Tuesday, 21 May 2013
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?
Friday, 17 May 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
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.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
The Scramble for Access to Libya's Oil Wealth Begins
In Clifford Krauss' article, he out lines the importance of Libya's oil wealth, although it only supplies less then 2% of the worlds oil, it is extremely important. Libya has a high grade of crude oil that refineries world wide depends on. All of the fighting in Libya has slowed down production, causing world wide companies to withdraw workers, and essentially causing oil prices to raise. If you could get Libya to be peaceful again, or at least stabilize, it would boost production and lower oil prices in Europe, indirectly lowering prices of gasoline on the East Coast of the United States.
Now, obviously, there are Western nations, providing air support to rebels to make sure that their companies will have an upper hand when Libya is somewhat back on their feet. Countries such as Italy, France and the U.K are also trying to keep their relations with Libya in good standings because, just as Abdelhalil Mayouf, the spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company has stated, he has no problems with the aftermoentioned countries, but Russia, China, and Brazil may face some political issues with Libya. They did not back strong sanctions against Qaddafi and his regime, unfortunately for them, all three countrise have large oil investments seeking deals in Africa; Libya would be a prime for them. Some experts have said that it could take a few months to a year to get exports up and running, and since oil is Libya's most important export, it would be in their best interest to get their oil production up and running, currently Libya is only producing about 60,000 barrels of oil a day, which is 20% of what they normally would be exporting.
Since countries such as Italy, France, Ireland, Switzerland and Austria depend on Libya for 15%-20% of their imports, it would be in their best interest to take action in helping Libya stablize so they can get back on their oil game. As for America, we do not rely on Libya for very many imports, but the reduction of Libya's high quality crude oil will push up our gas prices yet again, and since Obama had said he would not allow our gas prices to rise, it would be in our best interest to indirectly support Libya, whether it be through off the ground security, financial support to rebels, or backing countries such as France and the U.K in their attempts to help Libya. Hopefully, Libya will respect the contracts held with previous contracts, but you can only assume the rebels will renew contracts with the countries that supported them through this time.
Now, obviously, there are Western nations, providing air support to rebels to make sure that their companies will have an upper hand when Libya is somewhat back on their feet. Countries such as Italy, France and the U.K are also trying to keep their relations with Libya in good standings because, just as Abdelhalil Mayouf, the spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company has stated, he has no problems with the aftermoentioned countries, but Russia, China, and Brazil may face some political issues with Libya. They did not back strong sanctions against Qaddafi and his regime, unfortunately for them, all three countrise have large oil investments seeking deals in Africa; Libya would be a prime for them. Some experts have said that it could take a few months to a year to get exports up and running, and since oil is Libya's most important export, it would be in their best interest to get their oil production up and running, currently Libya is only producing about 60,000 barrels of oil a day, which is 20% of what they normally would be exporting.
Since countries such as Italy, France, Ireland, Switzerland and Austria depend on Libya for 15%-20% of their imports, it would be in their best interest to take action in helping Libya stablize so they can get back on their oil game. As for America, we do not rely on Libya for very many imports, but the reduction of Libya's high quality crude oil will push up our gas prices yet again, and since Obama had said he would not allow our gas prices to rise, it would be in our best interest to indirectly support Libya, whether it be through off the ground security, financial support to rebels, or backing countries such as France and the U.K in their attempts to help Libya. Hopefully, Libya will respect the contracts held with previous contracts, but you can only assume the rebels will renew contracts with the countries that supported them through this time.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
Walt on Goldberg
The definition of a lobby is a way to influence a politician or public official to take a desired action, typically in the form of legislation. In Stephen Walt's article, he does a great job of explaining that there is there is not meaningful Arab lobby in Washington and goes through eight reasons explaining the "Arab Lobby"'s influence, but with a rather snarky demeanor, narrates things that the Arab lobby has NOT actually done, but what the Israeli lobby has had a hand in. It is evident the the Israeli- lobby is the Arab's lobby's greatest current rival.
Walt pokes fun at Goldberg for his wild claim that he Arab lobby has great influence in Washington. He argues that if we're talking money wise, the pro-Israeli action committees have given over $50 million to various candidates and parties, while the Arab-American and Muslim PACs have given a little over $700,000. A mere sprinkling of funds in comparison to its rival lobby. In a world where money seems to dictate action, the Arab lobby is coming up short. Overall, Walt proves his point, while disproving Goldberg's in that the Arab lobby, despite the money that is being spent on it, is not very effective when it comes to influencing United States foreign policy, and especially not when it comes to issues pertaining to Israel, even giving direct quotes from seasoned politicians and their view of how the Israeli lobby is one of the strongest on the market, making the Arab lobby look almost obsolete in comparison.
