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!

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.