PTJesus and his 12 Reflections

This week was great.  Starting out with a lecture from Tickner, a presentation from the World Bank, and the discussions we had on Friday all created a substantive week in world politics.  While I would love to continue my discussion on Tickner into my reflection, I was really intrigued by the World Bank presentation.  I personally believe that the World Bank is an important institution, but I'm curious as to whether or not it is effective.  More specifically, whether it provides an equal representation to countries that it's comprised of.

One of the main criticisms of the World Bank is that it is comprised of 186 countries but is organized and run by a very few economically powerful countries.  These countries are able to choose leadership and senior management and a result of that is that their countries' interests are a priori.  The problem with it being an international institution is that it needs to remain both active and politically neutral.  Foreign investment, international trade, and capital investment should occur in developing countries where needed, not based upon political biases or senior management.  While I'm not advocating that the World Bank is corrupt or purely biased, and I understand that there are a limited amount of resources that the World bank controls that need to be meticulously allocated throughout the world, I'm curious as to whether there are ways to increase the effectiveness of the institution.  Whether that means more money needs to be allocated or a more democratic decision-making process needs to be established, I'm unsure at the moment.  As a political organization, the World Bank needs to be able to meet the demands of the various donors and borrowing governments annually, it must additionally be a action-oriented institution which remains politically neutral while specializing in development and technical assistance.  Studies have indicated that this balance has caused the World Bank to adopt policies that dictate which poverty is "best alleviated" through the implementation of market prices.  While I feel that there are many philosophical objects as to this policy, whether it be a capitalist, neoliberal, or even a poverty rhetoric criticism, I feel like this market-based poverty reduction policy has prevented a truly holistic implementation of the World Bank's resources.  Understandably, as resources are limited, maybe a holistic policy is utopian.  Regardless, the World Bank's role is a truly interesting one which was highlighted in the lecture this week.

Alternative Perspectives in IR

This week provided a lecture from J. Ann Tickner which provided a justification for the feminist perspective within international politics.  When prompted with the question as to whether these perspectives have value within international relations theory, I would say they do.

While most IR theories establish reasons why the world exists as the way it does in the status quo or past, Tickner and the feminist perspective question the underlying methodologies and epistemological understandings of the world that general theories portray.  One of Tickner's main criticisms include the science upon which realism and various IR theories are based upon.  These theories utilize science and a rationale that derive from Western philosophers such as Kant.  Kant's theory included that men are bound together by the "necessary obligation to so arrange their social and political lives that they could gradually realize a condition of universal justice and perpetual peace" (Tickner, 1997).  While one may believe that Kant uses the term "man/men" in a gender neutral sense, he truly believed that women diminished the development of man and that women shouldn't be educated.  The typical counter argument is that these theories are all time-bound and do not exist in a more gender sensitive world.  Tickner argues that though we do live in a more gender sensitive time, the underlying assumptions of IR theories still consists of patriarchal values.

Another aspect of the feminist critique is the question as to whose interest security is serving within IR theory.  Tickner and another theories, Edward Kolodziej, claim that certain theories, specifically in the context of Walt's, contain a philosophically restricted notion of social sciences in which policymakers are led to determine what is real and relevant.  This is based upon definitions of science that exist within IR theory that tend to prevent any form of ethical and moral discussions from occurring. This mindset has created an epistemic hierarchy that allows conventional security studies such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism, to set themselves up as the "judge" of alternative claims to theirs.  This inevitably prevents alternative epistemologies from existing based upon the rationale of them not being "scientific".

Thus, I believe that an epitemology that examines identity and the methodologies upon which other theories are based upon has a role within IR theory.  This stimulates discussion that opens up new frameworks of thought that aren't purely constrained by masculine lenses.  Some feminist argue that this creates a form of institutionalized militarism within IR theory that stifles other potential viewpoints.  An open forum is an educational forum and the feminist perspective provides that.

