Some of the main themes in my blog are "the plans for the future in Iraq" and the "the difficulty of life in Iraq for civilians today." There are about nine articles that deal directly with the plans for Iraqi futures, and a few others dealing with combat that mention their future plans; and there are ten articles dealing with Iraqi quality of life.
Over the course of the semester, my "future" articles went from "when are we going to remove the troops" and "how are we going to fix the culture problems there" to "how much money should we send over to help pull out troops" and "we should have them out by 2008!" The quality of life articles did not get any better or worse generally, but they would vary almost weekly stating that "children were playing" and "2 children killed in roadside bombs."
In the future, based on the articles i read recently, i can hypothesize, based on the fact that there is so much back and forth discussion about the issue, that we will not be out by 2008, but probably some time near then. The recent articles about the life in Iraq suggest that there is a lot of inter-cultural unrest, but that people are trying to continue life as best as they can. In the near future, I can guess that there will be a lot more "time limit" deliberating in Congress, but that we will soon come up with a decently efficient plan for our future in Iraq. I cannot say what the future may hold for the Iraqi people, but i will say based on the articles that things will stay bad if not get worse before they get better. It is good that they are trying to generally keep good spirits.
By doing this project, i learned a lot more about the war that i would not have learned without the necessary research. I did not know anything about the specifics, really, at the beginning of the year, but have increased my knowledge about the intricacies of war that I will keep in mind when hearing about it in the future. I was very pleased with the commenting process, and think that reading other people's blogs was a VERY informative thing to do. I would read them without commenting all the time, just so I could know what other people were talking about, and was very interested (especially by the person in my group that was talking about the environment) in learning what they knew as well. I learned, for example, that the power researchers are trying to form a type of energy from algae! I am going to read more about this this weekend when I have free time to, because reading this blog (http://torncountry.blogspot.com/) was the first time I had heard about this, and I find their efforts thought-provoking. I only recieved one comment, but it was extremely insightful and posed interesting questions for me to think about.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding: Says he backs troops, not war
His statements make it very clear that he is responding to Hillary Clinton's statements that he is not in support of anything in Iraq because of his "anti-war rhetoric." He says that he was against the war before it started, and would have voted so; however, now that we're there, he says that he DOES support our troops for their bravery, so he voted to send them help.
GAO: Iraq munitions looting widespread
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4652933.html
"Explosives looted from Iraq munitions sites will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region, a congressional report said Thursday, finding that some sites were still not secured more than three and a half years after the war started."
It is this looting that is what goes to making roadside bombs, this article states, and it could be a serious problem. I think that this is one of the major problems, as it is a contributer to the insurgents ability to create such items of destruction.
"Explosives looted from Iraq munitions sites will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region, a congressional report said Thursday, finding that some sites were still not secured more than three and a half years after the war started." This may not be good enough, and i think that maybe this statement could be a cover up for their mistake of allowing the looting.
"Explosives looted from Iraq munitions sites will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region, a congressional report said Thursday, finding that some sites were still not secured more than three and a half years after the war started."
It is this looting that is what goes to making roadside bombs, this article states, and it could be a serious problem. I think that this is one of the major problems, as it is a contributer to the insurgents ability to create such items of destruction.
"Explosives looted from Iraq munitions sites will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region, a congressional report said Thursday, finding that some sites were still not secured more than three and a half years after the war started." This may not be good enough, and i think that maybe this statement could be a cover up for their mistake of allowing the looting.
Iraq Pullout Measure Moves With War Bill
Senate Panel Moves $122B War Spending Bill With U.S. Troop Pullout Language
By ANNE FLAHERTY
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2973881
"The House's $124 billion spending bill would require that combat troops leave Iraq by fall of 2008, and possibly sooner if the Iraqi government does not make progress on its political and security commitments. That chamber planned a vote for Friday."
This is the last paragraph of this article that was released three hours ago. This looks bright! I think that we are making efforts to move some troops out, but hopefully we won't do so too soon, and mess up any chance that we have of solving the problems there first. It is possible, though that it is an impossible problem to solve, and we may just have to let them do what they must to reach stability.
