Soveriegnty and Difference

How does one protect difference? As to the idea that sovereignty protects difference I believe that this is mostly correct. Throughout history groups of people, especially minorities have been weak and easily exploited if they were diffused in a country. To gain support and a voice they had to band together into groups. These groups were stronger than just a bunch of individuals trying to protect themselves.

Now I think its really difficult to label someone as "different" to begin with, but I guess if you go along the line of diversity, than all groups have their advocacy groups. Blacks have the NAACP for instance. Should all these groups be sovereign unto themselves? No, definitely not. We would have way too many separate entities and trouble governing them all. Ideally if you can integrate everyone as much as possible under a single identity, that is the best answer. We all have different backgrounds in America, but we are all Americans.

But to purely answer the question of sovereignty protecting differences, I still think that it does. A success story could be Israel. They have a very tight-knit strong country of people that have been seen as "different" for one reason or another through history. Granted, they have many troubles with those who still disagree with their way of life, land they hold, etc... but comparatively they are doing much better than ever before. We should try to avoid separating into groups based on our differences, because it will undoubtedly create animosity towards others based on material wealth, power, and other things that groups may hold over others.

Bottom Line: Integration of multiple differences under a single identity is desirable, but sovereignty does in fact protect difference which may explain why groups like the Palestinians desire a state of their own.

Reflection: First Semester

So its finally over. My first semester of college certainly was not what I expected. Between ROTC and my course load, I was pretty darn busy, but I must say I learned a lot. Specifically my understanding of World Politics became broadened to include much more than I had thought it would. My teachers in high school had always had a very limited view of on world politics that didn't really extend beyond the major theories. Now it feels like everything I learn is somewhat interconnected.

Things in my Macroeconomics class came up in world politics, and things in world politics came up in my Views from the Third World Class. Things from all these classes were constantly coming up and relating to one another. That's when I felt I was really learning something. I guess the next logical question to ask would be what can I do with this new knowledge? Well, I think I'll be able to better develop a comprehensive way of thinking about the globe. If I learned anything its that anything is possible. While I maintain many of the convictions I had coming in, they have actually been strengthened in some cases by the information I have gleaned. Also in some cases my views have been altered. Most of all I think the UC was a good experience that helped us to interact in a microcosm of the world with all of our different backgrounds, identities, etc... and we all got along. There is hope for the world after all.

Reflection: North Korea

The situation in North Korea worries me. Now that I think about it, I 'm surprised the issue didn't come to a head sooner. It was only a matter of time with a regime so oppressive and oriented against our interests. Not only do they represent an obstacle to our interest of peace in east Asia, but a legitimate threat to our ally South Korea. With one EMP blast or surface nuclear explosion South Korea would be catastrophically damaged. I believe the war would most definitely be won by the US who is legally binded to assist South Korea in a war, but it would be costly. It would be unlike any war we've experienced since Vietnam. There would be much more casualties and I'm not sure that's something anyone is ready for. For me personally if need be, I could possibly be pulled out of school to be deployed. This is unlikely in all but the most desperate of times and seeing as our troop strength is stretched at the moment it suddenly doesn't seem so far fetched.

Despite all this, a line in the sand must be drawn, Enough is enough. How long can we let this go on. We aren't appeasing them by any means, but there have been no consequences for the North Koreans' actions. They are escalating things. First it was a torpedo attack, and now an outright artillery strike. What is next? While I think it would be unfortunate, there will come a time when we will have to make a decision as to deal with their oppressive regime straight out of Orson Well's 1984 upfront, or to accept them as a constant threat and allow them to gain confidence to the point they do something really terrible with weapons of mass destruction.

I like how Jaime pointed out how we seem to have avoided North Korea (http://letts6.blogspot.com/2010/11/north-korea-reflection.html) and while I disagree that it has to do with the resources the country has, I do think it odd that we have had such a negligent posture in recent years towards the most oppressive, violent, secretive, regime on this earth. Why have we chosen to ignore it? Much of it probably has to do with the media focus, but also I think Americans simply forget if not reminded about certain aspects of the world, because we get so caught up in our own lives and problems. Some thing's gotta give and I wonder if this is the breaking point. I expect we will find out in the coming days.

Can We Blame Columbus?

This was actually a very difficult question to answer and I actually am still really stumped on this issue. I mean, how can we blame one man for the response of a continent to the new world? I guess in one respect we could blame him because he set the precedent for what to expect from the natives and the land itself, whether it was their "savageness" or the vast riches of the new world. Honestly however, I find this to be a fallacy and I think the reason that the subsequent brutal conquest of the Americas was due more to the European identity as a whole and its reaction to the other as Todorov points out in his book.

I think that the European attitude at the time reflected the struggle to come out of the middle ages. It was one that was deeply entrenched in religion that came from years of catholic expansion and the subsequent crusades. Europeans felt they had to expand their religion to come to enlightenment and escape the dark ages of their past. The renaissance was evidence of the beginning of their enlightenment. When Columbus and others came across Native Americans they saw something completely alien and foreign to them. They saw people living in a primitive state. After observation that they did not follow a "Christan religion" (they actually thought they had no religion) the Europeans determined that due to this lack of religion that they were in a state much like Europe had been after the fall of Rome. A state of barbarism, lacking sophistication, education, and civilization itself. I think this solidified their belief of the superiority and justice of their cause. How could they not, having nothing else to measure against?

