Friends

All else equal, it’s harder to win a fight when the guy who can help you the most appears to want the other side to win.

I am not sure I agree with Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, believes one problem with the war or terror is that the US has been insufficiently aggressive in fighting it. In particular, she would like the US to expand its efforts to countries such as Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Although she doesn’t directly call for US-led regime change in these countries, it seems to me that at a minimum she would like the US to do something to make these countries more unstable than they already are. After carefully considering her point of view, I have come to the conclusion that she is totally nuts. Let’s leave the merits of the policy aside (of which I think there are few) and look at the US record on regime change in the broader Middle East over the past decade. We have tried it in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the record is, to put it charitably, mixed at best.

Don’t get me wrong – I very pleased that Glick has such confidence in the US’s capacity to get other countries to govern as we wish they would through a policy of military aggression. The problem is that I find it really hard to believe that the world would be a safer place if the US provoked more instability in the Middle East. Perhaps in a future column Glick will outline why she thinks the US military would be more successful in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria than it has been in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Until that day comes, I hope that our joint chiefs of staff don’t read her work and think, “hmm…she’s got a point. Lemme run it by Obama.”

State of the Nation and 21st Century Leadership

Studying political science can at times be a trying pursuit.  When I first began to read on The United States’ Latin American pursuits in the 20^th century, for a while it was hard to have much faith at all in the better virtues of the country.  In contrast with some of the more idealistic writings on earlier periods of our history, and the rosy visions of values the nation was built upon; studying COINTELPRO, United Fruit and the Iran Contra scandals paint a bleak picture of US international relations.

The start of a new year is a good time to reflect the past, and at the moment the ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East provide a focal point where US foreign relations are concerned.  Just a few days ago on Democracy Now! Amy Goodman spoke with investigative journalist and activist Allan Nairn, about just this subject.  The pair discussed the role the US is taking on a global stage in the 21^st century, in light of our continued military pursuits and the nation’s economic floundering.

In his past works, Nairn has earned infamy and awards for exposition on some of the worst applications of US military and economic power.  Thus it should come as little surprise that Nairn’s discussions with Goodman on drone attacks and other such fierce ethical dilemmas are strikingly critical of the US.  Though in our current political climate it’s easy to take comments like Nairn’s as “anti-American”, dissenting voices like his are necessary to the exchange of ideas and the democratic process.

In a nation as wealthy as the United States, complacency is always a threat.  We don’t live under constant fear of violence (however frightful the war on terror might be) and most of our daily concerns are over degrees of comfort rather than basic survival.   Though they interrupt our comfortable lives, dissenting voices serve a valuable role in questioning the current state of our society.  As disheartening as Democracy Now! and programs like it might be at times, it’d be a shame to remain unaware of the consequences of our daily actions domestically and abroad.

It’s worrisome to think that as our economic woes continue, our military efforts increasingly become the centerpiece of United States influence abroad.  Particularly in light of recent calls to cut our investment in foreign aid, it might be worth it for all Americans (not just those in Congress) to consider just what role we intend the country to take in shaping the world throughout future years.  If nothing else, perhaps this is one more way in which the recovery of the US economy is relevant to everyone.

Money talks

That Karzai’s been taking money from Iran has been all over the news. This is not a surprise. Anyone who has watched Casino would have seen it coming. As Joe Pesci (Nicky Santoro) sagely observed:

You gotta know that a guy who helps you steal – even if you take care of him real well – he’s gonna steal a little extra for himself. Makes sense, don’t it?

Nicky was referring to casino workers who were stealing from the casino owners. How does this relate to Afghanistan? Karzai has been wearing an “Open for Business” sign around his neck since George W. Bush & Co.”persuaded” him to become Afghanistan’s president. That he would take bribes from pretty much anyone who offers them is exactly what Nicky would expect.

Optimism or wishful thinking?

Like Kristof, I don’t agree that emancipating women is a very good justification for fighting a war in Afghanistan we probably can’t win. At the same time, life under the Taliban was pretty miserable for women and allowing a return to the status quo ante makes me a bit ill. Kristof is optimistic we can avoid such a fate. I hope he is correct.