By ANNE FLAHERTY
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2973881
"The House's $124 billion spending bill would require that combat troops leave Iraq by fall of 2008, and possibly sooner if the Iraqi government does not make progress on its political and security commitments. That chamber planned a vote for Friday."
This is the last paragraph of this article that was released three hours ago. This looks bright! I think that we are making efforts to move some troops out, but hopefully we won't do so too soon, and mess up any chance that we have of solving the problems there first. It is possible, though that it is an impossible problem to solve, and we may just have to let them do what they must to reach stability.
Some other current events from the same page as the last entry.
Other developments
I felt like it was necessary for me to post some of these, just because I have been rambling about them for a few posts. Here's the long and short. All in all, i don't think this is as bad as it could be, frankly, the suffering going on with the people because of the near-civil-war there is much worse.
Man with al-Sadr ties held in attack on U.S. troops
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/22/iraq.main/index.html
"A man with ties to a radical Shiite cleric is in U.S. custody in connection with an attack that killed five American soldiers in Karbala in January, U.S. officials said....Qais Khazali was known as a spokesman for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political movement in 2004 in Baghdad's Sadr City, but it is not clear whether he is still involved with al-Sadr's movement."
The shiite militia that he is said to be associated with, Al-Sadr's Mehdi army, is responsible for a lot of the distress caused to the efforts in Iraq today. They are said to have close ties to the sectarian violence. This article touches on some of the attacks that they believe this group to be responsible for.
"A man with ties to a radical Shiite cleric is in U.S. custody in connection with an attack that killed five American soldiers in Karbala in January, U.S. officials said....Qais Khazali was known as a spokesman for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political movement in 2004 in Baghdad's Sadr City, but it is not clear whether he is still involved with al-Sadr's movement."
The shiite militia that he is said to be associated with, Al-Sadr's Mehdi army, is responsible for a lot of the distress caused to the efforts in Iraq today. They are said to have close ties to the sectarian violence. This article touches on some of the attacks that they believe this group to be responsible for.
Rocket hits near U.N. head in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/22/iraq.moon/index.html
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon ducked in surprise when an explosion rattled Baghdad's Green Zone on Thursday where he was delivering a televised news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Two mortar rounds were fired at the Green Zone, an Interior Ministry official said. The Associated Press reported that small chips of debris fell from the ceiling.The explosion startled Ban, who swiftly regained his composure as the briefing continued."
Dispite all of this, the meeting that they were attending went well, and they added to their plans for the future of iraq. They suspect that a Shiite militia, AL-Sadhr's Mehdi army, might be behind this attack and others that have occurred recently.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon ducked in surprise when an explosion rattled Baghdad's Green Zone on Thursday where he was delivering a televised news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Two mortar rounds were fired at the Green Zone, an Interior Ministry official said. The Associated Press reported that small chips of debris fell from the ceiling.The explosion startled Ban, who swiftly regained his composure as the briefing continued."
Dispite all of this, the meeting that they were attending went well, and they added to their plans for the future of iraq. They suspect that a Shiite militia, AL-Sadhr's Mehdi army, might be behind this attack and others that have occurred recently.
Movie Minutes: 'Iraq in Fragments'
What i have found, here, is a review of a documentary by the New York Times that is about the daily lives of all the groups of people in Iraq and how their lives have been affected by the war. It does not treat the "documentary" like a regular one, however, but rather has very little narrative, and focuses more on the life and what it is like visually. This movie talks about individual lives after the war in Iraq, and causes the viewer to think about the Iraqi people, and not just the hatred that is so apparent in everyday life there.
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=6d5f6ce9c5154263514e02a78868adcaff3f16e6
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=6d5f6ce9c5154263514e02a78868adcaff3f16e6
Different Paths From Vietnam to War in Iraq
JANNY SCOTT"Memories of Vietnam haunt the public debate on the war in Iraq. They also lurk in the private thoughts of a generation in Congress — men like Senators Hagel and McCain, who lived through the earlier war, vote on the current one and, despite their shared past, now disagree profoundly on what the United States should do next."