Essentially while Columbus certainly embodied the European ideals of the time, he was in a class of his own in terms of really being an idealist. His crusading attitude was not felt among all those back in Europe, so I believe his descriptions of the new world did not form people's attitudes, but rather provoked their curiosity to find out for themselves. When more explorers found similar things, I think because of the societal and political structure of Europe at the time, they ended up coming up with a view as themselves and their religion as superior and almost a moral imperative to expand. This is not to say that greed for wealth did not play into it, but I think what I have described in this blog points out the cause for the aggressive pillaging of the Americas and the treatment of the new world in an objective, scientific, and project-like manner.

Reflection: Security from the Soldier's Standpoint

While everyone was in World Politics class on Friday I found myself wandering around in the woods looking for a little panel taped to a tree on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. My weekend from 3:30 a.m. Friday Morning to 12:00 noon on Sunday consisted of various Army land navigation, squad tactical operations, and forward operating base operations. Besides the 56 hours of no sleep, the frigid temperatures that a South Florida boy like me has no experience with, and the hunger after eating crackers and cheese spread out of an MRE as a meal, I still found myself relating my experiences to the greater picture of security.

On Friday we basically conducted land navigation exercises all day. In the late afternoon we divided up into our squads and fire teams for the combat operations. During this time we basically went over all the basic tactics that one would expect and that we've been learning all year. Afterwards we conducted land navigation in the pitch black woods. Let's put it this way, you can see about five meters in front of you and you are looking for a tiny placard that designates what you hope is your point on a tree, and you got to do it the old fashioned way with a compass, protractor, and a bit of math. I found it very interesting how much focus is still put on the old fashioned methods when we have all the advanced GPS technology and it made me glad that the military is not becoming completely reliant on that technology. When we got back we were taught classes on Forward Operating Base operations. This is where things got interesting. There was of course a focus on things such as manning checkpoints, doing surveillance, detaining and questioning prisoners, etc... but there was a huge focus on dealing with non-conventional threats. We were taught how to react to things such as vehicle borne IEDs, suicide bombers, belligerent indigenous peoples, hit and run tactics, and trickery. There was such a great emphasis on how to best deal with civilians that we come across, media in the field, etc... Also we were taught about culturally sensitive issues such as the fact that certain hand movements are recognized in different ways (Never give a thumbs up signal to an Arab person, trust me on that). Also there was talk of how to deal with the language barrier and things like the fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan it is perfectly fine for any male to be walking around with an Ak-47. It is part of their culture and in some cases, their constitution. Again and Again I heard the words, "treat these people as if they were your family members. Be forceful, but remember that they are people and you can't just shoot them, no matter how annoying they are unless they pose a direct threat." This was comforting to hear when you consider that this is really what we need to be cognisant of in today's wars.

Saturday came around and the no sleep factor was starting to affect judgment etc... but I was able to play the part of a terrorist hiding in a bunker for most of the day. It was interesting because the threat to the squads I was attacking didn't end when the shooting stopped. I often was told to pretend I had a grenade or an IED planted underneath my body and that it would blow up if they didn't check me and deal with it. It is really a tough situation sometimes and many times the only way you know that there is an IED is if someone sets it off and in a manner of speaking, "takes one for the team." After ten hours of this we moved to the most interesting part of the whole thing which was putting into practice the things we learned the night before about the FOB operations and conducting them. The "fog of war" as it were, really set in as all sorts of native people came to the gate, some cooperative, some not, some looking for help or work, some looking to kill us. It was very difficult to maintain a respectful and "nice" disposition towards them when you couldn't be sure if they had a bomb under their shirt or a gun hidden in their belt which happened a couple of times. You have to operate to where you trust no one. Due to this it is hard for the native population to feel all warm and fuzzy towards you, although I learned that sharing skittles and M'n Ms goes a long way. You have to be forceful if people just insist in hanging around or trying to get in and this can appear rude and unfair to the local people as well. However its really for our safety and their safety if the escalation of force is maintained. Shout, Shove, Show, Shoot is how it goes for an armed civilian and shout, shove, show, detain, is how it goes for unarmed civilians. Of course this is all dependent on the situation and someone who is unarmed may actually be wearing a bomb vest and you aren't going to want to go anywhere near them, but the truth is there is no way of really knowing sometimes. You have to be violent and forceful to maintain security and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way.

As I rode the bus back from the base after 56 hours of all this I found myself thinking that we talk a lot about theories and concepts of how things should be done, but so often it does not translate to the real world. People are constantly saying how we should do this or that in terms of dealing with situations like I described before, but so often these ideas go to crap when confronted with the real deal and circumstances change so fast. Is there a perfect solution? I don't know. Are we working towards one in the right direction? Yes, I think the military has made a significant shift in the right direction when it comes to today's changing battlefield. Things will always be changing we will always have to adapt and improvise to keep up and maintain our security. I think we should just try and remember the practicality of many of the theories and strategies that we talk about because many times it can make the situation worse. An example is when we decided we would try a more trusting and "friendlier" attitude towards Afghan locals and so we didn't search their women or even their men if they were our supposed allies. They brought a man in with a suicide vest into a Forward Operating Base much like the one I was in this weekend and he blew himself up killing several CIA operatives and a couple of contractors. The consequences of failure on these issues is much to great to be taking chances on things like this. People never like being told what to do. Soldiers in Afghanistan are viewed by the locals like Police are in the United States. People tend not to like them because they enforce the laws that people sometimes like to break. It comes from perspective. Just because people don't like being told what to do doesn't mean they shouldn't do whats right and follow the laws and customs that our soldiers or police are upholding.

Alternative stories and Alternative views

At first I wasn't real thrilled to listen to the talk by Professor Tickner, but it actually got me thinking about a lot of things. It got me thinking about the history that we frame our theories around and what the effects would be if we shifted to looking at it from a different perspective. Would we be better off or at least learn something from looking at all the opinions and views? I think so.

"History is written by the victor," said Captain Price in Modern Warfare 2. Professor Tickner said the same today. This has great implications for what we view as being successful and right vs. failure and wrong. As she said, there were many peoples who were colonized that ended up as statistics and objects. This made me think of when I studied Greece and Rome. We learned about all their glorious and extensive conquests over territory. The people of those territories were described as being slaves and servants to those who moved into these new territories. There was only a brief paragraph about it and it was framed as if the slaves actually helped development of those empires, sort of justifying it. We tend to ignore those enslaved and uphold Rome as the pinnacle of state power. This may or may not be the right way of looking at it but we must consider as Tickner said, the voices that we don't hear or else we are apt to make the same mistakes again as we so often do. That is why I think people say history repeats itself.

Reflection: Natl. Security

I think I'll take this time to just add some points that I didn't really get to elaborate on in class. The first is more or less about knowledge and perception of security, the second being why terrorist attacks provoke such strong responses from us, and the third being are we secure today?

1) The feeling of security that one has is directly related to the knowledge of the threats that a person has. Most people live in a blissful ignorance of most threats and you see this in how people really have not changed the way they live their life. They still use the subway, go to malls, and fly on planes. They have no knowledge of impending threats. On the other hand, the president of the United States or the station chief in Pakistan for the CIA has much more knowledge of the threats that face us and the possibility of attack. Therefore the measures they take to protect us may feel unnecessary and even ridiculous to the average citizen, but to those that have received intel indicating an increased threat level, the measures are very necessary. A personal example would be that my sister wanted to go to a party in a certain part of town. My father, a police officer, said no. She complained and he said it was a bad part of town and she said she never knew of anything bad happening to her friends that lived there. My dad said that there was plenty that had happened that she didn't know about. My sister did not have the knowledge of this intel and thought the protective measures were ridiculous. My father having arrested multiple people from this area in the last week for rape, assault, and battery knew better.

2) The next thing I will discuss is why terrorist attacks provoke such a strong response from us. I believe it is all about control and the fact that it is in external threat with intent to murder civilians. Al Qaeda has declared that it wishes Americans to die. Since we are all citizens this is a threat to us all. There is a feeling that there are actually people out there that want to kill us just because of our identity. That is very personal. When 9/11 happened there was such hatred and malcontent in these attacks that it became very personal. Also as opposed to many things such as car accidents, etc... those that die in these attacks had no control over it. In cases like car accidents it is assumed that people had some choice not to speed or not to go around the corner that fast, etc... Also that fact that it is an external threat seems particularly distressing to us. We have accepted to a certain extent that crime occurs in poor areas and we feel we can handle our own. But when it is a transnational movement, it seems like in invasion upon our identity and values.

3) Are we secure today? I think we are pretty secure today in that there is no immediate danger to most of our lives and livelihood. However people who are poor or in dire straits are not secure because their livelihood is threatened. Since the majority is doing well, the consensus becomes that we are mostly secure. I do think there is a thin line separating us from being secure and being in chaos. All it would take would be for the frequency of attacks to be as often as in Pakistan of Israel. We are not accustomed to living in hardship so there will be chaos. People will desperately try to maintain their way of life. In the end I believe the precautions and protections we are taking to preserve our way of life is worth it. Why should we concede to the terrorists and become used to a way of life that we accept terrorism as inevitable and the threat constant. We must always strive to have a better life or we will stop improving and go backwards in progress.

Does US Troops in Afghanistan Make us Safer?

I feel like this blog question was made for me. I have been waiting for a question such as this for a long time and you'll have to excuse me if this drags on but I feel this question is one that will determine the fate of the United States in the future as well as the world.