Walt pokes fun at Goldberg for his wild claim that he Arab lobby has great influence in Washington. He argues that if we're talking money wise, the pro-Israeli action committees have given over $50 million to various candidates and parties, while the Arab-American and Muslim PACs have given a little over $700,000. A mere sprinkling of funds in comparison to its rival lobby. In a world where money seems to dictate action, the Arab lobby is coming up short. Overall, Walt proves his point, while disproving Goldberg's in that the Arab lobby, despite the money that is being spent on it, is not very effective when it comes to influencing United States foreign policy, and especially not when it comes to issues pertaining to Israel, even giving direct quotes from seasoned politicians and their view of how the Israeli lobby is one of the strongest on the market, making the Arab lobby look almost obsolete in comparison.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Military Intervention: The Mythology of Intervention
In any situation concerning the military, there will be some myths and misconceptions, especially between the media and the general public. Unfortunately, these myths lead to misunderstandings of current problems and a U.S. foreign policy that is more focused on intervention.
In this article, Micah Zenko goes over a few basic myths about foreign policy, starting with the combination of NATO air power and a Kosovo Liberation Army. It is perceived that this artfully played combination is what caused Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to leave Kosovo in 1999. With this belief, advocates for intervention in Libya, use this as an example, which would have been fine if it were in fact truthful. A United States Air Force review told that 14 tanks were destroyed, not 120, 18 armored personnel carriers not 220, and 30 mobile artillery pieces not 450, were destroyed. Less then truthful information provided good example as to why we should intervene in Libya. It is misleading when officials are using the wrong information to support intervention initiatives. It was NATO's increase of air strike against the disciplined Serbian military combined with Russian's withdrawal that caused Milosevic to leave.
Another very popular misconception is that no fly zones inherently protect the civilian population on the ground. But, of course, this is not always the case. This is proven in the cases of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Northern Iraq situations where civilians were most definitely not protected. The no fly zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not enforced very strongly, and even some Croatian and Bosnian Muslim planes and helicopters got through the "no fly zone". Say the no fly zone was strong enforced, it did not stand a chance to the strong counterinsurgency controlled by Serbian ground forces that massacred 9,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims. A similarity was seen in southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's ground forces waged an intense counterinsurgency against anyone that opposed his regime destroying historical ecosystems and building roadways in order to bring artillery within the range of Shia insurgents. By August 1996, even with a fully operation no fly zone, the regime took down a Kurdish uprising with 40,00 troops with hundred of tanks and pieces of artillery. One United States commander sums up the failure of no fly zones to protect civilians perfectly. "We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s." A no fly zone is a great idea, and even when it is enforced, groups such as the Turks aren't exactly playing by the rules, if they can attack ground forces, they will regardless of a no fly zone.
Foreign policy makers and government officials often call on history to help make decisions pertaining to current situations, such as whether or not and how to intervene in Libya. But more often then not, the examples being used to back their opinions are often based off of inaccurate and misconstrued facts, and incorrectly applied the the civil war enveloping Libya. It has been proven that even with military intvention, there is always a messy follow-up that is too large for one country to focus on. Help from the international community, whether it be through means of force, time, attention, or resources is almost always necessary, and I'm not sure the international community is ready to commit all of this effort.
In this article, Micah Zenko goes over a few basic myths about foreign policy, starting with the combination of NATO air power and a Kosovo Liberation Army. It is perceived that this artfully played combination is what caused Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to leave Kosovo in 1999. With this belief, advocates for intervention in Libya, use this as an example, which would have been fine if it were in fact truthful. A United States Air Force review told that 14 tanks were destroyed, not 120, 18 armored personnel carriers not 220, and 30 mobile artillery pieces not 450, were destroyed. Less then truthful information provided good example as to why we should intervene in Libya. It is misleading when officials are using the wrong information to support intervention initiatives. It was NATO's increase of air strike against the disciplined Serbian military combined with Russian's withdrawal that caused Milosevic to leave.
Another very popular misconception is that no fly zones inherently protect the civilian population on the ground. But, of course, this is not always the case. This is proven in the cases of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Northern Iraq situations where civilians were most definitely not protected. The no fly zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not enforced very strongly, and even some Croatian and Bosnian Muslim planes and helicopters got through the "no fly zone". Say the no fly zone was strong enforced, it did not stand a chance to the strong counterinsurgency controlled by Serbian ground forces that massacred 9,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims. A similarity was seen in southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's ground forces waged an intense counterinsurgency against anyone that opposed his regime destroying historical ecosystems and building roadways in order to bring artillery within the range of Shia insurgents. By August 1996, even with a fully operation no fly zone, the regime took down a Kurdish uprising with 40,00 troops with hundred of tanks and pieces of artillery. One United States commander sums up the failure of no fly zones to protect civilians perfectly. "We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s." A no fly zone is a great idea, and even when it is enforced, groups such as the Turks aren't exactly playing by the rules, if they can attack ground forces, they will regardless of a no fly zone.