This article it really interesting because it compares the Vietnam and Iraq wars (which a lot of people are doing now) and actually gives some information as to HOW this comparison can be made. The major problem is that neither war's reasons are truly understood. There are the reasons given for the wars, but there seems to be some kind of ulterior motive. I kind of wish the article gave some reasons why they are dissimilar, because i know there must be some.
The Presidential Candidates on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/IRAQPOSITIONS.html
This is a whole page dedicated to the opinions of the presidential candidates on the War's future, and how they have felt from the beginning. They have all the possibile candidates and some present leaders, and next to them are three quotations from their own mouths; one from pre-war, one on the current status, and one talking about how we should get out. It is interesting to see how people's opinions change (or don't) depending on their experiences and/or public opinion.
This is a whole page dedicated to the opinions of the presidential candidates on the War's future, and how they have felt from the beginning. They have all the possibile candidates and some present leaders, and next to them are three quotations from their own mouths; one from pre-war, one on the current status, and one talking about how we should get out. It is interesting to see how people's opinions change (or don't) depending on their experiences and/or public opinion.
I'm not sure if the link works
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/03/17/magazine/
20070318_WOMEN_FEATURE.html
This is a link to a story about the women who have gone over to Iraq and been sent back for one reason or another. Many of their stories are quite distressing, and sad, copy both lines into your address bar to have a look.
There are five women, one talk about sleeping through bombs at night, and now waking up to a small bump, there is another who tells her story about being raped, and if she said anything there it would be looked down on as weakness. please listen to their stories, it's the only way they will be heard.
20070318_WOMEN_FEATURE.html
This is a link to a story about the women who have gone over to Iraq and been sent back for one reason or another. Many of their stories are quite distressing, and sad, copy both lines into your address bar to have a look.
There are five women, one talk about sleeping through bombs at night, and now waking up to a small bump, there is another who tells her story about being raped, and if she said anything there it would be looked down on as weakness. please listen to their stories, it's the only way they will be heard.
Iraq Bombers Blow Up 2 Children Used as Decoys
KIRK SEMPLE
"Insurgents detonated a bomb in a car with two children in it after using the children as decoys to get through a military checkpoint in Baghdad, an American general said Tuesday."
I was on the verge of tears when i read this article, be warned.
Two men placed two children in the back of a truck yesterday, and when security saw them, they allowed the truck through. The men then abandoned the car, and blew it up with the children still inside, killing 7 other civilians.
It reminds me that there is still a problem when i hear a story like this one. These kids didn't even have a chance to live and change their problems but their lives were taken from them by these men. That is not acceptable, and I am more convinced that we need to finish what we started before we leave, no matter how difficult it is on us. It is a war.
"Insurgents detonated a bomb in a car with two children in it after using the children as decoys to get through a military checkpoint in Baghdad, an American general said Tuesday."
I was on the verge of tears when i read this article, be warned.
Two men placed two children in the back of a truck yesterday, and when security saw them, they allowed the truck through. The men then abandoned the car, and blew it up with the children still inside, killing 7 other civilians.
It reminds me that there is still a problem when i hear a story like this one. These kids didn't even have a chance to live and change their problems but their lives were taken from them by these men. That is not acceptable, and I am more convinced that we need to finish what we started before we leave, no matter how difficult it is on us. It is a war.
"Children had fun Wednesday at an amusement park in the southern Iraqi port of Basra during the celebration of Nowruz, a new year and start-of-spring holiday celebrated by many Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians and Afghans."
After reading the last article, it is nice to see that there is still some happiness and celebration amongst the children of Iraq. A bright light of peace in the face of darkness and war.
