel. Situations where I do think it is reasonable to send our boys over there to bleed for someone else. Rwanda, Serbia, Sudan and even the Somalia intervention mentioned in the beginning I would support.
But even there, we have tricky questions. Do we just send in limited numbers of SOF operators? Or do we go all out? Do we restrain our troops or do we allow them to use heavy weapon systems in the pursuit of their goals? It's all conditional, but I would support the idea that we could limit our influence to a small contingent of SOF operators to minimize the cost and antibody effect from the local population (warlords or militias not originally hostile to us but being convinced that we're occupiers and fighting us). And we should always endeavor to minimize civilian casualties, but not at the cost of our own men. Were I in charge during Mogadishu, I would have made full use of aerial bombardment and A130 gunships in Aidids stronghold. These weapons should be used carefully and sparingly, but we should not hesitate to use them in full force when our troops are engaged in combat and in need of assistance.
Being the most powerful nation in the world carries with it numerous ethical problems about when and how we should use our power. I look forward to discussing these issues in the upcoming class and week. I can already tell it's going to get.... heated.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
A few remarks about the Yemen thing
*Note: All times are adjusted for EST.
On Friday afternoon, Dubai Police seized a suspicious package from a cargo plane that originated in Yemen. Initial tests revealed a sophisticated triggering mechanism but no apparent trace of explosives.
Later that day, officers from the Leicestershire Constabulary and Scotland Yard seized another suspicious package from a cargo plane originating from Dubai. Initial tests revealed again no explosives but an apparent triggering mechanism using cellphone parts and timers.
That same afternoon, NORAD fighter jets were scrambled to intercept an inbound Emirates flight, originating in Yemen and flying into JFK. The plane was safely escorted down and Port Authority and New York Police officers met and secured the plane and cargo. No incident occurred but more suspicious packages were discovered and quarantined.
Acting on the same information, US police searched cargo depots at Philadelphia and Newark airports and another package was removed from a cargo plane.
Several hours later, forensics teams from Dubai reported that the package did in fact contain the explosive PETN and was wired for detonation. Reports described the bomb as being "professionally done".
Later, US and British forensics teams reached the same conclusion, stating that the bomb was so sophisticated as to have the explosive elements undetectable to dogs and upon initial inspection. Further questions are raised about the amount of explosives being shipped, the intended target of the bombs and if this was in fact a real terrorist attack or a dry run to probe Western defenses.
President Obama speaks later and confirms that this was a "credible terrorist plot" and confirmed that the packages originated in Yemen, strongly suggesting the involvement of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, the President stops short of blaming AQAP. The President also extended his thanks to Saudi Intelligence for assisting in the investigation and discovery of the bombs.
On Saturday afternoon, British police report that the bombs were designed to detonate in mid-air and destroy the cargo planes. This answers the question as to the relative lack of a large quantity of explosive but raises the question of why a Synagogue in Chicago was on the address label for both packages found in the US.
Yemeni security personnel arrest a woman in a manhunt for the bomber, her exact involvement is unclear as of now. Yemen also seizes dozens of other suspicious packages.
---
This is the third terrorist plot to have been discovered/foiled in the past 2 weeks. The first being the "Mumbai in Europe" attacks about which a great deal is unknown (including if they have really been stopped, and how far along the planning is) as well as the Metro Bomber who was recently captured and now this. These events are particularly interesting because they showcase three different types of attack from three different outfits. This is a very clear example of the nature of the threat we face and the importance of international cooperation on these matters. Let's run these down one by one. But first, some history.
The 2008 Mumbai Attacks was arguably the most successful terrorist attack since 9/11. It was low cost, high sophistication and high impact. Over the course of 3 days, 10 gunmen armed with small arms and grenades brought the financial capital of India to a standstill as they ravaged notable landmarks, taking hostages and murdering civilians. Indian police were ill equipped to handle the attackers, armed only with long wooden sticks or antique rifles. Eventually the intervention of the National Security Guards, India's elite counter-terror unit, was needed to put an end to the carnage. By the time the guns fell silent, 166 civilians were killed along with over 300 wounded. 9 of the 10 attackers were killed and one was arrested.
This attack bore several unique characteristics, most importantly it's emphasis on shock and awe. It had become common knowledge in intelligence circles that the next attack would emphasize low cost and high impact, but the targets were thought to be airplanes or government buildings, and the methods suicide bombing or simple bomb planting. History had borne this out -- India had often been the victim of bombings and as such was not prepared for this type of attack. This attack, however, was designed as much for the killing as the media attention. A bombing is a bombing, and as horrible as it is, it's over relatively quickly. Business had returned to normal by the end of the workday in Moscow after the bombings there earlier this year. But hostage taking in the heart of the financial capital? That would rule the airwaves for far longer. Considering that the main goal of any politically motivated terrorist group is not simply to kill, but to gain exposure and influence domestic politics, this type of attack was wildly successful.
It was only a matter of time before this type of attack was brought to the West. Details are still very unclear, but it seems that simultaneous targets in Germany, the UK and France were going to be hit in a very similar fashion to Mumbai. The case broke when Ahmed Siddiqui was arrested by US forces in Afghanistan, apparently coming from an al-Qaeda base in Pakistan. Information provided by him helped to bring the case to western attention as having been planned by al-Qaeda proper in Pakistan and even having the blessing of Usama bin Laden. The US immediately began a fierce drone offensive, hitting dozens of suspected bases, in an effort to stall or cripple the plan before it could be implemented. The drone barrage has subsided, but it is not yet known how much damage was done to the plan, but several EU citizens were killed who were presumed to have been the would-be gunmen upon returning to their home countries.
This type of attack though, especially in the EU, would have had a great number of obstacles to overcome. The first and foremost being training -- while low cost this type of attack still relies on a great deal of sophistication and training on the part of the attackers. One of the reasons that the Mumbai attack was possible was the implicit/explicit support of the Pakistani Army which supplied training and safe haven to the attackers. But getting an EU citizen to cross into Afghanistan/Pakistan, train for months, and come back without raising flags would be difficult. Also difficult is the relative lack of easy access to assault rifles and explosives in the EU. In Mumbai, this was overcome by not passing through any official checkpoint from their arming and equipping station to their target. Traveling back from Pakistan would require passing through EU customs. The attackers would only be able to bring back their knowledge, weapons would need to be procured somewhere in the target city/area -- not impossible but difficult, and another high visibility event (events that make you stand out and noticeable to police). The last large hurdle is the far more effective nature of European police and counter-terror units. As opposed to India, all three countries -- France, Germany and the UK -- have highly mobile and specialized units to deal with hostage situations and terrorist attacks -- GIGN, GSG 9 and SO13 respectively. While it would still be a bloody attack and garner plenty of media attention, the chances of the attackers paralyzing Paris for a 3 day siege would be next to nothing.
Regardless, the plot is still a very serious one and it still must be dealt with as if it is still active and poses a threat; whether it is and does if left as an exercise with the reader. But it is interesting for the type of terrorism it is advocating (low cost, highly specialized and high media impact) and the implications for domestic police and security. It is also interesting to note that a very similar idea was posited in the most recent issue of Inspire, AQAPs occasional rag that documents attacks and makes suggestions to would be Jihadists. The idea is clearly gaining popularity among al-Qaeda's various affiliates as they grow increasingly frustrated in their inability to strike the West at home.
The DC Metro Bomber is a totally different type of terrorist, one that is perhaps the hardest to track and discover. While not enough has been made public to concretely speak of the issue, it is free for speculation.
In terms of his goals -- bombing the DC Metro, sowing havoc, the (alleged) terrorist Farooque Ahmed was pretty white bread. Even his status as a Naturalized US Citizen didn't raise the eyebrows it used to. But perhaps it should; Ahmed is a nice example of a domestically radicalized terrorist. He sought out al-Qaeda, not the other way around. This is a troubling development -- a man who has never met an AQ operative, never been to a training camp and never been on the radar before, was brought to the point of killing innocent civilians with absolutely no assistance from al-Qaeda. While not quite the example he uses in his book, this is part of an increasing trend towards a "Leaderless Jihad" where terrorists are born, bred and attack in the United States with no need to travel to Yemen or Pakistan for training or indoctrination. It used to be the case that US Muslims were too well integrated into society to become terrorists. Then it was US Muslims are unwilling to strike innocent civilians in a traditional manner. Then it was US Muslims are unwilling to strike in the US. Then it was US Muslims need to travel abroad to get the training and indoctrination necessary to carry out attacks. And now? Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech with no training and no forced indoctrination. Does anyone doubt that had the thought occurred to Ahmed, we might be picking up the bodies from the Metro?
While we don't as of yet have an example of a fully "Leaderless Jihadi" if you will, I am seeing an increasing trend in that direction. The threat from al-Qaeda continues to morph and evolve, often faster than we can react. Unlike the other two plots discussed here, this one involved no action from AQ or AQ affiliates (though, not for lack of trying). Leaderless or no, the Jihad is certainly decentralizing.
And now we have the Packages Plot (my given name to it). While we don't know for sure, it seems that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is to blame. This again represents another evolution of the original al-Qaeda model of expeditionary terrorism. As in the Embassy Bombings and 9/11, the Expeditionary Model relies on sending agents to a foreign environment to attack a given target. All the training and preparation occurs out of the national boundary of the target. The attackers may spend their first days in the country planning the attack and conducting surveillance. This is perhaps the easiest type of terrorism to foil as it requires crossing a national border (high visibility) and procuring weapons and explosives in an alien environment (high visibility).
The Packages Plot is an interesting twist -- the export is no longer terrorists but instead the bombs themselves. I originally had speculated that the bombs were being send to agents in the United States for assembly or delivery, then I suspected they were designed to detonate at the Synagogue in Chicago and now it appears that they were designed to destroy the cargo airplanes carrying them somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. Why, you may ask, would AQAP target a cargo plane? Only 2 or 3 people would die and the cargo is likely nothing terribly important, so why go through all the trouble? Well, firstly it just reinforces the notion that AQ isn't after body counts so much as it is the impact those body counts have on the West's political and economic situation. Dead Americans isn't an end, it's a means for AQ to achieve its larger goals of causing economic harm and influencing the political discourse. But it is also a reflection of their increasing frustration with their inability to cause harm and spread terror. There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11* and that is causing increasing frustration on the part of AQ. This episode just goes to show that they will use any methods they can to harm us.
Our enemy continues to evolve, to use increasingly difficult to track methods and is astonishingly innovative and resilient. These three plots over the past 2 weeks just highlights the trends we have seen: al-Qaeda proper remains deadly and operational but the Leaderless Jihad phenomenon also seems to be manifesting itself. Now, it is too early to write anything particularly scholarly about these attacks, so little is known for sure, but it does appear that these attacks are good representations of the three major types of threat we face at home from al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
*Yes, Ft Hood. But that attack was an attack against a military target, not a civilian one -- thus it is not technically terrorism. A distinction without a difference, perhaps -- but isn't that what Academia is all about?
