The War On Terror began in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. The first major engagement of this war was the invasion of Afghanistan a few months later. Afghanistan was governed by the Taliban, a hard-line fundamentalist Islamic government, and it harbored multiple Al-Qaeda training camps. It was the safe haven of their leader, Osama Bin-Laden, and we believed that the overthrow of this government, the destruction of the camps and the capture of Bin-Laden were imperative to winning the War On Terror. Our allies, and most of the rest of the world agreed. While one can argue about the ultimate success of that action, the reasons behind it were clear and it carried a sense of moral correctness. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a different matter altogether.
The argument for invading Iraq initially did not center upon the threat of Al-Qaeda, rather it involved the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). There was good reason to believe this as Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons during its long war with Iran and against the Kurds in the north of Iraq following it. Most of the world opposed invading Iraq, however, because they felt that UN inspections had not been given sufficient time to find them. The US and a few of its allies decided to press on without the backing of the UN, and Iraq was invaded in the spring of 2003.
Iraq was defeated relatively easily by our strike force of just over 100,000 troops, but the stated objective of finding and eliminating WMDs was a bit more elusive. After extensive searching, only a few left over pre-war chemical weapons were found, but nothing of the large stockpiles of chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons that were believed to exist were located. The principal justification for the invasion had been found to be untrue, so the White House had to re-spin the rationale for the war.
Re-spinning the war to be about fighting terrorists rather than finding WMDs turned out to be relatively easy to do. The strike force had been too small to completely secure Iraq’s borders. Worse still, with the surrender of the Iraq military many of its ammunition and weapon caches were left unguarded. This proved to be a volatile combination as Islamic fighters poured over the unprotected borders and along with local Iraqi insurgents, seized many of these unguarded weapons. The result? Iraq was awash in terrorist activities and the White House could now frame the conflict as part of the War on Terror.
The Iraq war continues, and over 4000 of our brave troops have given their lives. Over 150,000 Iraqis have also died, and our successes against the insurgents and terrorists are questionable at best. To make matters worse, no one seems to have a viable exit strategy. Is this really what we envisioned that the War On Terror.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Can the fight for the democratic nomination deal the party a knockout blow?
The 2008 presidential election is a historic one for our country, and the battle for the Democratic Party’s nomination is a big reason for that. Whether the party nominates Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, we will achieve an important milestone in American politics: the nominee will be the first woman or the first African-American nominated by a major political party for our nation’s presidency. Either of these possibilities are an exciting prospect, but the hard fought nature of this campaign and its effects on the nominee’s chances in the fall, may not lead to a Democratic win.
The most obvious problems for the Democrats with the extended nomination fight are money and time. Both candidates are spending large amounts of both in their attempt to win enough delegates to ensure the nomination. This money and time would be better spent against Republican Party nominee John McCain, who has had the luxury of a relatively short road to his win. McCain is now able to focus his efforts on building his war chest for the election in November, and can even take a few shots at the Democrats while they fight amongst themselves.
While perhaps less obvious, the bigger danger to the Democrats may be the divisions that this drawn out contest could potentially leave behind. A party can generally unite after a particularly tough campaign, but this election battle has a peculiar twist. There are not enough delegates up for grabs in the remaining Democratic primaries, so neither candidate has the possibility of locking up the nomination prior to the convention. When this situation arises, the party’s so-called “superdelegates” will decide the election. These superdelegates are members of the party elite, and not surprisingly, are mostly white. If they give the nod to Clinton, then African-American voters may well feel disenfranchised. While it’s exceedingly unlikely that this sense of disappointment will cause black voters to choose McCain, it is a distinct possibility that it could keep some away from the polls. In a presidential race that is likely to be close, the Democrats do not need any of their core members staying home on election day.
Given the current political climate, the Democrats have their best chance since Bill Clinton of winning the White House, but they will still face a tough fight from the Republicans and John McCain. With this long, bloody contest for their party’s nomination, the Democrats may have unwittingly landed the first blow to themselves.