Thousands of Iraqis Who Flee to Kurdish Region to Escape War Face Harsh Living Conditions
EDWARD WONG"About 160,000 Iraqis from outside the mountainous Kurdish north have moved there to flee a growing civil war, according to a draft of a report by an international group that tracks refugees and displaced people.
The movement of Iraqis within and outside their homeland has produced the world’s fastest-growing populations of refugees and internally displaced people. The United Nations estimates that two million Iraqis have fled the country, which has a population of 26 million."
This is kind of a disturbing idea, that so many people are fleeing the country. In a way it kind of reminds me of the post-Rwandan genocide exodus. The terrifying question is, what happens in the future when people try to return?
House Democrats Weigh Plan for Iraq Withdrawal
JEFF ZELENY--new york times
"Representative Dan Boren is a Democrat, but after visiting Iraq last week he announced a decision that puts him at odds with his party’s leaders: he intends to vote against their plan to set a deadline for troops to leave Iraq."
A deadline would essentially mean that congress cuts off the funds to Iraq. At this point in time, Boren believes that this plan of action is not the right one, and doing so would only stunt the progress that we are having in Iraq today. It is interesting to see his change of heart after going to iraq, and at the same time, i completely agree with him. Simply cutting off funds is not the best way of going about ending the struggle in Iraq and getting people out. I just hope that he can propose an acceptable alternative to the members of congress in time.
"Representative Dan Boren is a Democrat, but after visiting Iraq last week he announced a decision that puts him at odds with his party’s leaders: he intends to vote against their plan to set a deadline for troops to leave Iraq."
A deadline would essentially mean that congress cuts off the funds to Iraq. At this point in time, Boren believes that this plan of action is not the right one, and doing so would only stunt the progress that we are having in Iraq today. It is interesting to see his change of heart after going to iraq, and at the same time, i completely agree with him. Simply cutting off funds is not the best way of going about ending the struggle in Iraq and getting people out. I just hope that he can propose an acceptable alternative to the members of congress in time.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. and coalition forces launched missiles and bombs at targets in Iraq as Thursday morning dawned in Baghdad, including a "decapitation attack" aimed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other top members of the country's leadership.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/
After his address from the White House, Bush announced the new bombing campagin on Iraq. Not long after, Sadaam came on the tv and said "We pledge that we will confront the invaders, (Iraqi resistance will cause the coalition to) lose any hope in accomplishing what they were driven to by the criminal Zionists and others with their agendas," and referred to the attack as a violation of international laws. I'm not sure what to make of the attack. Was it really necessary? I'm not sure, but i think that it might be a little excessive for the amount of fighting that is still going on. I'm a little afraid, too, because Sadaam's very convincing and stirring speech might inspire some terrorist groups.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
July 21 plot was stunt to protest over Iraq, defendant tells court
"The July 21 plot was altered after the July 7 attacks to make it look like a suicide mission, its alleged ringleader told a court yesterday. Muktar Said Ibrahim claimed that he had intended initially to make as many as ten hoax bombs, which would be left in public places as a protest against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But he changed his plans after the London suicide bomb attacks on July 7, 2005, because he thought a similar pattern of incidents would cause “maximum disruption”."
This article is about his atempt to protest by setting up ten fake bombs so that he would get a positive response from the government. " He came up with a plan to make hoax bombs and down-loaded a video from the internet with instructions in Arabic on how to manufacture peroxide-based explosives, presented by a masked man."
He mixed them and everything by himself.
I am VERY unsettled by this---that someone could find this kind of information online, and would be willing to use it! Try reading this article, it is really bizarre to hear this guy's train of thought: making these "fake" bombs might be a positive form of protest and not get him in serious trouble?!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Now You See It …
Newsweek
"Feb. 20, 2007 - It's the postcard image of Baghdad: a pair of gigantic crossed swords clenched in massive fists. The monument, known officially as the Hands of Victory, is both a symbol of Saddam Hussein's outsized ego and his iron grip. For nearly 20 years, the swords have dominated the skyline in central Baghdad. But on Tuesday afternoon, 10-foot bronze chunks cut from one fist were stacked haphazardly at the base of the monument, the first step in bringing the swords down."