On Friday afternoon, Dubai Police seized a suspicious package from a cargo plane that originated in Yemen. Initial tests revealed a sophisticated triggering mechanism but no apparent trace of explosives.
Later that day, officers from the Leicestershire Constabulary and Scotland Yard seized another suspicious package from a cargo plane originating from Dubai. Initial tests revealed again no explosives but an apparent triggering mechanism using cellphone parts and timers.
That same afternoon, NORAD fighter jets were scrambled to intercept an inbound Emirates flight, originating in Yemen and flying into JFK. The plane was safely escorted down and Port Authority and New York Police officers met and secured the plane and cargo. No incident occurred but more suspicious packages were discovered and quarantined.
Acting on the same information, US police searched cargo depots at Philadelphia and Newark airports and another package was removed from a cargo plane.
Several hours later, forensics teams from Dubai reported that the package did in fact contain the explosive PETN and was wired for detonation. Reports described the bomb as being "professionally done".
Later, US and British forensics teams reached the same conclusion, stating that the bomb was so sophisticated as to have the explosive elements undetectable to dogs and upon initial inspection. Further questions are raised about the amount of explosives being shipped, the intended target of the bombs and if this was in fact a real terrorist attack or a dry run to probe Western defenses.
President Obama speaks later and confirms that this was a "credible terrorist plot" and confirmed that the packages originated in Yemen, strongly suggesting the involvement of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, the President stops short of blaming AQAP. The President also extended his thanks to Saudi Intelligence for assisting in the investigation and discovery of the bombs.
On Saturday afternoon, British police report that the bombs were designed to detonate in mid-air and destroy the cargo planes. This answers the question as to the relative lack of a large quantity of explosive but raises the question of why a Synagogue in Chicago was on the address label for both packages found in the US.
Yemeni security personnel arrest a woman in a manhunt for the bomber, her exact involvement is unclear as of now. Yemen also seizes dozens of other suspicious packages.
---
This is the third terrorist plot to have been discovered/foiled in the past 2 weeks. The first being the "Mumbai in Europe" attacks about which a great deal is unknown (including if they have really been stopped, and how far along the planning is) as well as the Metro Bomber who was recently captured and now this. These events are particularly interesting because they showcase three different types of attack from three different outfits. This is a very clear example of the nature of the threat we face and the importance of international cooperation on these matters. Let's run these down one by one. But first, some history.
The 2008 Mumbai Attacks was arguably the most successful terrorist attack since 9/11. It was low cost, high sophistication and high impact. Over the course of 3 days, 10 gunmen armed with small arms and grenades brought the financial capital of India to a standstill as they ravaged notable landmarks, taking hostages and murdering civilians. Indian police were ill equipped to handle the attackers, armed only with long wooden sticks or antique rifles. Eventually the intervention of the National Security Guards, India's elite counter-terror unit, was needed to put an end to the carnage. By the time the guns fell silent, 166 civilians were killed along with over 300 wounded. 9 of the 10 attackers were killed and one was arrested.
This attack bore several unique characteristics, most importantly it's emphasis on shock and awe. It had become common knowledge in intelligence circles that the next attack would emphasize low cost and high impact, but the targets were thought to be airplanes or government buildings, and the methods suicide bombing or simple bomb planting. History had borne this out -- India had often been the victim of bombings and as such was not prepared for this type of attack. This attack, however, was designed as much for the killing as the media attention. A bombing is a bombing, and as horrible as it is, it's over relatively quickly. Business had returned to normal by the end of the workday in Moscow after the bombings there earlier this year. But hostage taking in the heart of the financial capital? That would rule the airwaves for far longer. Considering that the main goal of any politically motivated terrorist group is not simply to kill, but to gain exposure and influence domestic politics, this type of attack was wildly successful.
It was only a matter of time before this type of attack was brought to the West. Details are still very unclear, but it seems that simultaneous targets in Germany, the UK and France were going to be hit in a very similar fashion to Mumbai. The case broke when Ahmed Siddiqui was arrested by US forces in Afghanistan, apparently coming from an al-Qaeda base in Pakistan. Information provided by him helped to bring the case to western attention as having been planned by al-Qaeda proper in Pakistan and even having the blessing of Usama bin Laden. The US immediately began a fierce drone offensive, hitting dozens of suspected bases, in an effort to stall or cripple the plan before it could be implemented. The drone barrage has subsided, but it is not yet known how much damage was done to the plan, but several EU citizens were killed who were presumed to have been the would-be gunmen upon returning to their home countries.
This type of attack though, especially in the EU, would have had a great number of obstacles to overcome. The first and foremost being training -- while low cost this type of attack still relies on a great deal of sophistication and training on the part of the attackers. One of the reasons that the Mumbai attack was possible was the implicit/explicit support of the Pakistani Army which supplied training and safe haven to the attackers. But getting an EU citizen to cross into Afghanistan/Pakistan, train for months, and come back without raising flags would be difficult. Also difficult is the relative lack of easy access to assault rifles and explosives in the EU. In Mumbai, this was overcome by not passing through any official checkpoint from their arming and equipping station to their target. Traveling back from Pakistan would require passing through EU customs. The attackers would only be able to bring back their knowledge, weapons would need to be procured somewhere in the target city/area -- not impossible but difficult, and another high visibility event (events that make you stand out and noticeable to police). The last large hurdle is the far more effective nature of European police and counter-terror units. As opposed to India, all three countries -- France, Germany and the UK -- have highly mobile and specialized units to deal with hostage situations and terrorist attacks -- GIGN, GSG 9 and SO13 respectively. While it would still be a bloody attack and garner plenty of media attention, the chances of the attackers paralyzing Paris for a 3 day siege would be next to nothing.
Regardless, the plot is still a very serious one and it still must be dealt with as if it is still active and poses a threat; whether it is and does if left as an exercise with the reader. But it is interesting for the type of terrorism it is advocating (low cost, highly specialized and high media impact) and the implications for domestic police and security. It is also interesting to note that a very similar idea was posited in the most recent issue of Inspire, AQAPs occasional rag that documents attacks and makes suggestions to would be Jihadists. The idea is clearly gaining popularity among al-Qaeda's various affiliates as they grow increasingly frustrated in their inability to strike the West at home.
The DC Metro Bomber is a totally different type of terrorist, one that is perhaps the hardest to track and discover. While not enough has been made public to concretely speak of the issue, it is free for speculation.
In terms of his goals -- bombing the DC Metro, sowing havoc, the (alleged) terrorist Farooque Ahmed was pretty white bread. Even his status as a Naturalized US Citizen didn't raise the eyebrows it used to. But perhaps it should; Ahmed is a nice example of a domestically radicalized terrorist. He sought out al-Qaeda, not the other way around. This is a troubling development -- a man who has never met an AQ operative, never been to a training camp and never been on the radar before, was brought to the point of killing innocent civilians with absolutely no assistance from al-Qaeda. While not quite the example he uses in his book, this is part of an increasing trend towards a "Leaderless Jihad" where terrorists are born, bred and attack in the United States with no need to travel to Yemen or Pakistan for training or indoctrination. It used to be the case that US Muslims were too well integrated into society to become terrorists. Then it was US Muslims are unwilling to strike innocent civilians in a traditional manner. Then it was US Muslims are unwilling to strike in the US. Then it was US Muslims need to travel abroad to get the training and indoctrination necessary to carry out attacks. And now? Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech with no training and no forced indoctrination. Does anyone doubt that had the thought occurred to Ahmed, we might be picking up the bodies from the Metro?
While we don't as of yet have an example of a fully "Leaderless Jihadi" if you will, I am seeing an increasing trend in that direction. The threat from al-Qaeda continues to morph and evolve, often faster than we can react. Unlike the other two plots discussed here, this one involved no action from AQ or AQ affiliates (though, not for lack of trying). Leaderless or no, the Jihad is certainly decentralizing.
And now we have the Packages Plot (my given name to it). While we don't know for sure, it seems that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is to blame. This again represents another evolution of the original al-Qaeda model of expeditionary terrorism. As in the Embassy Bombings and 9/11, the Expeditionary Model relies on sending agents to a foreign environment to attack a given target. All the training and preparation occurs out of the national boundary of the target. The attackers may spend their first days in the country planning the attack and conducting surveillance. This is perhaps the easiest type of terrorism to foil as it requires crossing a national border (high visibility) and procuring weapons and explosives in an alien environment (high visibility).
The Packages Plot is an interesting twist -- the export is no longer terrorists but instead the bombs themselves. I originally had speculated that the bombs were being send to agents in the United States for assembly or delivery, then I suspected they were designed to detonate at the Synagogue in Chicago and now it appears that they were designed to destroy the cargo airplanes carrying them somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. Why, you may ask, would AQAP target a cargo plane? Only 2 or 3 people would die and the cargo is likely nothing terribly important, so why go through all the trouble? Well, firstly it just reinforces the notion that AQ isn't after body counts so much as it is the impact those body counts have on the West's political and economic situation. Dead Americans isn't an end, it's a means for AQ to achieve its larger goals of causing economic harm and influencing the political discourse. But it is also a reflection of their increasing frustration with their inability to cause harm and spread terror. There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11* and that is causing increasing frustration on the part of AQ. This episode just goes to show that they will use any methods they can to harm us.
Our enemy continues to evolve, to use increasingly difficult to track methods and is astonishingly innovative and resilient. These three plots over the past 2 weeks just highlights the trends we have seen: al-Qaeda proper remains deadly and operational but the Leaderless Jihad phenomenon also seems to be manifesting itself. Now, it is too early to write anything particularly scholarly about these attacks, so little is known for sure, but it does appear that these attacks are good representations of the three major types of threat we face at home from al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
*Yes, Ft Hood. But that attack was an attack against a military target, not a civilian one -- thus it is not technically terrorism. A distinction without a difference, perhaps -- but isn't that what Academia is all about?
Reflection #10
This is probably going to be the least substantive reflection ever. Actually, least substantive after Tom's reflection about Peyton Manning. This week was generally uneventful. The conclusion of the Risk game was fun because we won (three-way tie, shh), and if you're not first, you're last. As we approach November, it's awesome to see how far our world politics class has gotten. We've quickly transitioned from basic IR theory to more advanced concepts. It's great to see that so many students within our classes are extremely knowledgeable regarding these concepts and the different perspectives. I think our world politics class is uniquely different from the other UCs because of the diverse nature and thinking that comes from all of us. Our different backgrounds and perspectives on life all can be brought up in order to garner a better understanding on world issues. As the year progresses, I'm excited to see how the class as a whole changes.
