Egypt's Protests Mean American Decline?

Although America has had their hands well put in Egypt, it seems that there may be a decline in American global influence. Even though protesters use Western technology to fight for their individual rights, and some even laid the ground work of their revolution in Arabic and English, having studied or visited America, they are focusing on two current actors. Their focus is in the Egyptian regime and the American government. Egypt could focus on the UN or even China, but they choose the United States as a focal point for change. Perhaps its the fact that everyone can clearly see America's vindication or guilt to the limits of Egypts power. Now, of course the outcome of this revolution matters to the American government because the emergence of a Sunni version of Iran in Egypt would be a great undermining factor for the US, and a democratic transition, might help the US to calm the voices of extremeist influence, and quiet the hatred towards America. We have aided a military dictator for decades, the same leader whose people were so unhappy that they created a country wide protest. It seems that there is a bit of a pattern, where often times, shahs are followed by mullahs, the article stating that religous extremism is harbored by humiliated people. A concept that I find rather interesting because, in many cases, religion seems to be the strongest when people are in fact down and out and have nothing more to turn to then the hopefulness of what religion seems to offer. Now that Mubarak is not in control, whose to say that the country will actually grow  into a developed democracy, something the West and many protesters long for. Whether or not Egypt will prevail or remain in shambles, does not directly correlate to the influence of America in this region. We had our hands in Iraq and Iran and they are still continuing to see chaotic unrest. Although, this article mentions that the Us had little influence in Germany and Japan, two nations that were under some form of American control in the 1950's and ended up being more stable and peaceful than countries ruled under the regime of a single dictator. America clearly still has hope that Egypt will transition into a democracy, but no one can say how long it will take or how messy of an ordeal it will be. But, the American influence will remain, we give them aid and protesters seem to want a democracy, and who better to influence democracy in the Middle East then America?

The Arab Monarchy Debate

It has been noted that monarchies within the Arab Spring have had a better chance of surviving then governments of a different type, like those of which with "presidential" rulers. Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Saleh have all fallen, as well as the Jamahiriaya of Qaddafi.
   I personally feel as though, in Islamic states, perhaps a kingship and heriarchical regime is more widely accepted then a government with a presidential undertone. In many places, these places are not holding fair elections for their citizens to vote in, one reason they could be subject to uprisings. Now I am not iplying that all kings in the Middle East rule with a fair hand by any means, but I asked a few friends from Jordan if they would prefer a presidential election to a designated kingship. I got an overwhelmingly similar response, that I found to be rather interesting, although I am not positive how academic of an answer I recieved. So, when I asked a group of students my age, they did not want a President. They said that in the case of Jordan, the King isn't that bad of a guy, and maybe since he is from the Hashemite family, with roots in Saudia Arabia, that he sees things differently then parties that would run in an election. Naturally, I asked who they thought the parties would be, and Jordan like many other Middle Eastern countries, is made up of large tribes. They believe that if an election for president were to be held, that it would be a battle of the tribes. Each tribe would only vote for the member of their tribe, and it would eventually lead to tribal unrest as the tribes try to out do each other for power, or that if one tribe were elected it would be even more corrupt then the government now, their reasoning being that the tribal "president" would only do things in the interest of their tribe and not the country as a whole. Now that was a bit off topic as to why monarchies survive the Arab Spring but I think it has a taste of relevancy. Having a king is a fairly typical Arab regime and they tend to survive due to less demanding allies, and powerful media assets that help legitimize the regime in power.
 I was a little surprised by this article, because although a regime (Presidential Parlimentary vs Kingship)  is different it doesnt necessarily mean that it is worse or better or less apt to spark a revolt then another. It is all in who is in charge and the focus of agendas.

The Cowardice at the Heart of Our Relationship with Israel

It has become apparent that AJ Balfour made the mistake of promising the Jewish popluation after WW2 a right to their Jewish homeland, something that decades later has only lead to gross human rights violations, broken promises, and minute slaps on the wrist for the atrocities they are committing in their conquest of obtaining a Jewish state. The argument can be made that after the Holocaust, one of the most well known atrocities on mankind, the Jews deserve some sort of compensation, and what better way then to give them their homeland back. Well, I know that thousands of Palestinians can disagree with this, not on the grounds of Jew vs Islam, or Jews vs. Arabs, but on the simple fact that you cannot just up and displace thousands of people to make way for thousands more. Ever since Balfour's declarations, Republicans and Conservative in the US and Britain have essentially back every choice made by Israel, of course not condoning their actions, but not taking the correct actions to assist them. Yes, it is true we tell Israel that they are being "bad" when performing acts we do not agree with, like their actions within the Lebanon War, but leaders such as Tony Blair REFUSED to call a ceasefire for quite some time. Granted Hauge and Cameron have been tried to be more robust in their campaigns, but can it be applauded considering that they are failing to even criticize Tel Aviv due to a fear of offending the US, or because of the strength of the Israeli lobby in Britain. Britain's government has a lovely formal posittion, but it holds no validity when the ministers refuse to take concrete steps to pursuing it. It seems that Israel will eventually continue until their state reaches from the Mediterranean to the borders of Jordan, but this provides another problem. What is Israel going to do when most of their inhabitants are Palestinian, another threat to their Jewish state. Will they retain its "democracy" or push itself into an apartheid that will further deny Palestinians of their basic rights?