Election Reflection

In the past week I have been officially embarrassed. No, I didn’t trip on stage or have toilet paper stuck to my shoe. Its worse. I am now officially represented politically by Renee Ellmers. “Whats the big deal?” you might ask. If you haven’t stumbled across her before you are in for a surprise. As I shared with the class on Thursday, Ellmers has flaunted her ignorance for all to see. The pinnacle of her witlessness can be observed in her video entitled, “No Mosques at Ground Zero.” Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QvKOdiyFaw

Yes. Renee Ellmers just called all muslims terrorists, she implied the supremacy of the english language and she called places of worship “victory mosques.” Not horrified yet? Check out her interview with CNN reporter, Anderson Cooper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAqarG8l6w&feature=player_embedded

Just to clarify. She says that she is representing the people of district two of North Carolina. Well, I’m from the second district of North Carolina and I detest the ignorance that this new congressman sports with blind pride!

I must admit, I finally feel the sting of election loss. This was my first election and it is truly infuriating to watch one’s country prepare for destruction when all you can do is add your tally to the votes of the masses. I am embarrassed that this woman is even considered a productive and acceptable member of society, and I am mortified that constituents in my district have stooped to voting for such an inconsiderate, ill-informed person. This time, it goes beyond party lines. This is about co-existing, no matter what your person beliefs are.

Reflection

So... Since we didn't have class today, I wasn't really sure when our reflections were due. But, I have a few things from this past week that I'd really like to talk about.

The most fascinating thing is something that I witnessed when I went to the Kennedy Center for a concert this past Thursday. I was lucky enough to get my ticket for free from my voice teacher (I had to write an essay about it. Stank), but a lot of the people attending the concert were quite wealthy, as the performance was a vocal recital held in the Terrace theater, a venue for which most patrons hold season tickets. In the Hall of Nations on that particular night, there was a display where a grain of rice equaled one person. So, they had piles of rice representing things like the number of people in the world that live on less than a dollar a day, the number of Americans without health insurance, and the number of draft-eligible Americans that moved to Canada during the Vietnam War. It seemed like I was the only person at the display that was not utterly shocked by the size of the pile representing the number of people without health insurance, or the number of people living on less than a dollar a day. It really worries me how ignorant some members of the upper echelons of society are about the plights of the poor. They are the ones with the resources to fix the problem; I suppose they often just don't know about it. Who's worried? I know I am.


Oh, yeah. And the concert was super good. Yay for Alice Coote and her skillz.

Week 11 Reflection (11/1-11/5)

Yeah so my entire reflection previously got deleted because firefox is awesome like that. Anyway, let me begin this reflection by voicing my dismay at the way class was conducted this week. But before I begin, I shall preface this by saying that I don't think they were done poorly, but that it wasn't what I had hoped.

Based on the readings and blog posts I had been hoping for an epic confrontation between me and the entire class against our lone idealistic interventionist Rowland. Considering how we prefaced the week by watching Black Hawk Down and routinely had dueling blog posts, I look forward to the class being raucous and lively -- preferably with chairs being thrown or something. In this, I was to be disappointed.

What I found interesting was our shift on Thursday to more unconventional definitions of security and wealth, talking a great deal about what makes wealth and how it relates to security. Unfortunately, it seemed we never really got to the Mueller piece but I still found the discussion to be enlightening. After all, is anyone really economically secure? I've seen successful professionals go from the high life to near poverty in as little as 6 months. But speaking on a national level, I think as long as the fundamentals of the economy are sound, then one can say that a country is "economically secure" even if those foundations are occasionally rocked every so often. As I mentioned earlier in a different blog post, there's no such thing as perfect security, either in the traditional sense or the economic sense. A worrying idea and one that affects us all. But by my way of thinking, this is still the best economic system -- there's either a winner and a loser, or just 2 losers.

Reflection One-One

This week continued our discussion of security from the previous week into more specific forms of security.  The visit to the pentagon and the analysis of the NSO security document and Judt's paper highlighted an important aspect of security for me.  What I found interesting was the constant changing nature of security. 

A question that was asked to the tour guides at the Pentagon was how it had changed with the occurrence of the attacks on September 11.  Not only were there significant changes in domestic and foreign policy, there were actual structural changes that occurred.  The Pentagon itself was restructured.  Escalators that used to directly take one from metro to inside the Pentagon were removed.  Additionally, two new security checks were implemented as a result of the attack.  The biggest structural change which I'm sure most people noticed were the increased security within airports.

This was interesting because it reminded me of trends in changes of U.S. security policy.  Specifically, the introduction of nuclear weapons produced school drills such as "duck and cover" and the President's Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).  So, as globalization increases and technological advances continue to occur, I'm curious as to the structural effects threats will have to the U.S. in the future.  In the comparison of the security documents, it became evident that Obama's document isolated numerous threats that existing in society ranging from bioterrorism, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and even cyberterrorism.  Will the future contain drills that teach kindergarten students how to effectively use McAfee and Norton to be ready for a cyberterrorist attack?  Regardless, the issue is increasingly interesting and may be prevalent in years to come.

Humbug. Afghanistan and the Long View

This is the prompt I’ve been waiting for, no longer dealing with nebulous IR theories, we’ve finally settled down on a specific policy question with real world debate about this very issue going on as we speak. But, in addition to being my favorite, it is also the most difficult; I must admit to being conflicted on this issue. I don’t know what I would do if I were President. On one hand, Rowland makes a compelling argument for the necessity of staying (though, he intentionally neglects the human right argument, which I find to be strange considering it is one of his strongest arguments); but on the other hand you have the train of thought that says we can deal with the consequences and it would in fact be better for our security to withdraw. That said, I’m going to argue a position I don’t necessarily agree with 100% but I think makes a compelling overall argument. I’m not a huge fan of bullet pointing/numbering my points on an essay, but I think it suits this format. So, without further delay, here are five reasons that continuing to prosecute the Afghan War as it stands now, will be damaging to our collective long term security. Considering that the prompt and the question of “Should we be in Afghanistan” are closely related for the rational thinking, some of my points will address the latter more directly.

The most important reason is that the War may not, in fact, actually be making us safer because whatever security gains it reaps is offset by the increase in the number of our enemies. For example, on September 10, 2001 our main enemy in Afghanistan with the potential to strike outside the borders of that country as al-Qaeda; now, we face not only al-Qaeda but also various other organizations which have decided to make war upon us in retaliation for our attacking them for harboring al-Qaeda. Specifically, we now find that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is interested in striking at US cities and even tried as much with Faisal Shazad, the failed Times Square Bomber. We are helping to create more and more enemies with heavy handed military interventions. But how? It’s complicated, but it has roots in Pashtunwali – the tribal code of the Pashtun people. Per this code, it is incumbent upon a home owner to offer shelter, and aid and comfort to any guest or defeated enemy in battle, this practice is known as Melmastia with a little bit of Nanawata, the former being hospitality to guests and the latter asylum for a defeated enemy.

After the defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda suffered in October 2001, they crossed over the border into Pakistan and made use not only of the long standing alliances they had with the people (dating back to the 1980’s with the al-Ansar guest houses and such) but also the tribal custom that required them to provide aid and comfort to the beaten, bloodied and defeated Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants. The ensuing 9 years of relentless American bombardment, often failing to distinguish the Taliban/AQ members from their hosts (as was the point, remember?) helped to drive the two together and forge an alliance. In the aftermath of the Red Mosque siege of 2008, numerous disaffected Pashtun militant groups banded together to start the TTP and immediately began to wage war on the Pakistani state and Afghan/ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

It is also interesting to note that groups like the TTP and Haqqani Network (another militant group straddling the Durand Line) don’t necessarily have a lot of contact with the Quetta Shura Taliban (what most people mean when they say “Taliban” which is translated merely as “students”). The QS Taliban is based in Baluchistan while the TTP, Haqqanis and other militant groups are based in North Waziristan. Damage done to the QS Taliban does not translate to damage done to the TTP or others. Note that the QS Taliban has not actually taken any offensive terrorist actions against the United States, nor do they show any intention to. They are not currently any threat to the US homeland, yet we are spending hundreds of billions to fight them with several hundred thousand US troops. The groups that do pose a threat to the US Homeland are being fought with Special Operations Forces, drone strikes and the Pakistani military, all at a far lesser cost to the US in terms of blood and treasure. So, riddle me this: If the 100,000 US troops there are only fighting a domestic insurgency with no threat to the US homeland, how does that make us safer? The real threat to the homeland seems to be from the lawless border line between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that seems to be managed with drone strikes, SOF operators and domestic police and intelligence regimes.

But oh yes, the safe haven argument. This continues to perplex me because to believe it, we must suspend reality. The argument goes that we cannot leave Afghanistan because the Taliban will topple Kabul and again provide shelter to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups who will then use Afghanistan as a launching pad for another 9/11. A compelling argument, I admit and one with a solid historical basis. The QS Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to cooperate and reinforce each other and wouldn’t it make sense that they would return to the good old days of 1996 once we were gone? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

First, we must deal with the implications of the aforementioned safe haven being reestablished. This is not the doomsday scenario that most make it out to be. Firstly, we already have safe havens all over the world – nearly all of Yemen and Somalia is outside of the control of their respective governments, as well is most of Afghanistan to be honest and so is most of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. Terrorism is not a numbers game, and it is not a matter of territory, no matter how much we may try to make it out to be. The Red Brigades in Europe managed to wreak havoc with no safe havens and little domestic support. A terrorism campaign is not the same as an insurgency, and we need to stop conflating the two. The latter requires territory and popular support and the former does not. The safe haven argument is also outdated – based on an old model of al-Qaeda terrorism that hasn’t been used since 9/11 – expeditionary terrorism. Safe havens only work if you use them to train and then send terrorist abroad. But despite having numerous safe havens already, al-Qaeda has not tried this tactic since 9/11, preferring to outsource it to international branches, domestic allies in Pakistan or self-starting Jihadis, none of which depend on using Afghanistan as a safe haven. As we have already seen, our enemies are perfectly capable of trying to attack us without the use of Afghanistan.

All that’s not to say that withdrawing from Afghanistan wouldn’t have serious consequences and for the US and our allies: there would certainly be a very bloody civil war between the Afghan government with re-armed tribal allies in the north against the resurgent Pashtuns in the south. The oppression of women would continue, only much more severe. Human rights violations would be widespread and it is entirely possible that al-Qaeda would be able to use the territory as a launching pad. Our inglorious retreat would also be a huge boon to al-Qaeda’s media and propaganda efforts by painting itself as having defeated America and protected the holy lands of Islam from yet another invader – this would be a huge opportunity for al-Qaeda to paint itself as a legitimate defender of Muslim lands as opposed to the terrorist group it is now. Al-Qaeda has had no successes in its efforts to topple apostate Muslim ruler or to expel the “crusaders” from the lands of Islam, this would be its first “victory”.

But on the other hand, aren’t all of these manageable? The argument never was that the consequences wouldn’t be dire, but that they were worth it and we could handle the after effects. The war and bloodshed would be regrettable but it seems that whatever happens, Afghanistan is in for a very bloody future in any case. The repression of women is another horrible but inevitable event, even the Kabul government we support so has curtailed and oppressed women. The launching pad argument has already been addressed and since when has al-Qaeda propaganda been constrained by reality? Withdrawing so many troops was also painted as a victory for the Islamic State of Iraq but that was no big boon to business for them; they gained no legitimacy and no huge recruiting boost. Al-Qaeda may claim it, but that doesn’t make it so – plus I hazard that not many people would be joining up to kill Americans as they retreated from Islamic lands. So far it appears to have been our presence there that radicalized most people; somehow I doubt our leaving would have the same effect.

So far from what I can tell, our presence in Afghanistan is not directly serving our security interests and is instead increasing Jihadi recruitment, radicalizing more groups against us, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars in what seems to be a failing effort and is a huge military commitment in an era when the center of world power is moving away from the storied pomp of these ancient lands and instead moving to Asia and the South Pacific. Al-Qaeda isn’t the military’s war -- it’s a job for intelligence agencies and the police.

Al-Qaeda can be contained, managed and even defeated without a deployment of 100,000 troops. Paradoxically, withdrawing these troops might be one of the preconditions for overall victory. During the Second Punic War, Roman General Fabius Maximus refrained from attacking Hannibal directly, instead focusing on harassing and targeted attacks. Hannibal, like al-Qaeda, fed on victories and needed the prestige and support they brought him. Without victories, Hannibal was unable to convince the government in Carthage to support him and he eventually withdrew for lack of support. Without a successful attack, or an inflammatory act by the West, al-Qaeda would be starved of the propaganda it so desires and would be starved of legitimacy and recruits. Al-Qaeda is only as successful as the world and the ummah perceives it to be.

Afghanistan... does having troops there make you feel safe?