Well, while you guys enjoy Halloween, I'm going to be stuck in Boston debating. Sooooooooooo much funnnnnnnnnnnnn. Happy Halloween everyone!
Well, while you guys enjoy Halloween, I'm going to be stuck in Boston debating. Sooooooooooo much funnnnnnnnnnnnn. Happy Halloween everyone!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Si-kyoor-i-tee
tSecurity is defined as freedom from danger, risk, etc. While I feel that there are a number of structural issues that can determine a level of security, I wanted to approach this blogpost from a more non-traditional view point. I do believe that issues such as economic and military strength, defensive capabilities, and geopolitical influence are all vital facets of ensuring security, but this post will focus on the concept of securitization in international relations.
Securitization is a theory largely derived from constructivist roots. The basic concept states that actors tend to ensure their national security by securitizing threats worldwide. For example, whenever the United States sees a problem in the world, we construct that problem as a threat and pursue a policy of engaging these threats. In certain cases, these problems end up becoming part of a self-fulfilling prophecy as what we perceive to be a threat, whether real or not, inevitably becomes a threat due to the securitizing process. A popular example would have to be the Iraq war. We securitized Iraq militarily through claims of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. President Bush was able to make broad claims about the security of the United States being compromised by Saddam's regime. By rallying the popular support of the people, Bush was able to garner the political capital necessary to declare war against Iraq. Inevitably, to our surprise, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Yet the securitization process placed us in a long-lasting war. Additionally, another aspect of the war that was securitized was human rights. Claims that Saddam's regime was mentioned in order to stir public rationale. These forms of securitization exist throughout domestic and foreign policy. If X bill doesn't get passed then our economy will collapse which will result in a global nuclear war because countries will attempt to compete for resources. If we don't increase our presence in X country our hegemony will decrease which creates a power vacuum which other countries will try to fill in, the U.S. will no longer be able to act a mediator between conflicts and larger countries will expand their spheres of influence which will inevitably collide culminating in global nuclear war. While I don't discard these claims entirely, there seems to be an underlying mindset of securitization that exists within the world, uniquely though, with the United States.
So what should we do? I'm not entirely sure. Various scholars indicate that a mindset shift is required. Desecuritizing pernicious representations could potentially allow a universal principle to exist within society. Approaching the world through a universal lens could potentially stop securitization because problems aren't transformed into threats that uniquely compromise the safety of the U.S., but rather, these problems are a universal issue that we can mutually engage with other countries on. Obviously this approach to the world is utopian, but I believe that balance between hard, falsifiable security policies and the way we approach world politics must exist in order to truly be secure.
Securitization is a theory largely derived from constructivist roots. The basic concept states that actors tend to ensure their national security by securitizing threats worldwide. For example, whenever the United States sees a problem in the world, we construct that problem as a threat and pursue a policy of engaging these threats. In certain cases, these problems end up becoming part of a self-fulfilling prophecy as what we perceive to be a threat, whether real or not, inevitably becomes a threat due to the securitizing process. A popular example would have to be the Iraq war. We securitized Iraq militarily through claims of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. President Bush was able to make broad claims about the security of the United States being compromised by Saddam's regime. By rallying the popular support of the people, Bush was able to garner the political capital necessary to declare war against Iraq. Inevitably, to our surprise, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Yet the securitization process placed us in a long-lasting war. Additionally, another aspect of the war that was securitized was human rights. Claims that Saddam's regime was mentioned in order to stir public rationale. These forms of securitization exist throughout domestic and foreign policy. If X bill doesn't get passed then our economy will collapse which will result in a global nuclear war because countries will attempt to compete for resources. If we don't increase our presence in X country our hegemony will decrease which creates a power vacuum which other countries will try to fill in, the U.S. will no longer be able to act a mediator between conflicts and larger countries will expand their spheres of influence which will inevitably collide culminating in global nuclear war. While I don't discard these claims entirely, there seems to be an underlying mindset of securitization that exists within the world, uniquely though, with the United States.
So what should we do? I'm not entirely sure. Various scholars indicate that a mindset shift is required. Desecuritizing pernicious representations could potentially allow a universal principle to exist within society. Approaching the world through a universal lens could potentially stop securitization because problems aren't transformed into threats that uniquely compromise the safety of the U.S., but rather, these problems are a universal issue that we can mutually engage with other countries on. Obviously this approach to the world is utopian, but I believe that balance between hard, falsifiable security policies and the way we approach world politics must exist in order to truly be secure.
Securing the State
To speak intelligently about security, or any subject for that matter, you first need to know the general definition of your subject. What is "security"? Well, let's work through this. What does it mean to be "secure"? What is a "secure America"?
Well, the obvious answer is that a secure America would be one with no immediate threats to her or her citizenry. But, there will always be threats, wont there? al-Qaeda will not likely be totally destroyed in the near or medium future, and when it is there will be some new threat to our homeland. Is it that the threat can be contained and managed? If so, then what should the focus of security policy be?
Further complicating things, is that AQ is just one example of one type of threat - a threat to our physical security, but not an existential threat at that. There are plenty other provinces of security -- fiscal security, climate security... At that rate, there would seem to be no bounds as to what "security" would entail.
To save you the further introspection on the issue, I will boil it down to a few simple bullet points. There are simply 3 major categories of security that should be included in any general discussion on national security.
1- Physical Security
2- Financial Security
3- Allied & Interest Security
The first is the physical security of the United States against lethal threats to the homeland, this encompasses terrorism, foreign military threats, network protection and resource protection. The second is protection against financial warfare and economic well being. Note that this is the protection of the international monetary and trading system from disruption. The third is foreign internal defense and allied actions, such as supporting Pakistan's military or conducting targeted assassinations. Let's boil this down even further. The primary goal of the United State's security policy should be the;
Protection of domestic assets from foreign or domestic terrorist attack
Protection of US Embassies and assets overseas from terrorist attack
Protection of the US from conventional foreign military threats
Protection of the US from irregular types of warfare (Network, NBC)
Assertion of US territorial sovereignty
Protection of International Monetary and Trading System
Protection of free trade and access to sea lanes and airspace
Protection of US Allied assets at request and US prerogative.
This should be the concern of the US government for security policy. Diseases, natural disasters and education are not security issues. By broadening the scope of national security so broadly, as NSS10 did, it does itself a disservice. Security isn't that broad, and while education is important, stupid people are not a threat to national security. There's a saying in the post 9/11 government that if you want funding, claim it relates to fighting terrorism or is critical to national security. Nobody cuts national security funding and nobody denies it. This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to the sprawling, massive and unwieldy monster of a security apparatus we have today. Those types of bloated bureaucracy are inefficient and often ineffective. Actually, come to think of it, that could be a threat to national security too...
*Disclaimer: Yes, things like disease, national debt, education and natural disasters can affect national security and they often do. But so does everything, if you define it broadly enough, everything is part of national security.
Well, the obvious answer is that a secure America would be one with no immediate threats to her or her citizenry. But, there will always be threats, wont there? al-Qaeda will not likely be totally destroyed in the near or medium future, and when it is there will be some new threat to our homeland. Is it that the threat can be contained and managed? If so, then what should the focus of security policy be?
Further complicating things, is that AQ is just one example of one type of threat - a threat to our physical security, but not an existential threat at that. There are plenty other provinces of security -- fiscal security, climate security... At that rate, there would seem to be no bounds as to what "security" would entail.
To save you the further introspection on the issue, I will boil it down to a few simple bullet points. There are simply 3 major categories of security that should be included in any general discussion on national security.
1- Physical Security
2- Financial Security
3- Allied & Interest Security
The first is the physical security of the United States against lethal threats to the homeland, this encompasses terrorism, foreign military threats, network protection and resource protection. The second is protection against financial warfare and economic well being. Note that this is the protection of the international monetary and trading system from disruption. The third is foreign internal defense and allied actions, such as supporting Pakistan's military or conducting targeted assassinations. Let's boil this down even further. The primary goal of the United State's security policy should be the;
Protection of domestic assets from foreign or domestic terrorist attack
Protection of US Embassies and assets overseas from terrorist attack
Protection of the US from conventional foreign military threats
Protection of the US from irregular types of warfare (Network, NBC)
Assertion of US territorial sovereignty
Protection of International Monetary and Trading System
Protection of free trade and access to sea lanes and airspace
Protection of US Allied assets at request and US prerogative.
This should be the concern of the US government for security policy. Diseases, natural disasters and education are not security issues. By broadening the scope of national security so broadly, as NSS10 did, it does itself a disservice. Security isn't that broad, and while education is important, stupid people are not a threat to national security. There's a saying in the post 9/11 government that if you want funding, claim it relates to fighting terrorism or is critical to national security. Nobody cuts national security funding and nobody denies it. This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to the sprawling, massive and unwieldy monster of a security apparatus we have today. Those types of bloated bureaucracy are inefficient and often ineffective. Actually, come to think of it, that could be a threat to national security too...
*Disclaimer: Yes, things like disease, national debt, education and natural disasters can affect national security and they often do. But so does everything, if you define it broadly enough, everything is part of national security.
My Privacy or Our Security?
My first thought regarding the limits of security policy is that security should not breech personal privacy. However, after thinking about it I realized that there are really no limits to security. Governments will do what they deem necessary to remain safe. One might think that since we are in America and we have First Amendment rights, the government does not breech our privacy. This is not true. The government can tap personal phone lines, and they do.
So, is this too far? I certainly feel stalked even though I know the Department of Homeland Security is not wasting it’s time on my phone line. Whats the point of Freedom of Speech if what we say can be secretly monitored and possibly held against us?
Though I can’t say I agree with the level to which the United States can tap into anyone’s personal business, there are some people I hope the government is monitoring. After all, it is for our security that such policies are in place! There are certainly some shady people that its arguably necessary for the government to keep tabs on.
I went to the official Department of Homeland Security website and, of course, got no specific information considering its a government website and the government offers limited information especially regarding security. However, I did learn one thing. Today the national security threat advisory is on yellow meaning there is a “significant risk of terrorist attacks.” I don’t know how often its on yellow, but its still a terrifying thought. Some random Thursday in October is a code yellow for national security threats! It makes me a little more satisfied knowing the U.S. government is monitoring lots of individuals and behaviors and incidents.
Perhaps this does not answer the question of whether or not security has limits or should have limits, but this is my brain dump on the matter. There is a double standard with security: I want my personal liberties and I want to be protected. Though I don’t want the government nosing around in my life, I certainly feel more safe with the knowledge that they poke around in some peoples lives!
