Democracy and Society » Iraq

I am not sure I agree with Caroline Glick

Barak — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:23:32 +0000

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.”

Other

D&S Vol. 8 Iss. 1 Winter 2011

admin — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:42:07 +0000

The newest issue of Democracy & Society is now available online!

The Obama Administration and the US Relationship with the Broader Middle East

Featuring:

An interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Lessons and implications for the Obama Administration
Discussion of the unexpected Maliki-Sadr alliance
“Democratizing” Iran

And more!

Other

State of the Nation and 21st Century Leadership

Imara — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:25:38 +0000

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.

Other

America’s finest news source

Barak — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:09:28 +0000

The story of the day on cable news is the combat troops leaving Iraq. MSNBC was trying to make it a sappy story about victorious troops coming home, but it felt hollow and forced. The Onion‘s coverage seems a bit more on-target.

Other

Analogies

Barak — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:55:28 +0000

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Other

History lessons

Barak — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:57:26 +0000

The Captain’s Journal has an excellent post on the myth and reality of the role of COIN in Iraq. To put it bluntly, the Marines were far less interested in winning hearts and minds than they were in destroying Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Other

Facts are annoying if they get in the way

Barak — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:44:00 +0000

Bing West raises good points about pop-centric COIN:

There was no state-building or pop-centric coin in Anbar Province where the Sunni Awakening began.
The Sunnis came to the US for help; the US military did nothing to win their hearts and minds.
“If NATO so alienates the population by accidentally killing civilians that many more join the Taliban, then why do the Taliban deliberately kill three times as many ordinary Afghans without causing three times the backlash, leading to their defeat?”

See Captain’s Journal for an excellent and detailed analysis, as opposed to my mediocre and short one.

Other

Militarizing foreign aid

Barak — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:59:04 +0000

While this will probably lead to higher budgets, it also will make clear that US foreign aid is not a tool of US foreign policy, but national security. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are the new normal.

Other

Obama’s to-do list

Barak — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:48:48 +0000

For a long time, I have thought Obama has a particularly long to-do list. Steve Benen agrees with me:

Since then [April 2009] – in addition to the two wars, economic crises, and global flu pandemic — it’s been hard to keep up the pressing and immediate challenges on the Obama administration’s to-do list. We’ve seen natural disasters (Haiti’s earthquake, Nashville’s flooding, Oklahoma’s tornadoes), man-made disasters (the BP oil spill), default crises (Dubai, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal), foreign policy crises (North Korea, Israel), and attempted terrorist attacks (Abdulmutallab on Christmas, Shahzad in Times Square).

I can only assume that it’s fairly common for President Obama to wake up, receive his morning briefings, and say, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Well, nobody made him run for president.

Other

Another milestone in the War on Terror

Barak — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:02:37 +0000

The cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is just about to hit $1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion). Al Qaeda spent $200,000 carrying out the 9/11 attacks. This means that for every $1 al Qaeda spent on 9/11, the US has spent $500 million fighting al Qadea, or about $30,000 per US citizen. I can’t think of a reasonable way to justify this expenditure.

Other