Iran-Tehrans Understanding in Us Policy

Iran and the US have had a long standing tension since the early 80s. Interestingly enough this article outlines that Iran and the US actually have a few mututal policies that they share. Both aim to rebuild Iraw and Afghanistan, eliminating drug trafficking that is funding terrorists and war lords, as well as defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Iran is driven to ensuring the survival of the Islamic Republic, something that Tehran sees as an exestential threat posed by the US. Unfortunately, the US has an oversensationalized view of Iran that is a series of hit and run assaults on  US interests, and that it is filled with irrational undeterrable leaders. With a view like this, it will be difficult to make a friendly relationship between the two states. Tehrans foreign policy is rather strategic, formulated by organized ayatollahs basing decsions off of the combonation of Iran's future ambitions and Tehran's perceptions of threat. They see the US as a threat and are using deterrence and competition in the Middle East to coutner it. In order to avoid US military action, Iran is developing ways to pursue low intensity warfare, as well as modernizing its weapons through the creation of missile and anti-missile systems and developing a nuclear program. They are even seeking the use of the European Union with Russia and China as potentioal counterweights to Washington from leading a united front against it. There sphere of influence has its hands in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, even some Palestinians are on board. Their support for Hezbollah and Islamic Hamas is giving them a depth of influence in Israel's backyard as well. Iraq is a key component for both Iran and the US, Iran iseager to start with Iraq's reconstruction to help further their influence in the region, they want to avoid giving the US a stronghold of Iraq so that we do not use the Iraqi territory to attack or undermind Iran, which is very strategic planning on their part. There has to be some understanding between Iran and the US, mostly on the front that Tehran does have rationale and isn't just a stereotypical hot headed Islamic state, without this, there will never be a reasonable long term strategy with Iran. Focusing solely on Iran's nuclear ambitions will be less the productive, whereas a ful engagement might laed to more cultural, economic, and educational exchange between the two nations. This is a long term project, not one that can be solved in a short term.

Obama's Grand Strategy

This article opens by questioning Obama's grand strategy, or what is seen as a lack of strategy. Being the successor of President Bush with an extremely clear grand strategy, although not exactly a great one, it is hard to make your strategy as vocal. I found it rather interesting that Drezner dropped the line, "Grand strategies are not nearly as important as grand strategies like to think, because countries tend to be judged by  their actions, not their words." A country can say what it wants, but it will over all do whats in their best interest.
        Now, with that said, Obama did in fact have a grand strategy, or two. The first one was a multilateral retrenchment, designed to curtail our overseas commitments, restore its standing in the global sphere, and shift burdens away from the US and onto global partners. Unfortunately, although it sounds good, it has accumulated underwhelming policy results.
       His second strategy is focusing on "counterpunching", the administration willing to assery its influence and ideals across the golbe when challenged by other countries, how unlike America, and using this as an opportunity to reassure allies and signal resolve to our rivals.  But again, this has not been strongly articulated. It is observed that if Obama and his advisers don't clearly define the strategy and implement it directly, that it will just give more leeway for critics to define it as unsucessful. It seems to be that matching up a global policy with the rhetoric of a simplistic US foreign policy may not be the easiest thing to accomplish. Relationships can often be more then just "enemies" "friends" or "rivals" with deep historic, political, and economic backgrounds that aren't exactly friends or foes, Saudi Arabia for example, they are our "friend" because of oil, but they go against every ideal we "stand for" as a nation.
      Aside from all of that, renewing the United State's domestic strength may be a more salient problem. Some say poltics stop at teh water's edge, but with the administration arguing that the key to United States foreign policy is in fact domestic economy, then this increases the likelihood of domestic unrest. If demographic and politcal shifts occur within the United States, it makes it a bit more difficult to build and support a liberal internationalist based grand strategy. An economic downturn is one way to discourage the rest of the world from engaging with Americans, making any activist foreign policy a tough seller, without a strong economy, why would another nation want of acts of activism if we don't have a solid foot to stand on in the first place?
       The administration has adopted the "leading from behind" method in its grand strategy, which honestly, I am not sure if it is helping or hurting us. Economically, I would hope to say that it is helping by not putting our boots on the ground if it is not absolutely necessary. Although, Libya kind of sticks out in this sense, granted it is justified, but Libya was not exactly a core national interest, making it hard for Obama to explain his foreign policy while justifiying the first war he seems to have started.
        Since Obama is not clearly defining his strategy, this gives headway to foreign policy critics and political opponents to define it for him, which is absolutely not helping him at all. Allowing your critics to tell the public what you are doing, is never the right way to convey.... well, anything. After sending in the US Special Forces to eliminate bi Laden. Obama did in fact gain more public support for his foreign policy, but if he does not define a clear strategy himself, it will be difficult to get Americans onboard with him.