So, is this too far? I certainly feel stalked even though I know the Department of Homeland Security is not wasting it’s time on my phone line. Whats the point of Freedom of Speech if what we say can be secretly monitored and possibly held against us?
Though I can’t say I agree with the level to which the United States can tap into anyone’s personal business, there are some people I hope the government is monitoring. After all, it is for our security that such policies are in place! There are certainly some shady people that its arguably necessary for the government to keep tabs on.
I went to the official Department of Homeland Security website and, of course, got no specific information considering its a government website and the government offers limited information especially regarding security. However, I did learn one thing. Today the national security threat advisory is on yellow meaning there is a “significant risk of terrorist attacks.” I don’t know how often its on yellow, but its still a terrifying thought. Some random Thursday in October is a code yellow for national security threats! It makes me a little more satisfied knowing the U.S. government is monitoring lots of individuals and behaviors and incidents.
Perhaps this does not answer the question of whether or not security has limits or should have limits, but this is my brain dump on the matter. There is a double standard with security: I want my personal liberties and I want to be protected. Though I don’t want the government nosing around in my life, I certainly feel more safe with the knowledge that they poke around in some peoples lives!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Diplomatic Risk: Power Dynamics
On Sunday night I went to see “Alls Well That Ends Well,” at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. Keeping with this theme, its easy to look at our class’ game of Diplomatic Risk as “well” because it ended “well,” at least for the blue, black and yellow teams. The means, however, is the part that we must evaluate. Each team went through a struggle as each tried to secure a win as designated by their interests.
Though my team won, I would argue that the means were not just. Initially, my group attempted to remain loyal to our assigned objective to spread peace. However, as we began to lose and realize that we would be out of the game completely if we did not change tactics, we decided to engage in military combat in order to promote peace. A real pacifist would not have agreed with such actions, yet it is a truth of politics that sometimes you must decide whether the ends or the means are more important to you and your cause. We, the blue team, decided that the a peaceful ending was more important to us than a peaceful means of getting there.
Much like actual politics, when not designated as a political leader, its easy to get pushed aside and ignored. I was not the head of state or the diplomat for my group, and though I was working hard to remain aware of my groups activities, motives and action, it was hard to remain interested when I had no official sway or power. I wish our class had played two games, so that each person could have been actively involved in the game. I felt ripped off by only being able to add comments or informally discuss things with my group and other groups.
Though my team won, I would argue that the means were not just. Initially, my group attempted to remain loyal to our assigned objective to spread peace. However, as we began to lose and realize that we would be out of the game completely if we did not change tactics, we decided to engage in military combat in order to promote peace. A real pacifist would not have agreed with such actions, yet it is a truth of politics that sometimes you must decide whether the ends or the means are more important to you and your cause. We, the blue team, decided that the a peaceful ending was more important to us than a peaceful means of getting there.
Much like actual politics, when not designated as a political leader, its easy to get pushed aside and ignored. I was not the head of state or the diplomat for my group, and though I was working hard to remain aware of my groups activities, motives and action, it was hard to remain interested when I had no official sway or power. I wish our class had played two games, so that each person could have been actively involved in the game. I felt ripped off by only being able to add comments or informally discuss things with my group and other groups.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A Risky Week
Well, Risk. Hm. This week was quite unusual in as much we didn't have any readings or any real "work" to do -- or so I thought when looking at the syllabus. As it turns out, I worked harder and spent more time on World Politics this week than I have any previous week, neglecting the Wednesday labs (but don't tell PTJ that, it might reflect poorly on my work ethic!). But it was still a highly enjoyable week, even if I did get a little too into it.
It is said that politics creates strange bedfellows, and I certainly found that to be the case as we were forced into many different and entangling alliances, most notably the uber-coalition against the Red Menace that quickly disposed of their threat. Then, forced again to make a coalition, we created a new coalition and did away with green which was the only obstacle to victory. Thanks to Fiona's whirlwind diplomacy, we were able to secure a victory for all three remaining players. I suppose that was the part of the game that was most like real life world politics - the alliances of necessity, the backroom negotiation, the backstabbing and cloak and dagger aspect as well.
But Risk is only a game, and while it is a reasonable facsimile of the real deal -- it fails overall in its effort to ape real world politics. Our leaders and diplomats assumed all the functions of a government and civil society and the entire democratic decision making process into executive fiat. There were a few checks, ways for the peanut gallery to voice disapproval, but these were seldom acted upon. With no real accountability, and no real aversion to war, the teams ran rampant declaring wars and massacring thousands in acts that would surely have led to an uproar at home if they actually occurred. Of course, said "diplomatic" risk is only able to really simulate a realist outlook on IR. Of course, it is possible not to do that, to play the game as a constructivist but where's the fun in that? Also, to quote a great philosopher, "A guy waving a club runs up to three cavemen. One fights, one flees and one asks him how his day is. The last one didn't live long enough to reproduce." Risk is fun, but I doubt my mad skills at Risk will have the State Department calling anytime soon.
It is said that politics creates strange bedfellows, and I certainly found that to be the case as we were forced into many different and entangling alliances, most notably the uber-coalition against the Red Menace that quickly disposed of their threat. Then, forced again to make a coalition, we created a new coalition and did away with green which was the only obstacle to victory. Thanks to Fiona's whirlwind diplomacy, we were able to secure a victory for all three remaining players. I suppose that was the part of the game that was most like real life world politics - the alliances of necessity, the backroom negotiation, the backstabbing and cloak and dagger aspect as well.
But Risk is only a game, and while it is a reasonable facsimile of the real deal -- it fails overall in its effort to ape real world politics. Our leaders and diplomats assumed all the functions of a government and civil society and the entire democratic decision making process into executive fiat. There were a few checks, ways for the peanut gallery to voice disapproval, but these were seldom acted upon. With no real accountability, and no real aversion to war, the teams ran rampant declaring wars and massacring thousands in acts that would surely have led to an uproar at home if they actually occurred. Of course, said "diplomatic" risk is only able to really simulate a realist outlook on IR. Of course, it is possible not to do that, to play the game as a constructivist but where's the fun in that? Also, to quote a great philosopher, "A guy waving a club runs up to three cavemen. One fights, one flees and one asks him how his day is. The last one didn't live long enough to reproduce." Risk is fun, but I doubt my mad skills at Risk will have the State Department calling anytime soon.
Reflection, week 9
This week was awfully interesting for me. Going from believing that you would be part of a super-awesome three way tie to knowing that you're going to me wiped of the face of the Earth in a few moves tends to be that way. At first, I thought that loosing risk after all the negotiating that my group did was proof that liberalism is an awful and impractical idea. However, after some thought, I realized that the way the game played out was an example of when liberalism does work.
Here's my thinking:
Between day 1 and day 2, my team (green) negotiated with blue, black, and especially yellow, and things went pretty well. Red was wiped from the board and we were beginning investigate the possibility of a three- or even four-way tie. However, after day 2, my group sort of let risk fall by the wayside. We didn't talk to the other teams, causing them to assume we had nothing to offer them. Hence, decision to screw green over. So, liberalism did work. It just didn't work for me.
P.S. PTJ, if that wasn't the most epic game of diplomatic risk you've ever encountered...
Here's my thinking:
Between day 1 and day 2, my team (green) negotiated with blue, black, and especially yellow, and things went pretty well. Red was wiped from the board and we were beginning investigate the possibility of a three- or even four-way tie. However, after day 2, my group sort of let risk fall by the wayside. We didn't talk to the other teams, causing them to assume we had nothing to offer them. Hence, decision to screw green over. So, liberalism did work. It just didn't work for me.
P.S. PTJ, if that wasn't the most epic game of diplomatic risk you've ever encountered...
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Reflection Perfection Week 9 (10/18-10/22)
There seems to be a lot of monkey business going on with the reflections here recently and many of them deal with security and international defense. How and why, I'm not certain but I feel obligated to follow the march onto my turf. The reflection on RISK itself will be primarily answered in my substantive blog post for this week so instead how about a brief essay on security?
"American[s] [tend to] militarize counterterrorism, to think of a metaphorical "war on terror" as primarily a literal shooting war, and to respond to an international terrorist threat that knows no territorial boundaries by capturing, bombing, or stabilizing particular pieces of territory."
"Americans expect perfection in counterterrorism, along with the partisanship that causes political opponents to pounce enthusiastically on any failure, regardless of its causes or how much it was or was not avoidable. So there is a strong impetus not only to do whatever possible to avoid another Yemen-originated attack, but also to be perceived to be doing that."
-Paul Pillar, CIA Officer(ret.), Director of Graduate Studies, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University
"In a country with millions of people and cars going everywhere, the enemy is going to get a car bomb out there once in a while."
-General James Mattis, Commanding Officer, United States Central Command
There is a curious bit of thinking in the United States political discourse that security needs to be perfect. That not only is perfect security attainable, if at the cost of some elements of legal and civil society, it would be treasonous not to pursue such at all costs. The general thinking appears to be that if there is an attack, it was preventable and it was a failure on the part of the government that needs to be solved. And in the traditional American way, the "solution" is to throw more money at the problem and to expand the power and size of the relevant governmental institutions. The idea that we were one successfully exploded crotch away from a major political crisis should be cause for great concern.
Now, before we should go any further, I suppose we should address the question that my lede begged: Is perfect security possible, and if so, at what cost?
Speaking theoretically, perfect security is possible; just as going to Pluto is possible or making a bad episode of House is theoretically possible. But the uniting characteristic is that all of these are highly improbable or come to an unacceptably high cost. For instance, in the latest publication of Inspire, the occasional publication from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Yahya Ibrahim, a presumed nom de guerre, urged would be terrorists to "keep clean" and avoid traveling to safe havens in Yemen and Pakistan to avoid drawing law enforcement attention. Also suggested was to avoid internet Jihadi sites in favor of getting propaganda from organizations like SITE Intelligence or Middle East Media Reports Initiative (MEMRI). The specific acts advocated are low tech, low casualty but high impact: shooting up a DC area restaurant or welding lawn mower blades to a car to create the "Ultimate Mowing Machine".