Since the question is "Does having US troops in Afghanistan make us safer?" I will not go into the details that got us there too much. Also I will ignore the human rights implications of leaving and the duties and responsibilities that a nation such as the US have to our people and the people of other nations when we decide to intervene. I will just focus on staying or leaving Afghanistan and its effect on security. The facts are that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda who was sheltered in Afghanistan by the Taliban. When asked to hand over those responsible the Taliban refused. The only step left to bring the planners and their supporters to justice was to use military force because of the network that they possessed in the region. Now, with this as a backdrop I will explain how keeping troops there is especially important for our safety. There are two main reasons for this:

1) Forgetting the past and focusing on the current moment the Taliban have made a renewed effort using bases in Pakistan to reclaim lost territory and incite the population to become an insurgency against the US. In tactical terms we are on the offense militarily while the Taliban who have made various offensives in the region are still in the grand scheme of things on defense. Since we are in their backyard attacking them, they do not have the time or the stability necessary to plan attacks on our homeland. If we were to switch to defense and move out of Afghanistan we would hand them back a safe haven with which Al Qaeda could move back in, get on the offense, and attack us on our turf. By keeping them busy with defense and disrupting their networks they can not plan and attack us in any organized fashion. These are the basics of attack and defense in military terms. This is why giving out time lines is a horrible and self-destructive tactic. For one, you give the troops fighting in the region the impression that no matter what their struggles, victories, and defeats, that we will leave at this date. It hurts morale greatly. Also, if you are the Taliban or Al Qaeda a timeline gives away the intent of your enemy. If I was a Taliban leader I would tell my troops to lay low until a year or two after the timeline passes giving time for the US to believe they have succeeded and pullout. Once they are gone I would have my troops activated, move into the population centers, take over, and punish those who cooperated with the US, consolidating my power.

2) Perhaps the most important reason we should stay committed and not give up on Afghanistan in our image and its relation to our security. As I discussed in an earlier blog it started with Vietnam. We started a war and didn't finish it. Not because it was not winnable, but we lost the will to fight. After the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia Clinton pulled out having started something and not finishing it. We again lost the will to fight. Osama seeing this began to see a pattern of weakness in US foreign affairs. He tried to provoke us with the Khobar towers, the African embassies, and the USS Cole attacks. We did next to nothing to punish Al Qaeda for these acts of war upon us. 9/11. Finally we woke up and did something about it. Nine years later the public has gone back to normal life and forgotten about much of what was going on in Afghanistan until recently. Bin Laden has succeeded in drawing us into war. He believes us weak and that we will run in defeat at the first sign of death and destruction. Now that we are engaged in this struggle how we react now will tell everything about our image. Are we going to validate him and his tactics by allowing him to succeed with our retreat from the battleground of our time? Afghanistan is a war of ideals. Will terrorism, radicalism, brutality, and evil, (yes I'm going to use that word because I believe that people who kill, maim, and torture innocent civilians are in fact evil) be allowed to prevail or will the US and the coalition that supports us with righteous views of human decency, fairness, and equality triumph? The outcome will determine if the the US keeps its status as a hegemony or not. If we are able to win in Afghanistan and on the war on terror we will show the world we are able to adapt to changing conditions and triumph in the diffused, globalized world. If we can not win and we give up, we admit that we can not effectively protect our interests and bring to justice those who wish to do us harm in today's world. This will open us up to new attacks from various terrorist organizations who will not believe our commitment to causes and terrorism will be used again and again against the US and our allies because they have seen it work before. Rogue states like Iran and North Korea will not believe we have the capability to impact them for doing things against that which the U.N. desires.

The World will end up losing the "World's policeman." Think of the effect of this on the world. If there were no police what would happen? Can we expect everyone to behave and work together without an authority? I don't think so. The world will become much more dangerous for everyone including the United States. Isolationism in our history has failed for a reason. It doesn't protect you from foreign threats and if we are focused on security we need to realize this more than ever.

Bottom Line: Don't leave Afghanistan!

Reflection: Black Hawk Down and National Security

So last night I watched perhaps one of the greatest war movies ever made Black Hawk Down. Every time I watch it I always feel this anger well up in me at the end where it lists the soldiers that died, the events that followed and the withdrawal of troops as ordered by President Clinton two weeks later. National Security is very closely related to image. As NSC 2010 constantly stated, our image is central to our safety and stability. This constructivist view is very important. As Mark Bowden points out in his book that covers the "Black Hawk Down" story, the militants in Somalia were terrified of an American counter-strike and were offering to hand over all sorts of top level people including Aidid the de facto president/warlord of Mogadishu that the US had been hunting for six weeks. But what happened instead? Clinton called for a hasty pullout. This sent a very bad message. Osama Bin Laden who was involved in this incident supplying arms and soldiers said, "It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of the superpower... The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American Soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat" (Lowry 2003).

This put the idea into Bin Laden's mind that we were weak and could be easily defeated with brutal terrorist tactics. If they made it bloody enough for us we would give up and go home. Bin Laden increased his attacks, hitting the khobar towers, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the USS Cole. After all of these instead of being aggressive and attacking head on Clinton made half-way efforts with failed cruise missile strikes and in some cases not reacting with force at all. Bin Laden had all he needed to believe he could succeed with a mass casualty attack. 9/11. He drew us into Afghanistan and now nine years later we are at the most important stage. We must go hard all the way or risk inviting greater attacks upon us again by showing weakness and pulling out.

It is all about image. Will we, having taken a few hard hits to our troops and morale, give up and go home, or freaking get angry for once and show the world that America is not to be trifled with? We can not keep up this pattern of half-assing it and expect to be secure. We can already see the world starting not to take us as seriously because we put up so much dissent at home when we are at war. Terrorist tactics work perfectly for this. We don't realize it, but we are destroying ourselves by not wanting to confront what are essentially bullies. We will be in a very dangerous position if there comes a time when a rogue state such as Iran gains a nuclear weapon and does not take us seriously or think we will invest everything into stopping them from using it. This is why I worry when people think things like the Northrop Grumman poster are a joke. Having that capability is diplomacy. When you move aircraft carriers, submarines, or troops to a specific area, it is a statement. It says this is important to us and we will use force if necessary. Pulling out of places has the opposite effect. Pulling out of Somalia said, this is not important to us anymore. In fact we really haven't involved ourselves in Africa until recently. We completely dropped the ball on aiding Rwanda because of fears that were fresh in our mind from Mogadishu in 1993.

We must get rid of this fear, get angry, and show the world we're done feeling sorry for ourselves. Image determines how people react to you and we must build ours back up strong. Not the apologetic America that Obama seems to advocate, but a Liam Neeson "Taken" kind of America.

Sources: http://old.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311041024.asp

National Security and its Boundaries

So here we are at the quintessential question of our age? How far is too far when it comes to national security. As a people it seems that Americans are very reluctant to have any sort of government oversight over their lives. Understandable right? Well actually I think we need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. Many people oppose the patriot act because of some feeling of an invasion of their privacy. Do you really think the NSA is interested in your conversation with your girlfriend? They use a complex algorithm program that picks up certain key words and phrases connected to phone calls going to locations on a watch list (The Puzzle Palace). If you aren't doing anything wrong then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. We need to get our emotions in check.

Terrorists are using our self-righteous attitude towards our privacy to their advantage. They know we do not want to be filmed as we walk down the street or be scanned as we enter a shopping mall for explosives and weapons. I think we can all sacrifice a little to allow better surveillance in public areas and allow access to our phone and email records, therefore giving us more tools to prevent attacks.

That being said, there are certain boundaries. I think the personal sphere that exists in one's home is their own and should not be impeded unless actions are taken that indicate that person is up to no good. Also the government cannot hound people unnecessarily. The fact is there are already institutions in place that prevent undue government interference in this sector.

It's important to maintain our values and I think short of mandating that every citizen provide the government with extensive details of their activities for that month or something, the government won't be going to far to be more aggressive and intrusive. If you have nothing to hide you will be passed over. We need to avoid exaggerations of saying we are headed towards a police state and realize the challenges our government faces in protecting us. Bottom line: Let's stop being selfish and realize that the boundaries of national security will be reached if every individual becomes a suspect. Realistically this will not happen as it would be a waste of time for the federal agents that work these cases.

Reflection: Realism and Giuliani

I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely got alot out of hearing Giuliani come and speak to us on Saturday Night. As he was speaking I found myself relating things he was saying to realism and things we learned in class. Imagine that! He demonstrated this throughout his speech in saying things like that the Obama administration needs to realize the reality of our security situation and be more aggressive in our stance against terrorism. He also talked about our economic situation being a national security issue. This being the case the advancement of China's economy and the decline of ours was described as against our self-interest. This was really the extent of the "self-interest" part of realism that he described but his speech was riddled with the aggressive dog eat dog world type of talk. This included things like "standing up to bullies," and threatening Iran with military power.

Also his speech didn't really include much talk of cooperation in fixing our economic and national security. Much of his speech focused on what we can do ourselves as a nation which is a very realist attitude. Now I feel I must throw my own opinion in the mix. I was very happy with what I heard because although I am pretty idealistic, this does not mean I want to give any quarter to terrorists. We need to treat the threat with a realistic approach which means considering all possibilities because we all know what happens if we don't. Also I was very interested in how he compared appeasement of Hitler to the situation with Iran. While some may see this as an exaggeration, I think Giuliani's point about the problem getting more serious the more time we allow to slip by is very valid. There will come a point where we will have to either accept a nuclear Iran or use military force. I would advise putting the military pressure on them before they acquire WMDs.

Either way you stand on the aisle, Giuliani's speech gave insight to realism and showed a different perspective of thinking. Also Just as a side comment:Who the heck was that kid who asked a question and then answered it? Really lame, just saying.

RIsk, literally

So yesterday I found out exactly why Risk is actually called "Risk." We as the blue team gambled everything and took a huge risk and gave up our only population center for a chance to win it and we were betrayed. So it is in world politics as well, although perhaps not so drastic. Diplomatic Risk definitely resembles real world politics because it really limits many of the actions you can take because of your relationship with other nations. In the real world, you could potentially declare war on someone, but many times a nation simply doesn't have the capability to do this so they can't, just as in the game. We had to take into consideration all the consequences and fallout of our decisions upon the world order and if it would impact our goals.

However there were some things that I felt would be magnified on the world stage. I was surprised that our numerous alliances didn't get us into trouble because inevitably we would be allied with someone and their enemy as well. There have been many instances in history where the two nations allied with someone like us decided they were being played, teamed up and destroyed the nation with all the alliances. While this didn't (or did not yet I should say) happen to us in the game, it did arouse suspicion. It appears that in the game world and the real world that peace is suspicious. Everyone thinks there are ulterior motives.

I also think there would be increased cooperation in the real world as opposed to this purely realist game because even nations with benign goals are still trying to win. In the real world what defines winning is always changing and is sometimes very undefined as opposed to having pretty firm objectives as in the game. I think I caught on to something when i jokingly said to PTJ that while we are all preoccupied with war that the plague is going to wipe all of us out and I think this is totally possible in real life. Whether its AIDS or climate change as PTJ suggested or resource depletion and various environmental affects that we know will eventually happen but not when, we are headed into a dangerous time where we ignore some of the greater events happening around us. Not to be doom and gloom because I believe we can cooperate and fix this, but if we don't it will mean extinction, and as scientists will tell you we are due for another mass extinction.

Reflection: Risk

Risk: The game of world domination. And yet I find myself the head of state of a peace loving nation. For security and confidentiality purposes that is all I will reveal about my state and its goals as we are still in play. At first I was very disappointed, but I am learning that peace can often be more interesting than war. Our alliances that we are trying to make are done with great care and deliberation. We must be careful not to offend anyone or to complicate the process any further. Because so many of the nations are at war, we must be careful who we ally ourselves with as well. I have come to find the process of negotiation important, because if one did not participate in the process they would often have to guess of the intentions of others and have little to no influence on other states. By participating in the process, we get to find out the goals or at least how those goals are going to be carried out. We can use this to develop a more accurate picture of the world. This can work as a cooperative process or as I believe we are seeing in risk, in a realist self-interested process.

The game of risk by itself is a very realist game and I think even with PTJ's new rules, that it continues to be realist. All the nations are given strict objectives and accomplishing these objectives are the only way to win the game. Who doesn't want to win, right? To accomplish these objectives, the nations are doing whatever is necessary. I don't know what the goals are but I can assure you that whatever they are, the nations are basing their actions so that they can accomplish those goals and win the game.

Despite all this and my own view that the world is pretty realist, I reject the belief that nations never do things because they believe it is the right thing to do. It never benefited the United States in any way to intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in 1992, but we did it anyway. As a nation we have become way too cynical, to the point where it seems we do not believe humans are capable of compassion. This view will only destroy us. Call me an idealist but I really think idealism is something we are lacking and could really improve our lives in a lot of ways if we give it a chance to grow instead of rejecting all possibility of human civility.

Reflection: Simulation

When I first got the syllabus for what the simulation would consist of I must admit I was less than excited about it. This feeling continued until I really started to work on it with my group and I found myself really getting into it. I personally started out being for the domestic content rules but by the end I had changed my mind. All the research my group did and the collaboration we had with the other section as well as groups like GM, worked to shift my thinking. I think this was the most valuable part of the simulation. It forced me to think about things in a different way.

Also I think it helped all of us to work with others in our section that we didn't necessarily always work with, which was a good thing. During the making of the video, I thought it was a pain in the butt, but when we actually presented I enjoyed the videos very much. It added some variety and entertainment value to what could have otherwise been a very boring presentation based around facts and figures. And for me personally, it helped me learn some of the technical applications of imovie, which I will have to use for a final project of mine for another class.

It was hard work for all of us getting it all together, but once the final product was finished it was really cool to see it work. I was kind of disappointed in the result of our simulation. As the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, my group is dissatisfied with keeping the domestic content rules the way they are. I wondered what we could have done to further convince the president to see our side like the other section was able to. Maybe it had something to do with the AIAM in that section securing an interview with their CEO. Either way I think I can speak for everyone in saying we are glad it's all over and we can move on to new things, but we also learned a lot as well.

Reflection: A World Conflicted

As I tried to sit down to write the blog about how to deal with all the competing views on the global order, I was stumped. I realized that really there is no solution to this power struggle, and my admittance to that was an admittance that I follow the realist way of thinking. I sat stumped again, my mind in a pretzel. I decided I would skip this weeks blog post.

Despite skipping the post for this week, the topic stayed on my mind. I kept trying to work on it and decided its all about subjectivity. Every person bases the way the view the world on experiences they've had, education, and environment as many of our articles have described. For example, some people will see a state joining an international institution as a willingness to concede some power to be a part of a multi-lateral group that can get things done. (Liberals). Others would see it as an attempt to gain greater power and comparative advantage over other states (Realists). And yet, still others would see it as the state acknowledging its identity as an actor on the international front (constructivists). The action of becoming part of the state is not the single factor in how it affects the way people view the state and its decisions. They will fit the action into the pre-existing paradigm they have on the world. This is not to say people's minds never change, but because of the subjective nature of the human mind, there will never be complete consensus.

This does not mean that nations can not get along, but with so many conflicting views and differing opinions, the only real way to deal with this is education in its purest sense. Before making decisions nations and their people must be knowledgeable about the impact and reasoning for doing what they are deciding to do. In this way negative impacts can be countered. Sometimes, time may not permit this kind of approach, but consideration of the effects of any cause is key to effectively running a country and participating in the international community.

Reflection:Identity Crisis

When we first started this week and listened to the constructivism podcast, I have to say I was pretty confused. It seemed to cover so much. There was mention of multi-lateral institutions and matters of identity and everything in between. Now that we've talked about it in class it seems to mostly be about identity and how it plays into states' actions and reactions towards other states. It really caused me to reflect on our own identity. It is something I have been concerned about for quite some time now.

In South Florida where I grew up, we have a large mix of just about every ethnicity you could think of. The two largest minorities are Hispanics and Blacks. We have serious identity issues in South Florida. Kids walk around with backpacks that have the Venezuelan, Colombian, Puerto Rican, Haitian, etc... flag on them. Even though most have limited knowledge about world affairs they would often discuss how much they think America is terrible and they wish they could go back to their own country. Part of this is just ignorance and maybe a lot of it is the current economic situation. This is not something that is going to help our nation in the future. We need people who are going to care about what happens here and want to make a difference. There are limited shared values and frankly many of us just don't get along.

There is no appreciation for our nation and those that sacrifice to make the life we enjoy possible. This is not just among the minorities from abroad however, which is even more disturbing. It is the average wasp too. They would say the pledge over the intercom and no one would stand up and say it except for me. Not because they disagreed with it, but because they were too darn lazy to stand up and say it. Some would dismiss this and say they were doing out of some sort of self-righteous disagreement of American policy but that was just an excuse. I would end up shaming people including teachers into standing up and saying it. The teacher who is supposed to be an example to others just sat there, surfing the web while the pledge was going on. This is main reason why we will be surpassed by other nations like China who have much more nationalistic pride than us.

I will end this with an example demonstrating why the demise of our nation could occur. My philosophy teacher asked the class after we watched Saving Private Ryan, "Let's just say hypothetically if China attacked us on our turf, who would sign up and join to fight them?" I raised my hand, a sort of aggressiveness building in me already even though it was hypothetical. I looked around and realized I was the only one in the class of thirty except for one other kid. I looked at the teacher in desperation. He said, "Yeah, I don't think I would either. I'd probably run and take it easy until it blew over or something." This was disgraceful, disgusting, and disturbing to me. Imagine if the world had said that about the expansion of Nazi Germany. We'd all be speaking German right now. Fortunately I feel that this culture of thinking and acting is limited to areas like South Florida. I guess the question is, is this lack of identity and pride a result of the enormous diversity or is it some other factor at play?

Social Norms and States

As we talked about states and where they derive their power and authority from, something occurred to me. I realized that once a system is in place, especially after a long time, that it is less likely to be challenged and more likely to be followed to some extent and even supported by the population. As people grow up in our society or any society for that matter, they become accustomed to that way of life. It is only really, when people get a taste of something better or have a good situation go bad that they rebel. That being said, the state has alot of room to maneuver and act in its interest. People are raised such as in America, that the state's interests are the same as the people's. This is because their identity of who they are and what they stand for is linked to the territory they occupy and the social norms established by the state.

In America, our social norms include a culture of individualism and freedom. This restricts the state in a large way. However, the state will use this to take action as well. For instance when the state feels threatened it will appeal to the norms of protecting our freedoms for justification of an action. One could argue that this is a sort of propaganda but I would disagree and say that this is a very real part of our identity and when the state feels threatened in this manner the people genuinely feel the same way. This is what allows the state to take such broad action that you wouldn't expect out of a liberal democracy. In a nation like ours however there are still moves that the people would see as clearly violating our social norms. For example, many cities in the United States advocate putting more surveillance cameras in public areas. They want to do this to help manage national security. However, despite this clear and precise reasoning, many Americans feel uncomfortable with this and have voiced their concerns through organizations such as the ACLU. It is not the norm in America to have surveillance everywhere. We have always been afraid of the "Big Brother" government. This is not the case in Great Britain.

I would make the case that each state's power and abilities are limited to the social norms and tradition established by each state respectively. Great Britain has no issue with their extensive public surveillance because people are comfortable with it and see it as a role government should be playing. However in the US, our culture and tradition that make up our social norms make this uncomfortable and people are unwilling to allow the state to pursue this. In countries like North Korea where the norm has been isolation and ignorance, the state gets away with much more because that has been the norm and is expected in that country.

A Week of Liberalism: Reflection

For most of this week we have been focused on the liberal theory of international relations. We all seemed to agree that it was an ideal system and as professor Jackson pointed out in class on Friday, we have grown up with it. It think our discussion led up to a critical junction when professor Jackson asked us if liberal society is so good, should everyone have it? I have no doubt that a liberal society such as the United States is the most free and peaceful system we have to date. Liberal societies tend not to fight one another and society is characterized as a democratic republic form of government. This gives people a voice and opportunities to better themselves. I think that if it is possible, that all nations should attempt to have a society much like this.

That being said I also respect sovereignty. If a people decide for themselves that they do not want a liberal society, then that is their choice. Unless they pose a national security threat to ourselves or our allies than it is really their own business as to whether they have an open liberal society. There is a catch with this as well however. I only approve of this as long as everyone has equal opportunities to live differently. For instance, I feel that if in Afghanistan the people really wanted to live by Shari'a law then so be it. However, if there are people who chose not to live by strict Islamic law then they should be allowed to exercise their own beliefs.

This begs the question that since freedom of religion, expression, and equal opportunity are a part of liberal society then wouldn't this be a case of a liberal society in Afghanistan? My answer would be if you limit a liberal society to these things, then yes. I feel that a true liberal society encompasses so much more however. My bottom line is that if a people decide for themselves (people being the key word) that they want to have a more authoritarian and hierarchical society then that is their right as a sovereign people. The key is that they must still have the opportunity to choose for themselves and not be persecuted for political and ethnic reasons. Given these this information I would advocate that a liberal society is the best way to guarantee this freedom from the beginning and that is why you do not see peaceful and sedate authoritarian regimes.

Don't Know? Don't Vote!

America has the lowest voter turnout of the industrial world. (IDEA) That being said, I would not advocate that we try to get everyone out to vote at all costs. Unfortunately we seem to have a culture of apathy towards politics and social issues in our country among the general populace. Fortunately however, the people who are apathetic and therefore not versed in current events, politics, and domestic policy are the ones that do not turn out to vote. I say that if a person is ignorant of the issues and candidates they should not vote because it corrupts the integrity of the election. The only people that should vote are those with knowledge of these things. They are the ones who stand to gain or lose the most by the election and are clearly the ones that care more about what happens.

I feel that our nation is still liberal if a majority of the people do not vote. If the others did in an uneducated fashion a person could get elected by passions alone or by chance. In regards to the former, it is very dangerous and could lead to emotions overruling logic. Dangerous leaders have been elected in this way in the past. With the latter, it is not a fair representation of the will of the people. Those who are uninformed are not really active citizens. Active citizens are informed of the issues and make calculated and thought out decisions on who to vote for based upon a set criteria. The uninformed voter can't possibly do this, ruining the legitimacy of the election.

In a matter so important as choosing the next leader of the free world, it should not be left up to chance and passions of uninformed voters. It is unfortunate that the majority of people in our country fall into this category. Rather than forcing them to vote, it is actually our civic duty to try and educate these people of the issues and if they still choose to be ignorant, then so be it. It is their choice. In the end, it is better if a person who has no concept of the politics of the time not vote, rather than do so uninformed. Leaders should be not be picked in a random and emotional fashion, but through an educated and well thought out process of decision-making.

Sources: http://www.idea.net.int/

9/11 Reflection

"Rowland. Your mom called and wanted me to tell you not to worry and that she's ok," my fourth grade teacher told me during lunch on Tuesday September 11th, 2001. I was in fourth grade. I had no idea what she was talking about. I knew my mom was in New York City, so I thought maybe there had been a really bad car accident in the city or something. One by one, kids started getting taken out of school early. One of my teachers turned on the news and I saw both the towers on fire with a gaping hole in each. For the rest of the day it was chaos. Teachers were running around making desperate phone calls, crying, and all the kids were completely confused. Eventually I was taken out of school by a family friend. My dad was on high alert on the SWAT team and I found out my mom was in a hotel across the Hudson watching the whole thing unfold. While I didn't understand the significance of what had happened at the time it etched a very emotional feeling in me. I slowly came to realize the world would never be the same.

As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 passed this Saturday, I was training on a military base in Virginia and I really came to understand the cost of freedom. I realized that we take so much for granted and do not really understand what the cost of our ignorance towards the outside world is yet. So many people advocate a much more isolationist attitude towards our affairs. I believe it is more important than ever to reject this line of thought and gain an understanding of different cultures and philosophies. We have to engage the world in a positive manner.

Relating this to the hegemony article we read, I find that it is extremely important that we maintain security of our interests abroad and remain engaged on the world stage. If we keep a constant presence across the globe we can keep tabs on our interests and the threats that face us as well. However, we must do so with discretion. We must factor in the effect our presence has on the local populace. This goes not just for war zones, but bases in places like Germany and Japan.

For nine years we have been fighting a war against an enemy who uses all of our weaknesses against us. They use the tools of the modern geopolitical structure to fight us. They create a negative world image of us, use propaganda through Al Jazeera and the like, and count on us to perform classical military maneuvers. If we are to beat this we have to become smarter and more committed. The result of the war on terror will be mirrored by changes we see in our own society. If we can't get out of our current state of apathy and ignorance, we will lose the war. If we learn to adapt, become well versed in world affairs, and as a population realize a common purpose, we will win. I believe if we win the war on terror, and more immediately the war in Afghanistan, we will be able to keep our hegemony. If not, we will lose it because it will be a sign that the US can not adapt to the changing world.

On this anniversary of 9/11 I hope that we as a people do not forget what the cost of ignorance is and make changes to our behavior. As Alfred said in Batman Begins, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy." I hope this will not be the case again.