Foreign policy makers and government officials often call on history to help make decisions pertaining to current situations, such as whether or not and how to intervene in Libya. But more often then not, the examples being used to back their opinions are often based off of inaccurate and misconstrued facts, and incorrectly applied the the civil war enveloping Libya. It has been proven that even with military intvention, there is always a messy follow-up that is too large for one country to focus on. Help from the international community, whether it be through means of force, time, attention, or resources is almost always necessary, and I'm not sure the international community is ready to commit all of this effort.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Why Egypt Doesn't Trust Us
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/opinion/la-oe-meisler-prodemocracy-20120306
This article just points out more reasons as to why countries abroad may have a distaste for the Western supported push for democracy. Going back to the 1950s'-60's, American has been known for covert operations that lose the trust of many people. During the Cold War the CIA had set up fake foundations to secretly give money to private organizations that were non-communist, most people had no idea what was going on and when these operations were exposed, naturally it caused a huge amount of embarrassment for America causing President Johnson to cut funding. Yet, somehow another similar group was created, the National Endowment for Democracy in place of the CIA program that went sour. Legally this group was set up to divide money between four major groups within the United States that were selected to promote equal participation of the major American ideologies and interests. These four groups included The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and the United States Chamber of Commerce. Although handling money abroad is in fact a sensitive subject, especially with a recent past of mishandling, the newly developed group should have been very careful, yet in American tradition, the endowment went awry.
France was given $1.5 million, to the AFL-CIO for a program in France and due to the close relationship between France and the U.S. the endowment didn't feel the need to say where the funds were going. MISTAKE. Irving Brown, the man in charge of the money to fund anti-communist movements, even though the Communist Party only held a mere 10% of the electorate. Clearly embarrassed, the U.S. denied that it was a government program, but interestingly enough, all of the money came from the government.
So it is understandable that Egypt may not trust the United States when it comes to funding. U.S organizations are under scrutiny for creating unrest with illegal means of foreign funding, and they are all connected to the endowment. The GOP's International Republican Institute and the Democratic Party's Nation Democratic Institute are two main players in the endowment. Under the Clinton Administration, as a way to clear America's public opinion after the incident in Somalia leaving 18 American soldiers dead, he would often toss the blame at Boutros-Ghali the U.N. Secretary Genera. The Secretary General also used as a scapegoat by Bob Dole, when oddly enough the U.N. was not the supplier of troops, America was. Overall there seems to constantly be finger pointing and mishandling of funds when dealing with democracy abroad, giving countries another reason to mistrust foreign intervention and "aid".
This article just points out more reasons as to why countries abroad may have a distaste for the Western supported push for democracy. Going back to the 1950s'-60's, American has been known for covert operations that lose the trust of many people. During the Cold War the CIA had set up fake foundations to secretly give money to private organizations that were non-communist, most people had no idea what was going on and when these operations were exposed, naturally it caused a huge amount of embarrassment for America causing President Johnson to cut funding. Yet, somehow another similar group was created, the National Endowment for Democracy in place of the CIA program that went sour. Legally this group was set up to divide money between four major groups within the United States that were selected to promote equal participation of the major American ideologies and interests. These four groups included The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and the United States Chamber of Commerce. Although handling money abroad is in fact a sensitive subject, especially with a recent past of mishandling, the newly developed group should have been very careful, yet in American tradition, the endowment went awry.
France was given $1.5 million, to the AFL-CIO for a program in France and due to the close relationship between France and the U.S. the endowment didn't feel the need to say where the funds were going. MISTAKE. Irving Brown, the man in charge of the money to fund anti-communist movements, even though the Communist Party only held a mere 10% of the electorate. Clearly embarrassed, the U.S. denied that it was a government program, but interestingly enough, all of the money came from the government.
So it is understandable that Egypt may not trust the United States when it comes to funding. U.S organizations are under scrutiny for creating unrest with illegal means of foreign funding, and they are all connected to the endowment. The GOP's International Republican Institute and the Democratic Party's Nation Democratic Institute are two main players in the endowment. Under the Clinton Administration, as a way to clear America's public opinion after the incident in Somalia leaving 18 American soldiers dead, he would often toss the blame at Boutros-Ghali the U.N. Secretary Genera. The Secretary General also used as a scapegoat by Bob Dole, when oddly enough the U.N. was not the supplier of troops, America was. Overall there seems to constantly be finger pointing and mishandling of funds when dealing with democracy abroad, giving countries another reason to mistrust foreign intervention and "aid".
Saturday, 30 March 2013
To Protect Sovereignty or to Protect Lives
The Responsibility to Protect Act (R2P) is the international communities responsibility to protect countries that cannot protect themselves. Prior to this, there is often a debate stemming back to the Treaty of Westphalia, as to if you should intervene somewhere and defy that sovereign nations rights, or ignore those rights to help the people that country is harming. The R2P narrows it down to say that you may only intervene in situation of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. If a sovereign nation is trying to wipe out a whole selection of people, or any other atrocities, it should cancel out their rights as a sovereign nation. Now, the R2P sounds great but just like any other initiative, there will be a few issues. Where is it worth intervening? Is it worth risking the lives of our own troops?