This would seem to be advocating when counter-terrorism researcher Marc Sageman wrote about in his book Leaderless Jihad: decentralized, low casualty but frequent terrorist attacks. This emphasizes the terrorists being "clean" and avoiding actions that would raise red flags. The easiest and most promising places to intercept terrorists is when they're traveling abroad to places like Pakistan or Yemen. If someone can be radicalized and be driven to kill from reading reports from MEMRI and still living in DC, what's to prevent him from taking a lawfully purchased firearm and unloading in a DC deli? To prevent that would take such an unbelievable intrusion into personal privacy and liberty that would be unconscionable in America. Simply allowing more intrusion into our daily lives and giving the government more power doesn't keep us safer -- one only needs to look at authoritarian states that suffer from terrorism on a routine basis.
al-Qaeda once had dreams of destroying whole cities and killing thousands, so what explains their current fixation on low impact and unintentionally hilarious tactics like "the Ultimate Mowing Machine" or instructions like "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom?" There are many reasons, such as the increasing pressure on their safe havens that disrupt their ability to plan and carry out attacks and the stronger and better domestic security in the US. But there is a larger issues, a more fundamental shift of strategy from large, expeditionary attacks in favor of smaller, more numerous locally planned attacks. One only needs to look at the most recent European plot to see this in action. The idea has never been to harm American buildings to necessarily to kill Americans but to use these as a means to force political change in US policy.
The idea is to take advantage of our aforementioned belief in perfect security and political climate. Terrorists know that America's military might is formidable and that our economic might is unrivaled -- there's no way they can change that or do any lasting harm. Even if a nuclear device was detonated in Manhattan tomorrow, the United States would not be destroyed. The biggest danger is our reaction to an attack. Our willingness to sacrifice liberty for security or our willingness to blame public figures and demand resignations. That would cause far more damage to America that some guy welding steak knives to his SUV and chasing down people on the street.
America needs to decide how it wants to fight terrorism, and the choice is essentially between two options that we currently employ to varying degrees: Is terrorism a matter for law enforcement and civilian intelligence agencies? Or is terrorism a matter for the military and a paramilitary intelligence agency? Is terrorism a matter for Federal Court or for Military Tribunals? We currently use a combination of both of these methods, is that sustainable? In 9 years of fighting terrorism with the military, we're no safer, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians.
Are we willing to accept that every so often a terrorist will succeed and many will die? Are we willing to pay for our individual liberty in blood?
"American[s] [tend to] militarize counterterrorism, to think of a metaphorical "war on terror" as primarily a literal shooting war, and to respond to an international terrorist threat that knows no territorial boundaries by capturing, bombing, or stabilizing particular pieces of territory."
"Americans expect perfection in counterterrorism, along with the partisanship that causes political opponents to pounce enthusiastically on any failure, regardless of its causes or how much it was or was not avoidable. So there is a strong impetus not only to do whatever possible to avoid another Yemen-originated attack, but also to be perceived to be doing that."
-Paul Pillar, CIA Officer(ret.), Director of Graduate Studies, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University
"In a country with millions of people and cars going everywhere, the enemy is going to get a car bomb out there once in a while."
-General James Mattis, Commanding Officer, United States Central Command
There is a curious bit of thinking in the United States political discourse that security needs to be perfect. That not only is perfect security attainable, if at the cost of some elements of legal and civil society, it would be treasonous not to pursue such at all costs. The general thinking appears to be that if there is an attack, it was preventable and it was a failure on the part of the government that needs to be solved. And in the traditional American way, the "solution" is to throw more money at the problem and to expand the power and size of the relevant governmental institutions. The idea that we were one successfully exploded crotch away from a major political crisis should be cause for great concern.
Now, before we should go any further, I suppose we should address the question that my lede begged: Is perfect security possible, and if so, at what cost?
Speaking theoretically, perfect security is possible; just as going to Pluto is possible or making a bad episode of House is theoretically possible. But the uniting characteristic is that all of these are highly improbable or come to an unacceptably high cost. For instance, in the latest publication of Inspire, the occasional publication from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Yahya Ibrahim, a presumed nom de guerre, urged would be terrorists to "keep clean" and avoid traveling to safe havens in Yemen and Pakistan to avoid drawing law enforcement attention. Also suggested was to avoid internet Jihadi sites in favor of getting propaganda from organizations like SITE Intelligence or Middle East Media Reports Initiative (MEMRI). The specific acts advocated are low tech, low casualty but high impact: shooting up a DC area restaurant or welding lawn mower blades to a car to create the "Ultimate Mowing Machine".
This would seem to be advocating when counter-terrorism researcher Marc Sageman wrote about in his book Leaderless Jihad: decentralized, low casualty but frequent terrorist attacks. This emphasizes the terrorists being "clean" and avoiding actions that would raise red flags. The easiest and most promising places to intercept terrorists is when they're traveling abroad to places like Pakistan or Yemen. If someone can be radicalized and be driven to kill from reading reports from MEMRI and still living in DC, what's to prevent him from taking a lawfully purchased firearm and unloading in a DC deli? To prevent that would take such an unbelievable intrusion into personal privacy and liberty that would be unconscionable in America. Simply allowing more intrusion into our daily lives and giving the government more power doesn't keep us safer -- one only needs to look at authoritarian states that suffer from terrorism on a routine basis.
al-Qaeda once had dreams of destroying whole cities and killing thousands, so what explains their current fixation on low impact and unintentionally hilarious tactics like "the Ultimate Mowing Machine" or instructions like "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom?" There are many reasons, such as the increasing pressure on their safe havens that disrupt their ability to plan and carry out attacks and the stronger and better domestic security in the US. But there is a larger issues, a more fundamental shift of strategy from large, expeditionary attacks in favor of smaller, more numerous locally planned attacks. One only needs to look at the most recent European plot to see this in action. The idea has never been to harm American buildings to necessarily to kill Americans but to use these as a means to force political change in US policy.
The idea is to take advantage of our aforementioned belief in perfect security and political climate. Terrorists know that America's military might is formidable and that our economic might is unrivaled -- there's no way they can change that or do any lasting harm. Even if a nuclear device was detonated in Manhattan tomorrow, the United States would not be destroyed. The biggest danger is our reaction to an attack. Our willingness to sacrifice liberty for security or our willingness to blame public figures and demand resignations. That would cause far more damage to America that some guy welding steak knives to his SUV and chasing down people on the street.
America needs to decide how it wants to fight terrorism, and the choice is essentially between two options that we currently employ to varying degrees: Is terrorism a matter for law enforcement and civilian intelligence agencies? Or is terrorism a matter for the military and a paramilitary intelligence agency? Is terrorism a matter for Federal Court or for Military Tribunals? We currently use a combination of both of these methods, is that sustainable? In 9 years of fighting terrorism with the military, we're no safer, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians.
Are we willing to accept that every so often a terrorist will succeed and many will die? Are we willing to pay for our individual liberty in blood?
Reflection #9: A Reflection on Sarah's Reflection on Cristian's Reflection
*Note, this reflection is a reflection to Sarah's reflection on Cristian's reflection (<-- this is not a link). This is.
Sarah,
It seems that you have dissed my boy. Thus, I must call you out and defend my boy through an angry blogpost. You may notice a decrease in your Facebook friends after this post because of how embarrassing you will look. You don't mess with the family business.
While I'm not entirely sure of the specifics regarding Cristian's post, there are some areas I agree and disagree on. Regarding "preemptive engagement", I too am against intervention in the context of wars. I think our defense policy can be examined in a broader sense though. Economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and foreign aid to geopolitical competitors are all disincentives for countries to exist as threats to the U.S. Due to the U.S.' resources and stability, engaging with the U.S. is almost always a net plus for countries. Countries that haven't engaged in someway with the U.S. are notorious for having systemic problems such as hyperinflation and human rights issues, specifically Zimbabwe and North Korea. I agree with you that an additional war would be antithetical to the U.S.' image worldwide and it would also not be a cost effective measure. Therefore, an ideal U.S. defense system would consist of a strong and current military force in addition to a fiscally strong economy that's able to influence international markets.
Regarding defense spending, I was a little confused on Cristian's stance because he seemed to say "decrease defense spending" followed by "increase defense spending" within his post. Regardless, I feel that our military can and should be consistently bolstered, but that doesn't require a direct increase in military spending. Other alternatives are available that provide long-term guarantees for the U.S.' hegemony while subsequently benefiting our economy. For example, you highlight the importance of education within the U.S. I completely agree. I feel that a focused policy that promoted K-12 STEM education would be beneficial for the U.S. The U.S. has consistently been lacking in STEM education for years and this is clearly shown by countries such as Japan and China leading in innovative technologies like Pokemon Black and White, which has added over 100 new Pokemon while utilizing the Nintendo DS touch screen AND wireless trading. Also, innovations in green technology are quasi-relevant as Japan has been at the forefront of that. A strong K-12 STEM education system would create a knowledge based economy that would allow many students to move above the federal poverty line while subsequently contributing to the U.S.' economy and defense. STEM education is uniquely important for our defense because it promotes jobs in areas that spillover into the military such as the semiconductor industry. As I referenced in a previous post/comment, the semiconductor industry is in need of high skilled workers with STEM backgrounds in order to create microchips that are used in military technology. A policy such as K-12 STEM education wouldn't necessitate an increase in defense spending and would still be beneficial to the U.S.' military.
Also, our military capabilities could be promoted through effective immigration policy that increased the amount of high skilled immigrant workers that came to the U.S., but I've already talked about that in another post. This would also be an alternative to increased defense spending.
In response to international organizations, I'm slightly torn regarding the importance of them. While I agree that multilateral action on issues can be good and that international organizations such as the UN help foster these initiatives, I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations. Again, as I referenced in a previous post/comment, the primary flaw I see with international organizations is the concept of international law. Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent. If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon. This could have implications on the way the U.S.' domestic policy is framed as international norms would be considered before the Constitution.
In conclusion, I feel that both of you have valid points and I enjoy reading your views on national security and international organizations. But, since Cristian is my boy and he's part of the family, all of your arguments are invalid.
Love,
Toby
Sarah,
It seems that you have dissed my boy. Thus, I must call you out and defend my boy through an angry blogpost. You may notice a decrease in your Facebook friends after this post because of how embarrassing you will look. You don't mess with the family business.
While I'm not entirely sure of the specifics regarding Cristian's post, there are some areas I agree and disagree on. Regarding "preemptive engagement", I too am against intervention in the context of wars. I think our defense policy can be examined in a broader sense though. Economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and foreign aid to geopolitical competitors are all disincentives for countries to exist as threats to the U.S. Due to the U.S.' resources and stability, engaging with the U.S. is almost always a net plus for countries. Countries that haven't engaged in someway with the U.S. are notorious for having systemic problems such as hyperinflation and human rights issues, specifically Zimbabwe and North Korea. I agree with you that an additional war would be antithetical to the U.S.' image worldwide and it would also not be a cost effective measure. Therefore, an ideal U.S. defense system would consist of a strong and current military force in addition to a fiscally strong economy that's able to influence international markets.