The most obvious problems for the Democrats with the extended nomination fight are money and time. Both candidates are spending large amounts of both in their attempt to win enough delegates to ensure the nomination. This money and time would be better spent against Republican Party nominee John McCain, who has had the luxury of a relatively short road to his win. McCain is now able to focus his efforts on building his war chest for the election in November, and can even take a few shots at the Democrats while they fight amongst themselves.
While perhaps less obvious, the bigger danger to the Democrats may be the divisions that this drawn out contest could potentially leave behind. A party can generally unite after a particularly tough campaign, but this election battle has a peculiar twist. There are not enough delegates up for grabs in the remaining Democratic primaries, so neither candidate has the possibility of locking up the nomination prior to the convention. When this situation arises, the party’s so-called “superdelegates” will decide the election. These superdelegates are members of the party elite, and not surprisingly, are mostly white. If they give the nod to Clinton, then African-American voters may well feel disenfranchised. While it’s exceedingly unlikely that this sense of disappointment will cause black voters to choose McCain, it is a distinct possibility that it could keep some away from the polls. In a presidential race that is likely to be close, the Democrats do not need any of their core members staying home on election day.
Given the current political climate, the Democrats have their best chance since Bill Clinton of winning the White House, but they will still face a tough fight from the Republicans and John McCain. With this long, bloody contest for their party’s nomination, the Democrats may have unwittingly landed the first blow to themselves.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Primary Choices
Opinion Editorial Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton written by the NY Times editorial board.
The New York Times editorial board supports Clinton as the nominee for the election and is made very clear in this opinion article. While some points they make in this article are valid they can all be argued. The stance of the two Democratic candidates on many current issues does not really differ according to this article. I have to agree with this but I strongly disagree that Obama has not backed up and shown proof of the change he promises. When concerning the issue of the Iraq war both candidates oppose it and in this article the editorial board expresses that Obama isn’t aware of the consequences of pulling out of this war. That Clinton, having the experience, is well aware and therefore will make a better commander in chief. I don’t think this experience she has is all that much of a difference and don’t think it will make a difference. After listening to debates I feel that Obama has shown and proven he can provide for our country and is well aware of what consequences we will face after pulling out of Iraq. I feel Obama is just as qualified as Clinton to run the country and make the change we need, even the change that the unforeseen problems will cause.
I don’t feel that our nation and other nations are able to grasp the concept of having a female or black male president but I do in the back of my mind feel that it will be much easier for Obama to get the support and help that will be needed being a male. I just don’t think anyone is ready for a female to run the country and don’t think other leaders are ready to cooperate with a female authoritative figure. However this is not to be mistaken that a female cannot do it, because I am a female and feel that she can I just don’t think people are ready for that and therefore Obama is more qualified in that sense in my opinion.
The New York Times editorial board supports Clinton as the nominee for the election and is made very clear in this opinion article. While some points they make in this article are valid they can all be argued. The stance of the two Democratic candidates on many current issues does not really differ according to this article. I have to agree with this but I strongly disagree that Obama has not backed up and shown proof of the change he promises. When concerning the issue of the Iraq war both candidates oppose it and in this article the editorial board expresses that Obama isn’t aware of the consequences of pulling out of this war. That Clinton, having the experience, is well aware and therefore will make a better commander in chief. I don’t think this experience she has is all that much of a difference and don’t think it will make a difference. After listening to debates I feel that Obama has shown and proven he can provide for our country and is well aware of what consequences we will face after pulling out of Iraq. I feel Obama is just as qualified as Clinton to run the country and make the change we need, even the change that the unforeseen problems will cause.
I don’t feel that our nation and other nations are able to grasp the concept of having a female or black male president but I do in the back of my mind feel that it will be much easier for Obama to get the support and help that will be needed being a male. I just don’t think anyone is ready for a female to run the country and don’t think other leaders are ready to cooperate with a female authoritative figure. However this is not to be mistaken that a female cannot do it, because I am a female and feel that she can I just don’t think people are ready for that and therefore Obama is more qualified in that sense in my opinion.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational
Opinion Article When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational written by Stanley Fish.
