Iraq, another reason to hire me after graduation

So I'm really not paying that much attention to the '08 election. At least not as much as other people think I am. Its more out of cynicism than actual ambivalence. My area of expertise (ha ha, expertise. that's funny) is in foreign policy, and I don't think the next American president is going to change it very much. American foreign policy since the Cold War has remained fairly static, even as the sphere in which it operates has changed dramatically. Military aid is given strategic countries no matter what regime is in power, democratic appearances are more important than practice for our allies, etc. Some things will definitely change because there is intense pressure to do so. Namely, the war in Iraq.

I will be voting for Obama in the coming election. I didn't vote for him in the primaries because my registration is for Florida and therefore not counted, so I just didn't vote. However, I don't like what he's saying about the US role in Iraq. This excerpt was taken from a BBC article, where I get most of my news. Because I usually like my news to not be ridiculous.

'In his speech at the International Trade Center in Washington, Mr Obama said: "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."

Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia Excerpt from Barack Obama speech Read the speech in full [48KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

He said the conflict in Iraq must be brought to an end as "the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was".

Mr Obama said that as president he would take the US in a new direction, and a priority would be to finish the fight against the Taleban and al-Qaeda, which has an expanding base in Pakistan.

He said the troop surge policy had actually hurt America's overall strategic interests, by diverting resources away from Afghanistan, just as the situation there was deteriorating.

Mr Obama said a withdrawal from Iraq would allow a much-needed redeployment of troops.

He said sustained co-operation was needed between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nato to root out al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said.'

Yes, I do think the War on Terror had nearly no gains in invading Iraq, but guess what...it does now. al Qaeda's presence to date is minimal and not really welcomed but an unstable Iraq has obvious consequences for American security. If Iraq fails, again, the blow back would be even worse. There are many many different attitudes towards the invasion going around in Iraq and there is no reason to suppose that the "Americans did us a favor and we're better off" view will be the one to survive. Leaving Iraq entirely will leave many grievances unheard and untended to and the area will be ripe for conflict again and again. We cannot afford to leave Iraq nor Afghanistan without better efforts at reconstruction.

So yeah, another reason why I should be gainfully employed once I get my master's. I'mma rebuild me some nations. Yay Peacebuilding!

Afghanistan Should Motivate You to Hire Me

Amid reports of the bombing on the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, I started thinking more about just how completely devastated that country is. It is quite possibly worse off than Iraq. At least Iraq gets more American attention. Afghanistan is just screwed, there is little hope for reconstruction as long as the US has to concentrate all its efforts in Iraq.

Corruption is rampant, and no one in the international community really seems at all motivated to do anything about it. The people most effected and the most motivated are powerless.

Peacebuilding is a lot more than negotiating cease fires and I hope the next administration starts sending more experts into those areas that need it the most and ease up a bit (or a lot, hopefully) on the military aid.

Come on, Obama. I've got one more semester. Give me a job. Preferably in December.*



*Of course, I'm not proposing entry level Peace Studies undergrads get sent off to random F@cked-up-istans. But at least start moving them in that direction.

If Sadr rings bell, he should get a banana (metaphorically speaking)

So some fairly good news has just come out of Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr has ordered his militia to stop fighting and cooperate with the Iraqi government (at least for now).

Don't know who Moqtada al-Sadr is? Well I'll ya. Mr. Sadr is a Shi'a cleric who dabbles in the bad kind of religious radicalism. Maybe a bit more than dabble, but I say dabble because while his army does engage in sectarian violence and violence against American soldiers, he is also responsible for providing public services in his Shi'a community where there had been none. Said militia is called "The Mehdi Army. The BBC describes him as being a fairly well liked guy among the impoverished Shi'a and other Iraqis who see him as figure of resistance against foreign invaders.

Now if he tells his crew to lay off with the fighting, I say that's a good sign. He may not be a good guy, but he obviously has enough influence amongst the majority Shia in Iraq to be a tool of good. Sometimes in conflict resolution its not practical to exclude such militias and their leaders. To ensure a lasting peace, all parties must be brought to the negotiating table and must be negotiated with. This does not mean their offenses go unexcused, but in such cases, punishment can perpetuate conflicts. The offenses must be addressed however, and grievances must be listened to. After grievances are heard, the possibility of repentance and forgiveness is open. Its a hard thing to make happen, but it is the best, and really only, way to make a real and lasting peace.

The international community should recognize and praise Mr. Sadr's decision to put forth this order. As Pavlov taught us, subjects respond to positive reinforcement.

I may come to regret the comparison of international peacebuilding to the behavior of lab rats and/or dogs, but I still think positive reinforcement can go a long in way in lessening the self-perception of persecution and being antagonized that groups like the Mehdi Army use as justification for violence.

Do I sound like I know what I'm talking about yet?

A new policy prescription article thingy (yeah, I totally own a dictionary) from the Brookings Institution thinks the US government should create a new department that is specially designed for reconstruction and stabilization that will serve past the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan. It'll fall somewhere between National Security and the State Department it seems.

I'm usually not in favor of creating new departments or bureaucracies, but this one seems alright, actually reworking a system that will provide me (hopefully) with job security.

What I find really encouraging is tying this notion of national security with peacebuilding. Meaning, we don't send troops into other countries without an actual plan for what they'll do once they've finished and only use international peace keeping forces in a secondary role. Novel concept, I know.

The most interesting idea the article poses in terms of actual peacebuilding is the idea of elections.

"It is incumbent on the international community to guarantee peace and impose law and order in the absence of a widely accepted rule of law. In addition to provision of basic security, there is a “window of necessity” to meet humanitarian needs and give people confidence in the future. Key factors are restarting basic social services, getting kids back to school, and stimulating local jobs that give people an alternative to taking up arms. The process must start to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate (DDR) warring opponents. Some form of political activity must begin, often locally, that will lead to credible governance. Elections, when conducted too soon, can be detrimental, forcing competition among previously warring factions before wounds have healed and potentially entrenching criminals or warlords in political office."

I think in the particular case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there was such pressure to show that the US had properly implemented democracy in these countries, and so the gun was jumped to hold elections. While these elections may have had great examples of participation of the populations, they were nonetheless nothing more than an imitation of a democratic process. I think the US is making huge mistakes in pushing democracy on nations that can't provide security for the process to begin with, at least not in any way beneficial to their people.

Of course there are many other mistakes that have led to the present mess, and one of these days, I'll be able to write a very exact and well informed opinion about it. Until then, we can all enjoy the musings of a student grasping onto bits of information, desperately trying to sound smart.

Blasphemy, blas-pher-you, blas for everybody!

This week I got to write a reaction paper to a fascinating book entitled When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball for my Religion and Peacebuilding class. I thought I'd share a little bit of that essay with you folks.

Looking at my own religious community, the American Christians, I have to say yes, religion is becoming evil. When I look at other communities, I want to say no, because I can easily point non-religious motivations that are creating conflicts but expressing themselves in religious language. It’s a bit of a double standard, but I have a tendency to harshly criticize what I am closest to. The problem isn’t within the nature of Christianity; its how societies have allowed religious expression to become so poisonous to the general public. Lucky for me, Kimball is a Baptist minister, and he applies the warning signs mainly to his own faith, as is to be expected.

Of the five warning signs that Kimball lists (1. Absolute truth Claims, 2. Blind Obedience, 3. Establishing the Ideal Time, 4. The End Justifies Any Means, and 5. Declaring Holy War), absolute truth claims are the most dangerous if only because it is the first step. In middle school and high school (such a loooong time ago, I know), I was a very active evangelical Christian, for many different reasons I won't go into.

I have since removed the evangelical label from my religious identification, not because I experienced any destructive blow to my faith in Christianity, but because I was becoming better friends with non-Christians and I felt that always looking at people as potential converts or even just believing that these people were on “the outside” was wrong and dehumanizing. Even just thinking that my non-Christian friends would not be allowed into heaven was a truly scary thought and it ceased to be my motivation to change them but rather to change myself. I even have a refrigerator magnet that sums up most of feelings towards contemporary American Christianity, “Please Jesus, save me from Your followers.”

Kimball uses a familiar phrase to highlight the problems of absolute truth claims: “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”. I've heard that one a lot, and even used it quite a few times. I don’t really agree with that statement anymore in so much as I believe Christianity is a religion and a relationship, as are most other faiths. However, I’ve always thought it was a clever way to exempt Christianity from the debates over secularism and the general evils of religion that were usually posed by ardent atheists.

I agree with Kimball that the phrase also hints at a much deeper issue, the complete nullification of any other religion’s right to assert its own validity. In particular, I liked his quote, “I am convinced that it is possible to be a person of faith with integrity—a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist—and at the same time recognize that one’s own experience of God does not exhaust all possibilities” (9). I think it is fair for a religion to assert it has the best understanding of truth, as any company would describe their product as the best version of its kind in the market, but not the only way of understanding truth.

Be aware that I am not claiming the a belief in the existence of an absolute truth is dangerous, it is just the way people have chosen to express their exclusive access to this truth.

What do you guys think about absolute truth claims? Do you think you have it right and everyone else has got it wrong? Or is everyone wrong, and that's okay?

The title of this post is inspired by Eddie Izzard's bit about Pope-Man. Could be a whole series...with a lot of complaints. I swear I quote that man almost as much as Dr. Ahmed. Almost.