Regarding defense spending, I was a little confused on Cristian's stance because he seemed to say "decrease defense spending" followed by "increase defense spending" within his post. Regardless, I feel that our military can and should be consistently bolstered, but that doesn't require a direct increase in military spending. Other alternatives are available that provide long-term guarantees for the U.S.' hegemony while subsequently benefiting our economy. For example, you highlight the importance of education within the U.S. I completely agree. I feel that a focused policy that promoted K-12 STEM education would be beneficial for the U.S. The U.S. has consistently been lacking in STEM education for years and this is clearly shown by countries such as Japan and China leading in innovative technologies like Pokemon Black and White, which has added over 100 new Pokemon while utilizing the Nintendo DS touch screen AND wireless trading. Also, innovations in green technology are quasi-relevant as Japan has been at the forefront of that. A strong K-12 STEM education system would create a knowledge based economy that would allow many students to move above the federal poverty line while subsequently contributing to the U.S.' economy and defense. STEM education is uniquely important for our defense because it promotes jobs in areas that spillover into the military such as the semiconductor industry. As I referenced in a previous post/comment, the semiconductor industry is in need of high skilled workers with STEM backgrounds in order to create microchips that are used in military technology. A policy such as K-12 STEM education wouldn't necessitate an increase in defense spending and would still be beneficial to the U.S.' military.
Also, our military capabilities could be promoted through effective immigration policy that increased the amount of high skilled immigrant workers that came to the U.S., but I've already talked about that in another post. This would also be an alternative to increased defense spending.
In response to international organizations, I'm slightly torn regarding the importance of them. While I agree that multilateral action on issues can be good and that international organizations such as the UN help foster these initiatives, I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations. Again, as I referenced in a previous post/comment, the primary flaw I see with international organizations is the concept of international law. Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent. If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon. This could have implications on the way the U.S.' domestic policy is framed as international norms would be considered before the Constitution.
In conclusion, I feel that both of you have valid points and I enjoy reading your views on national security and international organizations. But, since Cristian is my boy and he's part of the family, all of your arguments are invalid.
Love,
Toby
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Diplomatic Risk Just Isn't Real Life
Diplomatic Risk is similar to real world politics in that it is modeled, at least more accurately than regular Risk, after world politics. It takes into account the fact that each country has a goal for international relations, be it maintaining and spreading peace, expansion, global dominance, etc. It also deals with two theaters of politics: military and diplomacy. Whereas regular Risk is based upon realist ideals and sets the end goal as global domination, Diplomatic Risk entertains the idea that there are different tactics and approaches to global politics, which is much like world politics in actuality. If I were a realist, I would argue that Risk is very similar to world politics, and it at least embodies the main theme of international relations. However, I am not a realist and thus I find that neither Risk, nor Diplomatic Risk resemble world politics too closely.
That being said, there are a lot of discrepancies between Diplomatic Risk and the real world. For one, there is no over arching power enforcing rules (PTJ). Allies can attack allies (ex. Germany’s attack on Russia in WWII), there is no order of play (countries act simultaneously), and many chiefs of state cannot be replaced as swiftly as allowed in Diplomatic Risk (U.S. president is elected every four years, dictators usually rule until their death). In Diplomatic Risk countries are working towards short term goals. A team’s goal may be to take control of certain countries, or regions of the world or their goal may be to encourage the formation of allies, or the destruction of allies. Another severe discrepancy from actuality, is a team’s special power. In real world politics, countries may have tricks up their sleeves (i.e. nuclear weapons, plans for sneak attacks, etc.) but there is no real way to ensure that at any given time a country can spring a super power out on the world, without being combated or defeated.
Though Diplomatic Risk is an example of world politics and is a way for our class to experiment with international relations, the boundaries and parameters of the game are far from realistic.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
risk vs. real life
I could answer the blog question for this week as irritatingly as possible and say that the biggest difference between risk and real life is that real wars aren't fought with dice and a game board. Lucky for you all, I won't. The biggest differences, I think, are that there are no constituencies to consider, and teams started out fairly anonymous.
Without constituencies, warfare is much simpler to conduct. There is no one to complain about you risking their lives and spending their money in the name of a greater goal. Real global actors have to worry about keeping the people at home happy, as well as advancing themselves. I'm thinking that if risk were closer to real life, almost every group would have had to deal with at least one attempted coup by this point. Constant warfare is hard to sell in today's culture.
The anonymity given to the teams is also something extremely different from real life. For strategy's sake, I don't want to say too much before we're done with the game, but I will edit and expand upon this section once it won't affect game play anymore.
Without constituencies, warfare is much simpler to conduct. There is no one to complain about you risking their lives and spending their money in the name of a greater goal. Real global actors have to worry about keeping the people at home happy, as well as advancing themselves. I'm thinking that if risk were closer to real life, almost every group would have had to deal with at least one attempted coup by this point. Constant warfare is hard to sell in today's culture.
The anonymity given to the teams is also something extremely different from real life. For strategy's sake, I don't want to say too much before we're done with the game, but I will edit and expand upon this section once it won't affect game play anymore.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Week 8 Reflection (10/11-10/15)
'War is risky business, lad -- and it's too important to be left to some community organizer who has never worked an honest day in his life"
This week we played diplomatic Risk, the classic board game Risk with a special PTJ twist. I had never played the original Risk game so there was no transition and I quickly adapted to the new game. What I loved about this game was it combined so many aspects of world politics: war, diplomacy, backroom deals, espionage and different goals.
In classic Risk, everyone has the same goal: material conquest and while I am sure it is entertaining, it lacks the complexity of this game. It is actually possible to achieve your goals without violent conflict for some players in this game, nay it may be your goal to prevent armed conflict. Not knowing what the other players goals are is the most challenging part of this game but is also what makes it so fun. Alas, OPSEC prevents me from further discussing the game for now.
That was the entirety of the week for world politics*, it was Fall break so I went home and enjoyed loving up my puppies and hanging out with my friends. It was nice, except for when my bag was lost on my way back home and I went without my clothes, laptop or toiletries for 2 days. :/ But still, good week and I look forward to the conclusion of Risk in but a few days.
*Oh dear, I forgot Salome!
Salome was an interesting experience for me, I was quick conflicted. I had never been to an Opera before so I had little idea what to expect. But I also greatly enjoy classical and baroque music as well as the performing arts so I figured I was set to like an Opera. But, alas, that was not meant to be. I found the performance to be lacking -- the orchestra did a good job but as is typical of Strauss, it overpowered the voices of the performers on stage and was not melodic. The performers themselves did not project enough to have the orchestra compliment them, it was as if they were backing up the orchestra at points. My father, a reporter and occasional music critic, did not like Salome and had prepped me to dislike it as well. Perhaps that bias went in with me and influenced my opinion; I don't know. All I know is I came out unimpressed with the performance and slightly more ill** for having gone out instead of staying home resting.
** Literally, not figuratively.
This week we played diplomatic Risk, the classic board game Risk with a special PTJ twist. I had never played the original Risk game so there was no transition and I quickly adapted to the new game. What I loved about this game was it combined so many aspects of world politics: war, diplomacy, backroom deals, espionage and different goals.
In classic Risk, everyone has the same goal: material conquest and while I am sure it is entertaining, it lacks the complexity of this game. It is actually possible to achieve your goals without violent conflict for some players in this game, nay it may be your goal to prevent armed conflict. Not knowing what the other players goals are is the most challenging part of this game but is also what makes it so fun. Alas, OPSEC prevents me from further discussing the game for now.
That was the entirety of the week for world politics*, it was Fall break so I went home and enjoyed loving up my puppies and hanging out with my friends. It was nice, except for when my bag was lost on my way back home and I went without my clothes, laptop or toiletries for 2 days. :/ But still, good week and I look forward to the conclusion of Risk in but a few days.
*Oh dear, I forgot Salome!
Salome was an interesting experience for me, I was quick conflicted. I had never been to an Opera before so I had little idea what to expect. But I also greatly enjoy classical and baroque music as well as the performing arts so I figured I was set to like an Opera. But, alas, that was not meant to be. I found the performance to be lacking -- the orchestra did a good job but as is typical of Strauss, it overpowered the voices of the performers on stage and was not melodic. The performers themselves did not project enough to have the orchestra compliment them, it was as if they were backing up the orchestra at points. My father, a reporter and occasional music critic, did not like Salome and had prepped me to dislike it as well. Perhaps that bias went in with me and influenced my opinion; I don't know. All I know is I came out unimpressed with the performance and slightly more ill** for having gone out instead of staying home resting.
** Literally, not figuratively.
Reflection # 8
Coming out of Salome made me realize the significance the play had to world politics. Salome served as a metaphor that examined the underlying metaphysical implications of a realist world.
Just kidding, it was an interesting play though.
Risk was substantially more interesting though. I came into the game ready to deceive and destroy my opponents to victory. Unfortunately, we were playing the "limited edition PTJ deluxe set" which was sadly pulled from production due to a correlation to high suicide rates.
While I played the game I had not really thought about the purpose of the activity. The main changes to the game included a representative in a committee that made various deliberations regarding alliances, enemies, etc., an increased role of deliberation, goals, and random events that occurred. In retrospect, there was one thing I saw that resonated with me regarding world politics. The gradual and meticulous process of making moves.
While I probably am over thinking the game, meticulousness plays a vital role in international politics. Any move a leader of a country makes can have geopolitical effects worldwide. Even a leader simply showing his face at a public event can have implications worldwide. A good example of this can be the case of Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro. Both have been known lately to have not made many public appearances. When they did make appearances, signs of deteriorating health and rumors of impending death arose. This in turn sparked discussions and deliberations regarding potential successors, implications for relations, how that will effect trade, military alliances, and shifts in a country's grand strategy.
Meticulousness also occurs in the arrangement of agreements. Countries signing and ratifying agreements have specific intentions for their country. For example, the U.S. and South Korea are attempting to deliberate a free trade agreement. As per most international issues, bipartisanship fails to exist. South Korea wants a clause within the treaty to include products made within the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC), a small area outside the border of South Korea that contains a significant portion of South Korea's manufacturing capabilities. The U.S. is extremely hesitant on ratifying a deal that includes products manufactured in North Korea. Opponents of the agreement argue that money procured by the deal will be siphoned to North Korea and be used for nuclear endeavors. South Korea on the other hand, is hesitant to ratify a deal that fails to acknowledge a significant area of manufacturing which could play a vital role in their economic development. Note that this is only a minor clause within the entirety of the free trade agreement. Each clause, sentence, and issue is carefully deliberated and discussed in order to ensure that the agreement benefits the most people. Even if the agreement gets passed, there may be some geopolitical issues regarding North Korea and China.
Regardless, the game of Risk showed me how tedious deliberations can be, but also the impact such deliberations can have in the international sphere. We'll see how the game continues throughout class.
Just kidding, it was an interesting play though.
