I wrote this paper as a Sophomore, and I read it the other day thinking, "wow I had this kind of foresight on the War in Iraq/Global War on Terror?!" I know it seems like I'm posting blogs that are outdated - but it gives you a better sense of how I view our culture and administration. Also, to know where you're going you have to know where you've been...
Written Feb. 1st, 2006:
The War against Iraq was a relatively quick conflict, but the war on terror is going to be a long and drawn out process with no clear end in sight. With no logical way of judging whether or not the United States is winning the war on terror, President George W. Bush will continue to use the war to advance his personal agenda. It is my opinion that President Bush is using the War on Terror to create a stronger centralized government around the executive branch, at the expense of the civil rights and liberties.
The first freedom that will be taken away is every person’s right to privacy. The new surveillance methods now in use to track suspected terrorist or criminal activities are an infringement on every citizen’s constitutional right to privacy. How much of your own privacy are you prepared to sacrifice in the name of fighting terrorism? President Bush argues that this effort is vital to ensuring a safe nation, but is scanning my internet searches via Google, which the government has requested to do, also essential to guarantee my safety at home? How much more authority should the President and his agencies be given to be allowed to continue their domestic spying?
Vice President Dick Cheney called the program “vital” to the country’s defense against terrorists. He went on to say in a speech at the Manhattan Institute, “Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not.[i]” Vice President Cheney’s reasoning for staying in the conflict has been apparent ever since his oil company, Haliburton, contracted with the United States. The exploitation of US soldiers/citizens for personal gain should not be a reason to continue conflict. Perhaps the surveillance program wouldn’t meet with such a strong resistance if it was shown that gains against terrorism were being made. Things such as individuals obtained by the organization or details about the program were released to the public, but information of that sort including size and budget are considered classified and if released would be a detriment to the entire process. What is known is that the unit is not allowed to keep information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days, unless they are convincingly believed to have some connection to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing, or foreign intelligence. Under the criteria of the last two characteristics a person could spy/gather intelligence on just about anybody.
The fact that budgeting for the program is kept secret doesn’t allow U.S. Why should Americans that don’t agree with the war have to pay for these services? Budgeting, whether it be for war or education, is a reflection of the values of its people. Also by observing federal spending it brings to light the priorities of the Administration. Basically bringing up the question; is it worth it? Will the end justify the means? Will the goal of bringing Democracy to a relatively archaic country help our relations with Muslims nations in the long run? What is the value of Democracy over human life and is it cost effective? It is indeed a vulgar way to look at the figures of the war, but even if those variables could be calculated there still is too much uncertainty to continue to fight this global war on terror. citizens to see where their money is being distributed.
Terrorist seek to establish a new caliphate in Muslim nations, and trying to force Democracy, capitalism and individualism on unwilling people is only fueling their fire[ii]. Also, even after our occupation of Iraq there is no way we can ensure the safety of its people. Dennis J.D. Sandole explains in his article that, no matter how we may frame the results of the US policy in Afghanistan, it is clear that the warlords are back in control of a large portion of the country[iii]. With Al-quaeda and the Taliban regrouped it almost seems as thought their presence in the Iraqi region is futile.
President George W. Bush realizes he cannot win the War on Terror and is in fact trying to devalue the legitimacy in these terrorist organizations. His model for winning is to take a similar stance that Great Britain has taken toward the IRA. By undermining the support for the legitimacy of terrorism, terrorist can be isolated and more susceptible to counter-measures[iv]. Which seems like a compelling idea, until you remember that Great Britain does not have some of the liberties we take for granted. For instance, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is strictly regulated there. It is against the law to interview or run an interview of an I.R.A member, and it is also against the law to publish government doctrines without Parliaments consent. These are two fundamental rights we hold sacred in the United States that President Bush wishes he could limit.
According to Sam Huntington, the idea of Warfare has changed since the Cold War[v]. It is no longer nation against nation as much as it is a Nation versus an idea. War between nation states for the most part has become obsolete. Sub themed wars, like those between civilizations (i.e. Osama bin Laden v. Western/Middle Eastern Muslims). This new definition of war at least gives a grounds for trying to combat it. One of variety of reasons Terrorism is defeated is, because factions deteriorate and have no cause/reason to continue their activities. The main thing that these Muslim insurgents have against the United States is its military presence on their religious homeland. There is an obvious solution to this dilemma, swallow your pride and remove the soldiers. Don’t enslave your own citizens with Doctrines and Acts that restrict civil liberty (patriot act).
With Love,
The Ivory Poacher
[i] Michael Isikoff, “The Other Big Brother,” Newsweek [US Edition], (January 30th, 2006). Vol. 147, Iss. 4; pg. 32
[ii] Micheal Radu, “The futile search for the Root Causes of Terrorism”, American Diplomacy, (January 27th, 2006)
[iii] Dennis J.D. Sandole, “”the New Terrorism: Causes, Conditions, and Conflict Resolution”, in class handout, pg. 10
[iv] Ministry of Defense, “International Terrorism: Causes and Counter-Strategies”, Strategic Defense Review, Section 2.
[v] Sam P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order, (New York: Touchstone Press, 1997.)
1 comment:
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment