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.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)