In Myanmar, the Burmese junta, the Tatadawm and other armed groups under GOVERNMENT control are committing terrible human rights violations against ethnic as well as religious minorities including murder, torture, rape, forced labor and sexual abuse. The EU and the UN intervened in Myanmar, but why didn't others gather a stronger front? Under the R2P, the international community expressed concern over the safety of populations in Burma. Many countries denounced the junta and called for an end to government-perpetrated human rights abuses. The US, France, and the UK tightened economic sanctions on the regime and Japan threatened to cut aid to the country. This sovereignty vs saving lives issue has many loop holes, but overall, internationally, protection of lives is far more important that respecting the countries committing these heinous crimes.
The Decline of American Client States (The Atlantic)
Afghanistan
Foreign Assistance: $3.2 billion
U.S. Troops: 99,000
Strategic Value: Counter-terrorism
Status: Migraines in Washington
Pakistan
Foreign Assistance: $2.9 billion
U.S. Troops: 133 (officially)
Strategic Value: Afghan war, counter-terrorism, Pakistan-India peace
Status: Client relationship at risk
Iraq
Foreign Assistance: $2.4 billion
U.S. Troops: 46,000
Strategic Value: Counter-terrorism, bulwark against Iran, not falling into chaos
Status: Mixed
Israel
Foreign Assistance: $3.1 billion
U.S. Troops: 35
Strategic Value: Israel-Palestine peace, Middle East peace
Status: Migraines in Washington
Saudi Arabia
Foreign Assistance: None
U.S. Troops: 555
Strategic Value: Oil, counter-terrorism, bulwark against Iran
Status: Client relationship at risk
There are many reasons for the decline in U.S. client states. Some reasons include that the U.S. has a habit of choosing the most down trodden states, places where they can be the "hero", or because our democratic movements are pressuring the client states to adhere to popular domestic will instead of giving our foreign guidance. The article seems mention that clientelism was doomed from the start and I agree, it just seems to be a milder, more politically correct form of colonization. In a way, The United States is pushing their way of governing, democracy, we don't exactly help the people but support less then ideal regime leaders in return for goods (Saudi Arabia and oil) as well as strategic geographical and political reasons to help counter terrorism. Now again, this is my personal opinion and it may not be correct, but these are some reasons why we are losing client states. Being labeled a client state seems to be a negative thing, you are a weak nation that needs the help of a larger state, in these 5 cases, you need the help of America, which may or may not always be a good thing. In the case of Israel it is a great thing, you receive that most aid out of all of the Middle Eastern countries, you get the best and most updated military support and equipment, being a U.S. client is awesome for you. However, the relationship within Pakistan is a growing mount of tension. Not only was the discovery of bin Laden only a short distance from Pakistan's West Point, but Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs Chairman accused Pakistan of sponsering the Haqqani network known to be aligned with the Taliban, and even labeled it as a "veritable rm" of Pakistani military intelligence. These client states seem more like game board pieces in America's security game then a nice "give and take" relationship.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
U.S Foreign "Aid"
The United States sends foreign aid to numerous countries in the Middle East, yet, those countries are starting to lose support in the aid they are receiving. According to the Abu Dhabi Gallup poll, 52% of Egyptians oppose any form of U.S. economic aid at all. Which I understand because, well, we tend to support some leaders that don't exactly make sound decisions when it comes to helping grow their country. A focus needs to be taken away from directly funding leaders, to helping support the people and their economies in order to stimulate the process of the Arab Spring. We had a top-down economic aid approach, which seemed to never actually reach the bottom. So, we have changed our approach to a bottom-up system, supporting civil society, investing in small enterprises and hopefully allowing for bureaucracies to grow. That sounds all well and fine, except that Congress seems to be ignoring countries with a fairly stable system in place that just need an extra financial boost, such a Morocco, while handing out large sums of money to countries like Egypt that does not even have the appropriate institutions in place to properly use the money we are giving them to "boost their economies through bottom-up programs". This misappropriation of funds is hurting not only the countries that need help and can grow substantially from it, but it hurts the U.S. budget as well. It seems as though we have the idea of support, but we can never actually put money in the right places.
One of the biggest issues with U.S. foreign aid seems to be the constant battle of defense and security spending over development spending in countries in the Middle East. It was reported that $2 billion of the $3.5 billion sent abroad is specifically spent on military assistance. It is in the best interest of the United States to be putting more money into defense in certain countries in the Middle East, allowing countries such as Lebanon to hold back defensively against groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is evident that these countries need more then just military assistance, in recent demonstrations in Israel, the people need social programs as well as military aid. The people of the Arab Spring didn't revolt (in any country) because their military did not have enough support, they were upset about strong hold regimes, lack of resources, and overall poor quality of life established by their leaders. They don't want more protection from external forces, they want help and support for building their own ways of life, they want jobs to support their families, health care, and opposition to regimes that violate human rights to an extreme. It seems that the citizens of these countries truly are not asking for anything spectacular, just some help being able to get on their feet financially and actually have a say in their governments. Yet, U.S. "aid" is not exactly meeting their needs, causing the countries we support to lose interest, and faith in the "support" we are offering to boost their economies.
One of the biggest issues with U.S. foreign aid seems to be the constant battle of defense and security spending over development spending in countries in the Middle East. It was reported that $2 billion of the $3.5 billion sent abroad is specifically spent on military assistance. It is in the best interest of the United States to be putting more money into defense in certain countries in the Middle East, allowing countries such as Lebanon to hold back defensively against groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is evident that these countries need more then just military assistance, in recent demonstrations in Israel, the people need social programs as well as military aid. The people of the Arab Spring didn't revolt (in any country) because their military did not have enough support, they were upset about strong hold regimes, lack of resources, and overall poor quality of life established by their leaders. They don't want more protection from external forces, they want help and support for building their own ways of life, they want jobs to support their families, health care, and opposition to regimes that violate human rights to an extreme. It seems that the citizens of these countries truly are not asking for anything spectacular, just some help being able to get on their feet financially and actually have a say in their governments. Yet, U.S. "aid" is not exactly meeting their needs, causing the countries we support to lose interest, and faith in the "support" we are offering to boost their economies.
Saturday, 9 March 2013
WikiLeaks are a great source of ammunition for pinning nations against each other, or their own people. Not everything in government can be transparent for the everybody and their mother to see, or else nothing would truly get done. Politics are not always rainbows and unicorns, so those matter are worked out behind closed documents or so you think. Thanks to WIkiLeaks, the average person can take a closer look into the personality of their government. Not only Americans have been effected by these leaks either.
InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armament would go against American ideals, most likely causing a U.S aided country to, well, lose U.S. aid for its people. It was interesting to me that Karon pointed out, that based off of this year's Univeristy of Maryland poll of Arab opinion, that 57% of poll takers support Iran in obtaining nuclear weapons and think it would positively effect their region. But the way I see it, is that giving a rather "grumpy" country nuclear weapons is just asking for chaos and destruction, coercion and something to hold over the people's head. In weak regimes with bad neighborhoods, they are already expressing their support for Iran;s nuclear rights and are trying to avoid the U.N. at the same time.
Basically, WikiLeaks are a great way to see a country's true feelings on a matter. They put out these cables, obviously assuming that no one except for the intended recipient will see them. Welcome to the 21st century guys. These leaks not only contradict what a nation SAYS and what a nation truly THINKS, or thinks they should say to get a response. The huge contrasting gap is worrisome especially in less stable nations, it is growing harder to get a read on what their intentions are. It seems though, that this is a growing trend in not just politics abroad but politics even on the smallest scale; say what sounds good in public but hide what you really feel to stay in power. It almost seems to me that, these governments abroad lie in public in order to have U.S. support, but we know where they stand thanks to private cables and conversations. The United States has a funny way of not practicing what they preach, and it is a complete and total embarrassment to what our country was founded on. Transparency seems impossible when dealing with international politics, they all operate behind closed doors. So, is your government doing what is truly best for "the people" or what is best for their own satisfaction?
InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armament would go against American ideals, most likely causing a U.S aided country to, well, lose U.S. aid for its people. It was interesting to me that Karon pointed out, that based off of this year's Univeristy of Maryland poll of Arab opinion, that 57% of poll takers support Iran in obtaining nuclear weapons and think it would positively effect their region. But the way I see it, is that giving a rather "grumpy" country nuclear weapons is just asking for chaos and destruction, coercion and something to hold over the people's head. In weak regimes with bad neighborhoods, they are already expressing their support for Iran;s nuclear rights and are trying to avoid the U.N. at the same time.
Basically, WikiLeaks are a great way to see a country's true feelings on a matter. They put out these cables, obviously assuming that no one except for the intended recipient will see them. Welcome to the 21st century guys. These leaks not only contradict what a nation SAYS and what a nation truly THINKS, or thinks they should say to get a response. The huge contrasting gap is worrisome especially in less stable nations, it is growing harder to get a read on what their intentions are. It seems though, that this is a growing trend in not just politics abroad but politics even on the smallest scale; say what sounds good in public but hide what you really feel to stay in power. It almost seems to me that, these governments abroad lie in public in order to have U.S. support, but we know where they stand thanks to private cables and conversations. The United States has a funny way of not practicing what they preach, and it is a complete and total embarrassment to what our country was founded on. Transparency seems impossible when dealing with international politics, they all operate behind closed doors. So, is your government doing what is truly best for "the people" or what is best for their own satisfaction?
WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks are a great source of ammunition for pinning nations against each other, or their own people. Not everything in government can be transparent for the everybody and their mother to see, or else nothing would truly get done. Politics are not always rainbows and unicorns, so those matter are worked out behind closed documents or so you think. Thanks to WIkiLeaks, the average person can take a closer look into the personality of their government. Not only Americans have been effected by these leaks either.
InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armerment
InTony Karon's article, you see Middle Eastern nations being pitted against each other in the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons. Many nations secretly support Iran, but say that they do not. Why lie? Because it is bad for public opinion. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would raise hell not only in the Middle East, where Iran would love to exercise its nuclear power, but in the United States as well. Also, backing Iran's nuclear armerment
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Power Politics- Another Game
This article is all about what you must do as a leader to hold onto power, seen more so from the view of a dictator and how democrats fall into similar traits. Bueno de Mesquita highlights a few key points that he believes makes politics what they are.
Dependency is his first issue. He states that having to rely on others to keep you in power is a downfall, which completely contradicts the meaning of a democracy; for the people, by the people. The second, related issue, is that as a leader, you want a pool of people to call on to support you. It is easier to chose weak people to support you because without you, they have nothing. With that being said, places were leaders are using their people for personal gain, typically don't have fairly run elections, like in the case of Russia, everyone knew Putin was going to win, so why bother? Well you bother because this "inner circle of support is almost like a ploy, you need this circle to know that they can be replaced. Politics have always reminded me of high school, a bunch of power hungry kids doing whatever they can to get their way.
So, once you've obtained this inner circle, you need to tax the crap out of these people in order to get yourself some cash, and give yourself some room for bribery. With high taxes come two constraints; if the people don't work, there is not money for the leader, and if you tax them too high they'll eventually get to the point of desperation and revolt because they have nothing to lose. So, with that being said, push them just far enough that they can keep working, but not too far so you don't have a disastrous revolution on your hands.
Keeping your cronies loyal to you is a big deal, you obviously don't want them supporting anyone else, so you use, you guessed it, money to "buy their love", at quite a cheap price at that. You want to give out as little money as possible to make the people happy in order to keep your own wallet stuffed. There is also the subject of reward, how do you reward your coalition? A public good, something that everyone can benefit from. The alternative however, is private rewards that only help those of which that keep your regime going. Now, democrats by nature, have to rely on huge groups of constituents for support and privately bribing all of them would cost far more then a public good, making a park for underprivileged kids or something lovely. The smaller you keep you inner circle, the less you need to spend on private goods. Every leader used public and private goods and it works in a balancing act. The bigger the coalition, the less private goods and more public goods. The smaller the coalition the less public goods, and more private goods.
The general theme for power politics is that most democratic rules have to please the people, whereas a dictatorship only needs to minimally please a few of them with as little resources as they can use, and if the people aren't pleased, well, replace them with new people who "need" you.
Dependency is his first issue. He states that having to rely on others to keep you in power is a downfall, which completely contradicts the meaning of a democracy; for the people, by the people. The second, related issue, is that as a leader, you want a pool of people to call on to support you. It is easier to chose weak people to support you because without you, they have nothing. With that being said, places were leaders are using their people for personal gain, typically don't have fairly run elections, like in the case of Russia, everyone knew Putin was going to win, so why bother? Well you bother because this "inner circle of support is almost like a ploy, you need this circle to know that they can be replaced. Politics have always reminded me of high school, a bunch of power hungry kids doing whatever they can to get their way.
So, once you've obtained this inner circle, you need to tax the crap out of these people in order to get yourself some cash, and give yourself some room for bribery. With high taxes come two constraints; if the people don't work, there is not money for the leader, and if you tax them too high they'll eventually get to the point of desperation and revolt because they have nothing to lose. So, with that being said, push them just far enough that they can keep working, but not too far so you don't have a disastrous revolution on your hands.
Keeping your cronies loyal to you is a big deal, you obviously don't want them supporting anyone else, so you use, you guessed it, money to "buy their love", at quite a cheap price at that. You want to give out as little money as possible to make the people happy in order to keep your own wallet stuffed. There is also the subject of reward, how do you reward your coalition? A public good, something that everyone can benefit from. The alternative however, is private rewards that only help those of which that keep your regime going. Now, democrats by nature, have to rely on huge groups of constituents for support and privately bribing all of them would cost far more then a public good, making a park for underprivileged kids or something lovely. The smaller you keep you inner circle, the less you need to spend on private goods. Every leader used public and private goods and it works in a balancing act. The bigger the coalition, the less private goods and more public goods. The smaller the coalition the less public goods, and more private goods.
The general theme for power politics is that most democratic rules have to please the people, whereas a dictatorship only needs to minimally please a few of them with as little resources as they can use, and if the people aren't pleased, well, replace them with new people who "need" you.
Sunday, 3 March 2013
Modernization in the Middle East
The United States seems to constantly be "helping to rebuild" some nation abroad. Yet, in the Middle East, American support doesn't always seem to be having as positive of a reaction as we hope for. Presidencies from Eisenhower, to Kennedy and beyond have always had a policy of "reform, develop, and modernize" as a way to promote evolutionary change and suppress revolutionary change. Now, this looks good on paper, give military and economic support to help promote growth in these countries abroad, like for instance the support for the Shah of Iran. Which ended up turning into not only a repressive regime with secret police forces and missing people, people that had an opinion about the way the government was behaving, being killed and kidnapped with American financial and arms support.
Just like every other country, American must protect its on assets and conduct itself in their best interests. We preach to be a country of peace , justice, and democracy promotion, yet we still find ourselves supporting war lords and oppressive regime leaders for our own personal gain whether it be Anti-Soviet agendas or protecting oil resources. It sometimes seem as though the more the West tries influences the Middle East, the more people seem to pull away, especially political leaders who seem to harbor a range of distaste for anything that progressively democratic or that may take away from their power. This is seen with Iranian Hostage crisis, people where so upset with the Shah and pro-Khomeini gunmen took the American embassy workers hostage.
The United State's approach to achieving economic development and westernization is to meant to support political stability in pro-American regimes. Many programs are designed to raise the living standards in countries abroad but in areas with social, political and economic unrest, it tends to fizzle out and lead to even more discontent by the citizens who are hoping for change and end up being effected directly by the corruption and power struggle of their political leaders. U.S. foreign policy looks good on paper, but in actuality it just seems like another way to keep resources under close control by dismantling and re-instating new governments, supplying money meant for a good cause but that ends in corruption and unrest instead.
Just like every other country, American must protect its on assets and conduct itself in their best interests. We preach to be a country of peace , justice, and democracy promotion, yet we still find ourselves supporting war lords and oppressive regime leaders for our own personal gain whether it be Anti-Soviet agendas or protecting oil resources. It sometimes seem as though the more the West tries influences the Middle East, the more people seem to pull away, especially political leaders who seem to harbor a range of distaste for anything that progressively democratic or that may take away from their power. This is seen with Iranian Hostage crisis, people where so upset with the Shah and pro-Khomeini gunmen took the American embassy workers hostage.
The United State's approach to achieving economic development and westernization is to meant to support political stability in pro-American regimes. Many programs are designed to raise the living standards in countries abroad but in areas with social, political and economic unrest, it tends to fizzle out and lead to even more discontent by the citizens who are hoping for change and end up being effected directly by the corruption and power struggle of their political leaders. U.S. foreign policy looks good on paper, but in actuality it just seems like another way to keep resources under close control by dismantling and re-instating new governments, supplying money meant for a good cause but that ends in corruption and unrest instead.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
CIA Cannot Foresee It All
Often times we, as Americans, hold the CIA and other agencies to a very high standard. But at the same time, the CIA is made up of humans, not computers. Analysts try their best to make the right decision but you cannot always predict the outcome. For example, the case of the 1973 Arab-Israeli Way. Kovar has to make the executive decision of whether or not a Syrian War plan was in fact a threat or not. There were numerous signs that showed Egypt and Syria with potential to attack Israel.
Many analysts that make this mistake openly acknowledge that they had made a terrible mistake, one that they must live with their entire lives. In Kovar's case, downplaying Syria and Egypt's intentions the eve of war, was his biggest regret. Yet somehow it seems that the CIA is still having a hard time identifying the future of the Middle East. I believe it has to do with the fact that the Middle East seems to just erupt into chaos when we least expect it, well that's how I feel as a citizen. There is always turmoil in countries with lack of governmental leadership, health care, and especially in an area where resources are used against each other. You have countries like Palestine and Israel constantly at each other's throats with everyone's hands in the middle. I think sometimes it is easy to be complacent with an issue that has been going on for awhile.
Many analysts that make this mistake openly acknowledge that they had made a terrible mistake, one that they must live with their entire lives. In Kovar's case, downplaying Syria and Egypt's intentions the eve of war, was his biggest regret. Yet somehow it seems that the CIA is still having a hard time identifying the future of the Middle East. I believe it has to do with the fact that the Middle East seems to just erupt into chaos when we least expect it, well that's how I feel as a citizen. There is always turmoil in countries with lack of governmental leadership, health care, and especially in an area where resources are used against each other. You have countries like Palestine and Israel constantly at each other's throats with everyone's hands in the middle. I think sometimes it is easy to be complacent with an issue that has been going on for awhile.
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Obama-Reagan Doctrine Comparision
"we cannot play innocents abroad in a world that's not innocent;
nor can we be passive when freedom is under siege"
Reagan used this doctrine to enforce his point that some conflicts are not always worth the American interest to risk the lives of our soldiers but instead it would be easy to "lead from behind". Often times, our allies are involved in conflicts that they may need a little extra help in, such as France's involvement in Mali. The American's stepped in only in the intelligence sense, we offered them technical help and support but without putting our troops on the front lines. Reagan believed that we must back all of our democratic allies and no stop supporting those fighting the battle. He used this speech to address the issue of Communist, this thought is reelected in Obama's strategy as well. Our first intervention with Obama administration was in Libya, we had our hands in the initial strikes but then took the back burner and put our efforts toward surveillance and reconnaissance
Leading from behind has been viewed by many as a negative thing, as a hegemony not giving its support in full potential. letting others take the brunt of the fight while we play "office worker". Personally, it seems like a good way to save the lives and minds of American soldiers.