Nope.
That's the simple answer, I suppose. Having troops anywhere outside of the US makes me nervous. This is because I always feel as though the presence of US troops in countries we are at odds with breeds dissent and actually makes the people in those countries hate us all the more, making terrorist attacks more likely.

So, that's why I don't feel safe with troops in Afghanistan.

Now, as to whether I am actually safer or not with troops in Afghanistan, I'm not well informed enough to actually speak in terms of facts. I think that troops in Afghanistan make me safer than I would be if there were no American troops there. Who is to say that the whole country wouldn't just collapse back into the Taliban's control if American troops were to pull out?

Security and Afghanistan

*Sorry, my computer has been freaking out and I think it deleted this post, so I re-uploaded it.

This week's question asked us whether or not we feel secure with the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  Personally, I evaluated this question from two perspectives. The first being from my personal life, and the second being a citizen of the United States.  I split up my response to this question because, while both perspectives aren't mutually exclusive, I feel that my life can be evaluated on a daily and a holistic level.

On a personal level, I would have to say that I'm neutral on our troop presence in Afghanistan.  The reason being is that I haven't identified a clear connection between my life and the war in Afghanistan.  While I do understand there are strategic and important interests that lie in Afghanistan, I'll explain that in my other perspective.  There are multiple reasons why I don't identify with the war in Afghanistan.  The main reason is the proximity of the war.  Being almost halfway around the world, I don't see any risk to my security in D.C. or Denver as a result of failure, spill-over, or even success.  While proximity can be used as an argument for the irrelevancy of foreign policy in general, I'm not advocating irrelevancy in foreign policy.  I'm merely using proximity as a mitigation of the importance of the war in Afghanistan to my personal security.  Issues such as illegal immigration from Mexico have a greater affect on my security than Afghanistan.  The reason being that Mexico is of a closer proximity.  There's a higher risk that the issue effects me due to the implications of drugs and jobs taken.  To clarify, it's easier for drugs from Mexico to enter the United States and affect my security than it is for a threat from Afghanistan to enter the U.S.

As a citizen of the United States, I find some importance in the war in Afghanistan.  I feel like there are strategic benefits for stabilizing the Afghanistan such as ensuring the war doesn't spill over into other countries and effect key resources such as natural gas and oil.  Additionally, the war serves as a reassertion of our hard power hegemony which allows us to ensure that various spheres of influence don't overexert themselves.  Strong U.S. hegemony allows us to act as a mediator within conflicts and is a method of maintaining our national security.  Additionally, the minuscule risk of terrorism is more easily dealt with when we have a troop presence in Afghanistan.  Given that, I feel like the war in Afghanistan doesn't have an immediate effect on my personal security, but on a holistic level, it does make me feel more secure.

Civilian vs. Military

This refelction is in response to 93 day’s Week 10 Reflection.
I wrote a paper once on whether or not the U.S. entered WWII soon enough, considering the moral injustice of the Holocaust. As I approached the paper I realized that it came down to the same issue you have discussed above; our boys or their boys? I came to the conclusion that there is a distinct difference between civilian blood and military blood. An individual that is in the U.S. military is armed for battle. Though at the time of WWII there was a draft in effect, now the members of the U.S. military have all joined on their own accord. A civilian, say a victim of the Holocaust, is unarmed and helpless. Its easy to see how those gassed to death in Auschwitz are drastically different from those killed in the line of duty.
That being said, not all civilians are as innocent and guiltless as the victims of the Holocaust. A world where guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings, extremist groups and terrorist organizations face our troops daily is not only scary but also makes it difficult to draw the line between whose blood is more important.
As a human rights activist, I believe that human lives are precious, yet its impractical to refuse to embrace the unfortunate fact that when innocent lives are endangered, it usually takes the acts of empowered lives to trade blood for blood.
The point is, though I understand your emotional appeal by talking about the Kentucky mother, I must point out that military personnel have sworn to give their lives for their country when asked to do so, and if America decides to spread democratic ideals, or help an ally, or halt an evil dictator, so be it. Our service men and women ay down their lives daily for whatever America decides to fight for.
I definitely agree that the U.S. must act wisely and purposefully in the international arena, since political decisions made affect individual lives. However, I think the political decisions made should revolve around defending our morals and not around safe guarding our troops.