I couldn’t decide whether to support this article or criticize it. In this article Stanley Fish defines identity politics as voting “for or against someone because of his or her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other marker that leads you to say yes or no independently of a candidate’s ideas or policies.” I agree with this definition and also agree with him on his point being that’s what this election has been about with the first woman and first black man up for presidency.
Then comes my slight disagreement when he says that a person shouldn’t vote for a candidate based upon identity politics. I say slight disagreement because for the most part I agree, but I don’t fully because the candidates religion, race, gender, etc. do come into play on their views of different subjects. For example a white female who is Christian is going to have completely different views than a black male who believes in Buddhism. So in this case yes people have some right in them to say she or he is like me, I’m voting for them. More than likely Clinton’s views will match those of others just like her and same is true for Obama. Then again at the same time it’s not true, I’m a white female and don’t support Clinton at all. So now you can see why I agree with Fish and why I had to criticize his opinion article at the same time. He believes someone should be voted for upon their political stance on something and I do as well but at the same time their political stance is derived from their past, their gender, their culture, and their religion.
I couldn’t decide whether to support this article or criticize it. In this article Stanley Fish defines identity politics as voting “for or against someone because of his or her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other marker that leads you to say yes or no independently of a candidate’s ideas or policies.” I agree with this definition and also agree with him on his point being that’s what this election has been about with the first woman and first black man up for presidency.
Then comes my slight disagreement when he says that a person shouldn’t vote for a candidate based upon identity politics. I say slight disagreement because for the most part I agree, but I don’t fully because the candidates religion, race, gender, etc. do come into play on their views of different subjects. For example a white female who is Christian is going to have completely different views than a black male who believes in Buddhism. So in this case yes people have some right in them to say she or he is like me, I’m voting for them. More than likely Clinton’s views will match those of others just like her and same is true for Obama. Then again at the same time it’s not true, I’m a white female and don’t support Clinton at all. So now you can see why I agree with Fish and why I had to criticize his opinion article at the same time. He believes someone should be voted for upon their political stance on something and I do as well but at the same time their political stance is derived from their past, their gender, their culture, and their religion.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
2009 Defense Budget
I have chosen to summarize the article The Chaos in America's Vast Security Budget by Winslow T. Wheeler from CounterPunch: "America's Best Political Newsletter". The article talks about the 2009 defense budget that was just released. He talks about how unclear all of it is because most of the numbers being released are incomplete or inaccurate. George Bush's budget as shown by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says that the pentagon request is $515.4 billion. Wheeler goes on to say that this is incomplete because it does not include the $70 billion requested for the wars. This number keeps on becoming more inaccurate when we take into consideration that the $70 billion won't get us through the entire year of the war in Iraq, meaning the number should be tripled. Other factors that contribute to this substational amount that seems to keep becoming more unclear is the amount The Department of Energy has requested, the miscellaneous defense costs Bush did not include in the released amount, security costs, veteran affairs, etc. As you can see the amount for the 2009 defense budget keeps growing, and there will be many numbers thrown out in articles but very few will be accurate.
To me politics hasn't been an interest of mine at all until recently and I feel that this article contributes to that and is worth reading because it made me see how much money is being spent by the government, which in turn more than we would like will come from our taxes. Also it kind of shows how bad this huge budget is getting considering our economy is clearly going into a recession and that our debt is far worse than it has been in a long time or ever!
To me politics hasn't been an interest of mine at all until recently and I feel that this article contributes to that and is worth reading because it made me see how much money is being spent by the government, which in turn more than we would like will come from our taxes. Also it kind of shows how bad this huge budget is getting considering our economy is clearly going into a recession and that our debt is far worse than it has been in a long time or ever!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)