Risk was substantially more interesting though. I came into the game ready to deceive and destroy my opponents to victory. Unfortunately, we were playing the "limited edition PTJ deluxe set" which was sadly pulled from production due to a correlation to high suicide rates.
While I played the game I had not really thought about the purpose of the activity. The main changes to the game included a representative in a committee that made various deliberations regarding alliances, enemies, etc., an increased role of deliberation, goals, and random events that occurred. In retrospect, there was one thing I saw that resonated with me regarding world politics. The gradual and meticulous process of making moves.
While I probably am over thinking the game, meticulousness plays a vital role in international politics. Any move a leader of a country makes can have geopolitical effects worldwide. Even a leader simply showing his face at a public event can have implications worldwide. A good example of this can be the case of Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro. Both have been known lately to have not made many public appearances. When they did make appearances, signs of deteriorating health and rumors of impending death arose. This in turn sparked discussions and deliberations regarding potential successors, implications for relations, how that will effect trade, military alliances, and shifts in a country's grand strategy.
Meticulousness also occurs in the arrangement of agreements. Countries signing and ratifying agreements have specific intentions for their country. For example, the U.S. and South Korea are attempting to deliberate a free trade agreement. As per most international issues, bipartisanship fails to exist. South Korea wants a clause within the treaty to include products made within the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC), a small area outside the border of South Korea that contains a significant portion of South Korea's manufacturing capabilities. The U.S. is extremely hesitant on ratifying a deal that includes products manufactured in North Korea. Opponents of the agreement argue that money procured by the deal will be siphoned to North Korea and be used for nuclear endeavors. South Korea on the other hand, is hesitant to ratify a deal that fails to acknowledge a significant area of manufacturing which could play a vital role in their economic development. Note that this is only a minor clause within the entirety of the free trade agreement. Each clause, sentence, and issue is carefully deliberated and discussed in order to ensure that the agreement benefits the most people. Even if the agreement gets passed, there may be some geopolitical issues regarding North Korea and China.
Regardless, the game of Risk showed me how tedious deliberations can be, but also the impact such deliberations can have in the international sphere. We'll see how the game continues throughout class.
Let's Play Diplomatic Risk
I was home for fall break and over dinner I began to explain Diplomatic Risk to my family. I explained how each team had a head of state to manage troop movement and a diplomat to represent them in the World Council. I continued that each team had an objective and a super power, and that not every team was trying to conquer the globe. At this statement my boyfriend, Nathan, interjected, “The point of risk is world domination! Just remember that!” I reminded that it was Diplomatic Risk, but he didn’t care because he found our Risk adaptations to be superfluous.
As I reflected on the exchange I realized that many people may think this way about international relations. The majority of citizens on this globe have not studied different theories of international relations ad therefore may consider world domination or being #1 as being the most important thing in global politics. Is the majority of the world made up of realists? I wouldn’t go as far as to assert that such persons are realists, but I think it can be noted that realist ideals are instilled in us throughout our lives.
As a kid, I spent most of my grade school years in North Carolina, where they don’t hesitate to brag about the Roanoke settlement that birthed the nation. Though Europe wasn’t sending armies, they sent settlers to establish influence, dominance and trade ports across the ocean. The native peoples were mistreated and yet all of this is overlooked as we honor the early years of America. From the beginning of our academic ventures, we are taught that global dominance and forcing one’s control onto unwilling persons is okay if the result is beneficial (the end justifies the means). Popular culture is filled with books and movies recounting historic tales of bravery, conquest and victory. To many people, war and dominance, the objectives of normal Risk, are adventurous, courageous, and perfectly acceptable as a means for handling global affairs. Nature teaches us not to lose and not to settle for less when you can be number one. Why should international relations be any different?
As a human rights activist and a person who favors a mix of liberal and constructivist ideals, I find it extremely important to remind those around us that diplomacy is an option, and a favorable one at that! When the world views something almost universally through a realist lens, its vital that someone stands up and says, “Let’s play DIplomatic Risk!”
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Week 7 Reflection
I was recently cast in a fall musical here at American University entitled I Never Saw Another Butterfly. It focuses on the terror and destruction that befell the Czechoslovakian jews who were taken to Terezin, a ghetto during World War II, and, most importantly the beauty of their hope. I am a jewish mother in the show, and thus have spent the past week of my life becoming an individual terrified by circumstances that have placed me out of control of my family’s or my own life. As an actress it is my job to become her mentally and thus make choices, both mentally and physically, that she would make. As practice has become more and more intense, I have begun to see and feel what it was like for victims of the Holocaust. Tying this concept into world politics, I know for certain that Machiavelli was entirely wrong in his assertion about two sets of morals. As Hitler rose into power, began the Nazi Regime, and started to transport, relocated, cluster, and murder the Jewish population of Western Europe, he may have been thinking and acting according to Machiavelli’s definition of a good ruler. He may have considered his actions impersonal, and necessary for his cause.
I consider my role in the show as an embodiment of every mother whose life was torn to tatters by the Holocaust. I have my children and my husband torn out of my arms and I can tell you that the politics of the Holocaust was personal to every individual involved. His choices destroyed millions of people’s way of life, their families, their societies... everything. It is impossible to say that his actions were moral. Machiavelli says that there are two sets of morals: personal and necessary for politics. He would approve of a number of human rights violations if they were deemed necessary to a political regime, because its on a political level and it doesn’t apply to one’s personal morals, but I contend that there is only one set of moral codes, because every decision, even if made by a political figure, is personal to at least one person.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Refletion, Week insanity
My brain is a little dead now. But for all the dozens of hours that I spent working on the minor simulation and writing the essay about near-Earth objects, the pre-Salome information session from this morning is what was most striking to me. In particular, the guest speaker from the Kennedy Center Education program was infuriating. As a musician, and in particular as a student of classical voice, his insinuation that the music in opera is secondary to the theatricality and plot of the performance was maddening. After all, Monteverdi, Puccini, and Wagner were composers, not playwrights or authors! Nobody remembers Lucia Popp or Luciano Pavarotti for their superb acting skills. And it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.
I also found it really unfortunate that he was trying to present opera as relatable to a group of students about to see Salome. I really don't think that any of us can relate to the desire to sing a sexually charged aria to the severed head of a prophet. Salome operates around spectacle, shocking the audience. Entire aspects of the opera are purposefully supposed to be unrelatable.
I am really excited to see Salome, though. I am much more familiar with British, French, and Italian opera than German opera, so this will be very educational for me. However, I feel like this particular opera might be sort of inaccessible to people that don't have a background in opera, so I wish we were seeing something funnier or at least less disturbing, like The Magic Flute or even an operetta like Mikado. Regardless, I'm extremely excited for our trip to the Kennedy Center.
For your viewing pleasure, a look at the dirty side of opera. The gist of what she's implying is that there's no good reason for her to only sleep with one person if more than one person wants to sleep with her. The singer is Cecilia Bartoli.
I also found it really unfortunate that he was trying to present opera as relatable to a group of students about to see Salome. I really don't think that any of us can relate to the desire to sing a sexually charged aria to the severed head of a prophet. Salome operates around spectacle, shocking the audience. Entire aspects of the opera are purposefully supposed to be unrelatable.
I am really excited to see Salome, though. I am much more familiar with British, French, and Italian opera than German opera, so this will be very educational for me. However, I feel like this particular opera might be sort of inaccessible to people that don't have a background in opera, so I wish we were seeing something funnier or at least less disturbing, like The Magic Flute or even an operetta like Mikado. Regardless, I'm extremely excited for our trip to the Kennedy Center.
For your viewing pleasure, a look at the dirty side of opera. The gist of what she's implying is that there's no good reason for her to only sleep with one person if more than one person wants to sleep with her. The singer is Cecilia Bartoli.
Reflection Number 7
Last week primarily consisted of preparation for the simulation on Friday. The simulation allowed for a micro-level interpretation on how different groups react to policy proposals. As a representative of the Sierra Club, our group primarily took a stance promoting the status quo.
As the Sierra Club, we were against the plan to repeal the tariff for multiple reasons. Our first argument was that the proposal would cause automobile manufacturers to offshore their production to countries such as China that can do the labor for a cheaper cost and higher emissions. Since China has lower emissions standards, there would be no risk of the company being taxes for high emissions rates, something that occurs frequently within the United States. This increased automobile production in China would promote factories that utilize unclean manufacturing processes, pollution-filled shipping routes, and a disincentive to produce clean energy policies. Additionally, the increase in car production would allow more Chinese drivers to emerge which would drastically increase emissions from China. Increased emissions would quicken the rate at which global warming produces structural problems to the world which would potentially culminate in extinction from ocean acidification and polar ice cap melting.
While there were numerous other points that were made within the simulation, it was interesting to see how different organizations have different perspectives and views on policy proposals. For example, GM promoted the removal of the tariff because they claimed it would improve efficiency, allow for a stable transition towards hybrid and more environmental friendly cars, and provide the best customer satisfaction. While we disagreed with them due to stark ideological differences, the simulation provided a forum in which we could role-play decision makers in society. Through this experience we were able to garner a better understanding on the implications of policies in different fields and how a rational decision maker must determine the best possible policy that can benefit the most people.
As the Sierra Club, we were against the plan to repeal the tariff for multiple reasons. Our first argument was that the proposal would cause automobile manufacturers to offshore their production to countries such as China that can do the labor for a cheaper cost and higher emissions. Since China has lower emissions standards, there would be no risk of the company being taxes for high emissions rates, something that occurs frequently within the United States. This increased automobile production in China would promote factories that utilize unclean manufacturing processes, pollution-filled shipping routes, and a disincentive to produce clean energy policies. Additionally, the increase in car production would allow more Chinese drivers to emerge which would drastically increase emissions from China. Increased emissions would quicken the rate at which global warming produces structural problems to the world which would potentially culminate in extinction from ocean acidification and polar ice cap melting.
While there were numerous other points that were made within the simulation, it was interesting to see how different organizations have different perspectives and views on policy proposals. For example, GM promoted the removal of the tariff because they claimed it would improve efficiency, allow for a stable transition towards hybrid and more environmental friendly cars, and provide the best customer satisfaction. While we disagreed with them due to stark ideological differences, the simulation provided a forum in which we could role-play decision makers in society. Through this experience we were able to garner a better understanding on the implications of policies in different fields and how a rational decision maker must determine the best possible policy that can benefit the most people.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Week 7 Reflection (10/4-10/8)
We didn't have any readings or class discussions this week so I will very briefly cover the simulation before going on a world politics related rant.
The simulation went well I thought. We ran over time both in class and my group also ran over time so the whole process was not as smooth as it could have been. Having to argue a position I didn't necessarily agree with was certainly challenging but also rewarding as it made my explore another position in depth -- know your enemy, after all.