It is interesting to think about the difference in reactions among Iraqis when this monument was brought down: good and bad...why?
Some people claim it symbolizes the end of the regime while others claim that they want them to remain so that future generations will know what happened to the Iraqi people--a perfectly legitimate reason. Now, it is too late, but in the future, the Iraqi people should be wary of what historic monuments they are destroying.
"Feb. 20, 2007 - It's the postcard image of Baghdad: a pair of gigantic crossed swords clenched in massive fists. The monument, known officially as the Hands of Victory, is both a symbol of Saddam Hussein's outsized ego and his iron grip. For nearly 20 years, the swords have dominated the skyline in central Baghdad. But on Tuesday afternoon, 10-foot bronze chunks cut from one fist were stacked haphazardly at the base of the monument, the first step in bringing the swords down."It is interesting to think about the difference in reactions among Iraqis when this monument was brought down: good and bad...why?
Some people claim it symbolizes the end of the regime while others claim that they want them to remain so that future generations will know what happened to the Iraqi people--a perfectly legitimate reason. Now, it is too late, but in the future, the Iraqi people should be wary of what historic monuments they are destroying.
No strings attached
JIM RUTENBERG
"President Bush on Sunday called for Congress to provide financing for the Iraq war “with no strings attached.” And he defended his decision, made formal this weekend, to send more than 8,000 more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan by saying they would be dedicated to training and support missions."
He has requested a bill for 100 billion dolllars for emergency spending that will be put towards aiding the several thousand new troops that he is placing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming months. He wishes that congress will grant the money without any specific requirements of mr. Bush, however:
"Democrats in the House are pushing a proposal that would require Mr. Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of benchmarks; without that certification, the withdrawal of American troops would begin in July."
I think that this is both good and bad: congress does not need to battle Mr. Bush on the situation, but we do need to think about pulling out troops if nothing is getting done.
"President Bush on Sunday called for Congress to provide financing for the Iraq war “with no strings attached.” And he defended his decision, made formal this weekend, to send more than 8,000 more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan by saying they would be dedicated to training and support missions."
He has requested a bill for 100 billion dolllars for emergency spending that will be put towards aiding the several thousand new troops that he is placing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming months. He wishes that congress will grant the money without any specific requirements of mr. Bush, however:
"Democrats in the House are pushing a proposal that would require Mr. Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of benchmarks; without that certification, the withdrawal of American troops would begin in July."
I think that this is both good and bad: congress does not need to battle Mr. Bush on the situation, but we do need to think about pulling out troops if nothing is getting done.
Liquor Is Spur to Crime
PAUL von ZIELBAUER
"In May 2004, Specialist Justin J. Lillis got drunk on what he called “hajji juice,” a clear Iraqi moonshine smuggled onto an Army base in Balad, Iraq, by civilian contractors, and began taking potshots with his M-16 service rifle."
There are two other instances of violence: a soldier shot and killed another after a night of drinking, and a group from 101st airborne raped a 14 year old iraqui girl, killing her and then her family.
Here are some statistics from the New York Times:
"Alcohol- and drug-related charges were involved in more than a third of all Army criminal prosecutions of soldiers in the two war zones — 240 of the 665 cases resulting in convictions, according to records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Seventy-three of those 240 cases involve some of the most serious crimes committed, including murder, rape, armed robbery and assault. Sex crimes accounted for 12 of the convictions.
The 240 cases involved a roughly equal number of drug and alcohol offenses, although alcohol-related crimes have increased each year since 2004. "
It is very disturbing that this is the case, and it is the cause of many unnecessary war crimes being committed by American soldiers. The Pentagon stated that binge drinking has been a serious problem (especially recently) and shoots up about 30% during war-time amongst soldiers.
Something should be done, or more serious consequences need to be set in place for violators of the no-alcohol law in the army.