Reagan used this doctrine to enforce his point that some conflicts are not always worth the American interest to risk the lives of our soldiers but instead it would be easy to "lead from behind". Often times, our allies are involved in conflicts that they may need a little extra help in, such as France's involvement in Mali. The American's stepped in only in the intelligence sense, we offered them technical help and support but without putting our troops on the front lines. Reagan believed that we must back all of our democratic allies and no stop supporting those fighting the battle. He used this speech to address the issue of Communist, this thought is reelected in Obama's strategy as well. Our first intervention with Obama administration was in Libya, we had our hands in the initial strikes but then took the back burner and put our efforts toward surveillance and reconnaissance
Leading from behind has been viewed by many as a negative thing, as a hegemony not giving its support in full potential. letting others take the brunt of the fight while we play "office worker". Personally, it seems like a good way to save the lives and minds of American soldiers.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
The 14 Rules for Predicting the Future
In this article, Steve LeVine is getting his point across that you cannot one hundred percent accurately predict a country's next move, as in the phrase that" history repeats itself". There is a bit of truth in that, but much more likely to pick out the direction a situation will go in opposed to the actual outcome. LeVine covers 14 rules to do so, and these are infallibly are mirror in countries around the world. He reviews how the size, power, and even geological placement effect how leaders may react to certain situations.
Instead of going over each individual rule, many of them can be generally grouped together. There is a general concept the countries with "brother country support" seem to just be hanging on to the edge. There may be chaos and discontent between citizens, they will never be pushed over the edge. They are just barely muddling along. Touching back upon unhappy citizens, a large reason why they grow unhappy is because they aim to enhance their conditions. They want to improve their economic situation, boost their level of liberty, and make sure that their children will have a successful and healthy future.
The amount of power, or lack there of in a nation can dictate the way a government will act in the future. When regimes like a dictatorship, although they seem so staunchly set in their ways, with a little bit of outside pressure from an existential threat, they will react accordingly in order to remain in power. It is like a child, they'll push their limits but once they feel their parents watching them, they settle down in order to avoid being reprimanded. Another rule touches upon this, the Caesar Rule; if a dictator for example needs to be removed from power, sometimes the only options are defection, or just plain out assassination.
Rulers in different regimes have different personalities that are reflective of how they run their states. People like Putin, Churchill, and Hitler all had boisterous, idiosyncratic personalities that lead them to dominate world events.
Overall, LeVine covers numerous aspects of how countries are run, and how it will effect said country's regime, citizens, and future. How they are controlled, how they control others, and the way factors such as geological location and a leader's personality can help predict how a ruler with conduct himself in the future. Now, this is not a precise set of rules for fortune telling, but a general guide line of how things may occur.
In this article, Steve LeVine is getting his point across that you cannot one hundred percent accurately predict a country's next move, as in the phrase that" history repeats itself". There is a bit of truth in that, but much more likely to pick out the direction a situation will go in opposed to the actual outcome. LeVine covers 14 rules to do so, and these are infallibly are mirror in countries around the world. He reviews how the size, power, and even geological placement effect how leaders may react to certain situations.
Instead of going over each individual rule, many of them can be generally grouped together. There is a general concept the countries with "brother country support" seem to just be hanging on to the edge. There may be chaos and discontent between citizens, they will never be pushed over the edge. They are just barely muddling along. Touching back upon unhappy citizens, a large reason why they grow unhappy is because they aim to enhance their conditions. They want to improve their economic situation, boost their level of liberty, and make sure that their children will have a successful and healthy future.
The amount of power, or lack there of in a nation can dictate the way a government will act in the future. When regimes like a dictatorship, although they seem so staunchly set in their ways, with a little bit of outside pressure from an existential threat, they will react accordingly in order to remain in power. It is like a child, they'll push their limits but once they feel their parents watching them, they settle down in order to avoid being reprimanded. Another rule touches upon this, the Caesar Rule; if a dictator for example needs to be removed from power, sometimes the only options are defection, or just plain out assassination.
Rulers in different regimes have different personalities that are reflective of how they run their states. People like Putin, Churchill, and Hitler all had boisterous, idiosyncratic personalities that lead them to dominate world events.
Overall, LeVine covers numerous aspects of how countries are run, and how it will effect said country's regime, citizens, and future. How they are controlled, how they control others, and the way factors such as geological location and a leader's personality can help predict how a ruler with conduct himself in the future. Now, this is not a precise set of rules for fortune telling, but a general guide line of how things may occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)