Now, onto my rant. I was on Google Reader when I found a post on a blog called "Ink Spots"* which discussed the severe cuts being made to the British defense budget by the current government. Linked there, was a story about the Royal Navy looking to cut the fleet down to 25 total ships. Twenty-five. We're a long ways away from Trafalgar. Added to the cuts of tens of thousands of soldiers, reducing the RAF to pre WWI levels and we're talking about the effective loss of a major military ally. Under these cuts, the ability of the British government to project any power beyond its littoral waters will be close to nil. The residents of the Falklands are holding their breath.
Germany also announced plans to cut thousands of soldiers from their army and to possibly end mandatory conscription could cut the Bundeswehr by 100,000 soldiers.
The British, German, Spanish and Italian armed forces all received less than the NATO minimum of 2% of GDP. France skirts the line at 2.2%. With the economic crisis putting a great deal of upwards pressure on sovereign debt, governments are scrambling to find cuts to arrest the upward trend and the military is an attractive target. The Soviets aren't going to come charging across the Fulda Gap with heavy armoured divisions anytime soon and terrorism is looked at as a mainly a matter for the police**. Europe simply doesn't see the need for a large, standing modern army.
The British Army, once considered the finest fighting force in all the world, is struggling to maintain a 9,500 troop deployment to Afghanistan. France, the country that deployed 400,000 soldiers literally across the globe in the 50's has given all it can at 3,700. Germany, whose military history is... well documented, has deployed under 4,000. Combined with these proposed cuts, it's time to realize a hard truth: Europe has given up it's expeditionary capacity. The United State maintains over 300,000 deployed soldiers all across the world in 820 separate military installations. Europe is a good economic partner, a good partner for law enforcement/counter-terrorism, and we have huge cultural ties and our longstanding friendship with many countries there runs deep. We are allies, and will conceivably be so for the foreseeable future. But it's time to stop pretending that Europe is capable or willing to engage in protracted warfare anymore. Europe has made its choice, now it's time for us to make ours.
Given that Asia is the most likely place for a serious threat to arise, it would be advisable for us to focus more on developing our navy and our alliances in South Asia. Any conflict with China would be primarily aerial and sea based. While it is still imperative to focus on the Marine Corps and Army in IRAFPAK, we cannot ignore the pressing need to modernize our Navy and Air Force. Our Navy has struggled for years to find a replacement for the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer and the Air Force has spend billions on an unrealistic F-22 and a much delayed and under-performing F-35. We cannot afford to keep acting like the next war will be in Europe or the Middle East and we can't afford to rely on a substantial deployment of European Forces to assist us anymore.
*Ink Spots is a play on Oil Spots, which is a term for population centric counter-insurgency coined (har!) by French General Hubert Lyautey.
**Not that I disagree with this, mind you. But that's another blog post.
The simulation went well I thought. We ran over time both in class and my group also ran over time so the whole process was not as smooth as it could have been. Having to argue a position I didn't necessarily agree with was certainly challenging but also rewarding as it made my explore another position in depth -- know your enemy, after all.
Now, onto my rant. I was on Google Reader when I found a post on a blog called "Ink Spots"* which discussed the severe cuts being made to the British defense budget by the current government. Linked there, was a story about the Royal Navy looking to cut the fleet down to 25 total ships. Twenty-five. We're a long ways away from Trafalgar. Added to the cuts of tens of thousands of soldiers, reducing the RAF to pre WWI levels and we're talking about the effective loss of a major military ally. Under these cuts, the ability of the British government to project any power beyond its littoral waters will be close to nil. The residents of the Falklands are holding their breath.
Germany also announced plans to cut thousands of soldiers from their army and to possibly end mandatory conscription could cut the Bundeswehr by 100,000 soldiers.
The British, German, Spanish and Italian armed forces all received less than the NATO minimum of 2% of GDP. France skirts the line at 2.2%. With the economic crisis putting a great deal of upwards pressure on sovereign debt, governments are scrambling to find cuts to arrest the upward trend and the military is an attractive target. The Soviets aren't going to come charging across the Fulda Gap with heavy armoured divisions anytime soon and terrorism is looked at as a mainly a matter for the police**. Europe simply doesn't see the need for a large, standing modern army.
The British Army, once considered the finest fighting force in all the world, is struggling to maintain a 9,500 troop deployment to Afghanistan. France, the country that deployed 400,000 soldiers literally across the globe in the 50's has given all it can at 3,700. Germany, whose military history is... well documented, has deployed under 4,000. Combined with these proposed cuts, it's time to realize a hard truth: Europe has given up it's expeditionary capacity. The United State maintains over 300,000 deployed soldiers all across the world in 820 separate military installations. Europe is a good economic partner, a good partner for law enforcement/counter-terrorism, and we have huge cultural ties and our longstanding friendship with many countries there runs deep. We are allies, and will conceivably be so for the foreseeable future. But it's time to stop pretending that Europe is capable or willing to engage in protracted warfare anymore. Europe has made its choice, now it's time for us to make ours.
Given that Asia is the most likely place for a serious threat to arise, it would be advisable for us to focus more on developing our navy and our alliances in South Asia. Any conflict with China would be primarily aerial and sea based. While it is still imperative to focus on the Marine Corps and Army in IRAFPAK, we cannot ignore the pressing need to modernize our Navy and Air Force. Our Navy has struggled for years to find a replacement for the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer and the Air Force has spend billions on an unrealistic F-22 and a much delayed and under-performing F-35. We cannot afford to keep acting like the next war will be in Europe or the Middle East and we can't afford to rely on a substantial deployment of European Forces to assist us anymore.
*Ink Spots is a play on Oil Spots, which is a term for population centric counter-insurgency coined (har!) by French General Hubert Lyautey.
**Not that I disagree with this, mind you. But that's another blog post.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Week 6 Reflection (9/27-10/1)
(I thought I had posted this much earlier, but apparently not.)
What an interesting week! I mentioned in my last reflection that I was left a little disappointed by the previous week in world politics and that I was looking forward to this week being a turnaround and my prayers were answered! I found this week to be much more interesting and constructive than the previous week. But, oddly, even though I found this week's blog post to be much more challenging. But still, it was a fun week and the highlight was the Wednesday Lab with Dr Howard.
Our discussion focused on marginalized groups and how one should approach them in international politics. Where's the line between excessively meddling in domestic affairs and responsibly addressing the domestic political situation in another country? Certainly anyone studying a certain area should be aware of the numerous marginalized groups for a number of reasons but should the United States care about the plight of the Wallonians in Belgium? We certainly don't seem to be sweating it. The Green Movement? Well, there we certainly do have a great interest and investment. Why do we ignore the Wallonians and focus so much on the Green Movement? Because the former is not in mortal peril and is not in a country that is of such a great importance to us as Iran is. As such, we have no reason to expend political capital on their cause. But the Green Movement certainly does have the potential to affect political change in Iran, and since we would love to see that, we pay a great deal more attention to them.
But this is a reflection, and I'm rambling. I just found the discussion on Friday to be very thought provoking and I greatly enjoyed it. I certainly would have liked for that to be our blog post for the week but c'est la vie.
The lab with Dr Howard was another interesting experience, giving us the chance to see what life is like for a bureaucrat. I admit, he did not make it found like the life I had always imagined a bureaucrat living: fast cars, loose women and easy money. But still, as someone who aspires to be a bureaucrat one day, it was a good experience. I had the chance to catch Dr Howard before he left and talk to him off the record about ME politics and the possible repercussions of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and he provided some good insight into that.
So, this week was probably my favorite week in World Politics. I found the discussions to be stimulating and interesting and the lab was very enjoyable (plus it was on campus and casual!). I imagine the next few weeks will be also enjoyable because of the light workload (save for the simulation) but that's an ignoble type of pleasure to derive from a $50,000/year education. But still, this was a good week and I'm looking forward to more discussions and more interesting labs!
What an interesting week! I mentioned in my last reflection that I was left a little disappointed by the previous week in world politics and that I was looking forward to this week being a turnaround and my prayers were answered! I found this week to be much more interesting and constructive than the previous week. But, oddly, even though I found this week's blog post to be much more challenging. But still, it was a fun week and the highlight was the Wednesday Lab with Dr Howard.
Our discussion focused on marginalized groups and how one should approach them in international politics. Where's the line between excessively meddling in domestic affairs and responsibly addressing the domestic political situation in another country? Certainly anyone studying a certain area should be aware of the numerous marginalized groups for a number of reasons but should the United States care about the plight of the Wallonians in Belgium? We certainly don't seem to be sweating it. The Green Movement? Well, there we certainly do have a great interest and investment. Why do we ignore the Wallonians and focus so much on the Green Movement? Because the former is not in mortal peril and is not in a country that is of such a great importance to us as Iran is. As such, we have no reason to expend political capital on their cause. But the Green Movement certainly does have the potential to affect political change in Iran, and since we would love to see that, we pay a great deal more attention to them.
But this is a reflection, and I'm rambling. I just found the discussion on Friday to be very thought provoking and I greatly enjoyed it. I certainly would have liked for that to be our blog post for the week but c'est la vie.
The lab with Dr Howard was another interesting experience, giving us the chance to see what life is like for a bureaucrat. I admit, he did not make it found like the life I had always imagined a bureaucrat living: fast cars, loose women and easy money. But still, as someone who aspires to be a bureaucrat one day, it was a good experience. I had the chance to catch Dr Howard before he left and talk to him off the record about ME politics and the possible repercussions of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and he provided some good insight into that.
So, this week was probably my favorite week in World Politics. I found the discussions to be stimulating and interesting and the lab was very enjoyable (plus it was on campus and casual!). I imagine the next few weeks will be also enjoyable because of the light workload (save for the simulation) but that's an ignoble type of pleasure to derive from a $50,000/year education. But still, this was a good week and I'm looking forward to more discussions and more interesting labs!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Theory vs. Action
Our discussions this week about the relevance of international theory was intriguing. It has always seemed to me that theory is applicable to everything. The fact that theories of international relations conflict, is not uncommon. The very nature of theory is that it is an unknown that persons hypothesize about, leaving room for disagreement, contradiction, and controversy.
Whats important, is that nations do not act according to a theory, but theories are used to attempt to label and categorize the actions of states. As our guest speaker on Wednesday pointed out, those in the bureaucracy are not concerned with the application of international relations theories, but with acting according to the necessity of the state, and according to personal, national, and international morals.
As a student, I can see the relevance in studying international relations theories in an attempt to understand and rationalize the actions of states, however, I can also see the downfall in obsessing over the logistics of theories instead of focusing on the actions that states have made. There is a happy medium between being sensible about the actions of states, and hypothesizing their future actions and being concerned with the current decisions of one’s state and others in the international sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)