"In May 2004, Specialist Justin J. Lillis got drunk on what he called “hajji juice,” a clear Iraqi moonshine smuggled onto an Army base in Balad, Iraq, by civilian contractors, and began taking potshots with his M-16 service rifle."
There are two other instances of violence: a soldier shot and killed another after a night of drinking, and a group from 101st airborne raped a 14 year old iraqui girl, killing her and then her family.
Here are some statistics from the New York Times:
"Alcohol- and drug-related charges were involved in more than a third of all Army criminal prosecutions of soldiers in the two war zones — 240 of the 665 cases resulting in convictions, according to records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Seventy-three of those 240 cases involve some of the most serious crimes committed, including murder, rape, armed robbery and assault. Sex crimes accounted for 12 of the convictions.
The 240 cases involved a roughly equal number of drug and alcohol offenses, although alcohol-related crimes have increased each year since 2004. "
It is very disturbing that this is the case, and it is the cause of many unnecessary war crimes being committed by American soldiers. The Pentagon stated that binge drinking has been a serious problem (especially recently) and shoots up about 30% during war-time amongst soldiers.
Something should be done, or more serious consequences need to be set in place for violators of the no-alcohol law in the army.
International Support Is Sought at U.N. for Iraq Rebuilding Plan
WARREN HOGE
"Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed Friday for international support for Iraq at a ceremony here to introduce a five-year reconstruction plan for the country. “the challenges ahead are immense,” Mr. Ban told delegates from 87 countries and eight regional groups, “I am sure you will agree that we cannot leave Iraq on its own to cope with them.” Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq presented the plan in a 33-page document called the International Compact with Iraq."
This compact helped to create a frame for the future international aid to Iraq. It also helped to set up what is basically a five year plan for iraq: setting up a judicial system, civil service, human rights, 'improving security forces, disbanding militias, increasing oil revenues and improving financial management.'
It is remarked in the article that the Bush administration has criticized the UN in 2004-05 for not being involved enough with the war, but this, they state will begin the new involvement for the UN in the sticky situation that is Iraq.
I am glad to hear that the UN is taking more concern in the situation in Iraq, and is maybe agreeing to work more with the united states than it has in the past few years to try and solve some major terror problems and increase stability in Iraq. As of now, the future looks bright in Iraq.
"Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed Friday for international support for Iraq at a ceremony here to introduce a five-year reconstruction plan for the country. “the challenges ahead are immense,” Mr. Ban told delegates from 87 countries and eight regional groups, “I am sure you will agree that we cannot leave Iraq on its own to cope with them.” Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq presented the plan in a 33-page document called the International Compact with Iraq."
This compact helped to create a frame for the future international aid to Iraq. It also helped to set up what is basically a five year plan for iraq: setting up a judicial system, civil service, human rights, 'improving security forces, disbanding militias, increasing oil revenues and improving financial management.'
It is remarked in the article that the Bush administration has criticized the UN in 2004-05 for not being involved enough with the war, but this, they state will begin the new involvement for the UN in the sticky situation that is Iraq.
I am glad to hear that the UN is taking more concern in the situation in Iraq, and is maybe agreeing to work more with the united states than it has in the past few years to try and solve some major terror problems and increase stability in Iraq. As of now, the future looks bright in Iraq.
MICHAEL R. GORDON
"WASHINGTON, March 17 — In January, when President Bush announced his plans to reinforce American troops in Baghdad, Shiite militias were seen as the main worry. Some analysts predicted that bloody clashes with Shiite militants in the Sadr City district in northeastern Baghdad were all but inevitable. Instead, during the early weeks of the operation, deadly bombings by Sunni Arab militants have emerged as a greater danger. "
These militants were mostly involved with the terror group Al Qaeda, and struck very near Baghdad. They have been targeting American soldiers with IEDs (roadside bombs or improvised Explosive Devices) and car bombs for the past few years of the war. Rather than pulling out of Baghdad, however, American troops are increasing there numbers there.