How Top Gun Made America Love War

 Warning: This article is bias, non-scholarly and completely based on opinion.

Sirota's article was one that I could not help voicing my own opinion on. I feel as though his analysis of Hollywood's collaboration with the United States government is just another way to downplay the military and show how the United States uses sneaky methods to trick people into loving war and supporting violence.

Sirota's first argument is to introduce the fact that the Army worked hand in hand with the producers of X-Men to promote potential recruits. It offered recruits the notion that they could "live out superhero fantasies on real-life battlefields". Well, the Army is pretty damn smart if you ask me; what better way to promote recruitment then pairing it with an action packed film that has a huge male following. Now, I see the arguement that could be made as to how it is trickery, or false advertisement, but come on, the military has been around since the dawn of time, any average, even below average person knows joining the Army won't give him Wolverine-like powers. It is just like when you see an advertisement for McDonalds, the burgers in the commercial look incredibly tantalizing, but you know when you get there, its going to be a haphazardly slapped together stack of decent tasting low quality food.

 Men will always have a fascination with fighting and the mental picture of the "Army" being presented as a    buff, camo covered hero that goes into the most fire fight ridden battle, save a whole village, save the girl, and come out with only one bullet wound to the shoulder. If the government wants to promote military ratings in a time where Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much lost support and Congress is being criticized for the military budget, then they are rather smart in using the one outlet that can target the most Americans without making the general public feel like they are watching an "Uncle Sam" type promotion.  Top Gun, albeit a rather extreme movie, did highlight some real facts, but it is still a Hollywood movie that was specifically made to bring back support for the military in a time where the public seemed to hate Vietnam and every Marine was suddenly a "baby killer". Interestingly enough, it absolutely appealed to the general public and boost military support.

Regardless of his negative outlook on Hollywood beautifying the military, he seems to be downplaying the intellgience of Americans; We love war because its romantacized in the movies so we must not know what it is actually like. Stating that any movie with a military based success story is government subsidized propaganda is a bit intense in my opinoin, it would have been made with or without the help of the government in most cases. At the end of the article he raises a few questions... Why does the government grant and deny access to that hardware based on a filmakers willingness to let the Pentagon influence their script? Well, with the issue of the Osama Bin Laden movie, the government will obviously want a role in the script because it is a recent and potentially sensitive world event directly involving the role of government. Why would the producer team up with the Pentagon  and assume that of course the Pentagon will have to review anything made for the public eye without having a good look at it first. If a produced did not want to be abridged of free speech, they have the option of NOT teaming up with the Pentagon, not having access to government equipment and filming the movie independently from government influence. So boycott the movies for being propaganda if you want, but we all know X-men and Top Gun are great action movies.

AL-Qaeda Lost the Battle Long Ago

 This article sums up the current influence or lack there of, that Al-Qaeda has on the international community. Yes, they had their part in the tragedy that is 9/11, but their main focus was not in fact to hurt the Americans in New York. Their main focus was to show their immense ontent for the American presence in the Middle East in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people around the world believe that it is a terrorism is habored on the idea that people are unhappy with their regimes, but how could you say that in the instance of 9/11 specifically. They chose to attack America as a way to show how much they detested America being so entrenched in their land,  not because they want democracy. There are plenty of people in the Middle Easy that want democracy, and show their desire through protests such as the Arab Spring, not in terror attacks. When looking at Al-Qaeda, the first focus was to the roll back of U.S. influence, and on the most radical spectrum, to recreate a global caliphate.


     There are not many groups that agree with the latter part of Al-Qaeda's arguement, many Muslim factions from the conservative Wahabbis in Saudi, to the radical Marxists in Palestine, have actually embraced the  idea of nation states and the internaitonal system. The small amount of Muslims that resort to violence in order to rebuild a Shari'a based world, are shrinking in number. Although Al-Qaeda has their hands in one of the most devestating events in United States history, it seems that their influence is starting to shrink and may not be as much of a threat to the United States homeland. There will always be followers for any religiouslly, socialyl, or politicallly rebellous group, but they are not on the top of the ladder in terroism compared to years passed.