“The Baghdad belts are increasingly seen as the key to security in Baghdad,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the American officer in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said in an e-mail message. “I believe this is where you can stop the accelerants to Baghdad violence..."
I think it is a clever move to increase security around the city when the insurgents are wishing for the opposite, it will frustrate their plans to do so in the future, as well because they know that we may very well do the opposite of what they want.
"WASHINGTON, March 17 — In January, when President Bush announced his plans to reinforce American troops in Baghdad, Shiite militias were seen as the main worry. Some analysts predicted that bloody clashes with Shiite militants in the Sadr City district in northeastern Baghdad were all but inevitable. Instead, during the early weeks of the operation, deadly bombings by Sunni Arab militants have emerged as a greater danger. "
These militants were mostly involved with the terror group Al Qaeda, and struck very near Baghdad. They have been targeting American soldiers with IEDs (roadside bombs or improvised Explosive Devices) and car bombs for the past few years of the war. Rather than pulling out of Baghdad, however, American troops are increasing there numbers there.
“The Baghdad belts are increasingly seen as the key to security in Baghdad,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the American officer in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said in an e-mail message. “I believe this is where you can stop the accelerants to Baghdad violence..."
I think it is a clever move to increase security around the city when the insurgents are wishing for the opposite, it will frustrate their plans to do so in the future, as well because they know that we may very well do the opposite of what they want.
Please check out this video
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM184857
It's only four and a half minutes, but it is really interesting! It talks about the pilgrimage that millions of Shiites made to Karbala the other day, including the vice president for the commemoration of Arbaeen. If you have five minutes, check it out: it well describes the terror that many are feeling there and how people are trying to nullify that terror.
It's only four and a half minutes, but it is really interesting! It talks about the pilgrimage that millions of Shiites made to Karbala the other day, including the vice president for the commemoration of Arbaeen. If you have five minutes, check it out: it well describes the terror that many are feeling there and how people are trying to nullify that terror.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Response paper 3
Based on your reading, what best explains the genocide in Rwanda? Is it the result of long standing (ancient) hatreds? A weak state unable to control its population? The manipulation of state organizational capacity by a faction of political elite? Or something else? Provide evidence of your explanation and discuss how your favored explanation would determine the optimal response to the genocide from international actors.
Based on the readings and from what we discussed in class last week, I feel like it is safe to say that the genocide in Rwanda springs from a mix of reasons that may never be fully explained. Origonally, the Hutus and Tutsis were living together relatively peacefully, and using each other for recources that they did not have by themselves. The Hutus were there first (sprung from Bantu tribe) and then the Tutsis migrated north. When the settlers came from europe, they brought in ideas about superiority of the lighter skin, and certain features, and created an imbalence of power between the two.
As the power was distrubuted, however, it appears that the manipulation of the state by a political elite is MOST to blame for the present-day hatred in Rwanda. While there may have been ancient dislikes between the two tribes, it was spurred on by the present political superiority complexes. Because of the delacacy of the situation, it is difficult to say what the best response would be from the international community. It is easy to say that they should go in and stop the genocide, but who's to say that it won't resurface in a few years due to political superiority complexes? It is interesting when considering the way that the genocide is viewed in Rwanda: "Personally, I don't believe in the genocide. This was not a conventional war. The enemies were everywhere. The Tutsis were not killed as Tutsis, only as sympathizers of the RPF." (Mbonampeka p.98).
While it is easy to blame one reason or another (especially when the reading presents several and we discuss several in class), I believe that the genocide springs partially from ancient roots, but should mostly be discussed as the fault of modern-day political hierarchy that causes unrest among peoples.
Internationally, people must think of the delacacy of the situation, and as pointed out by Gourevitch, understand the reasons behind the genocide to better extract its source. He discussed several angles on it, and does not state directly which one is the "cause," but rather suggests that the reason could be a melding of history and modern politics (in concurrence with my opinion). It is for this reason that there is not much the international community could do save for holding peace conferences and finding a way to better balence the power. Otherwise, there will be more war insuing in the future.
Based on the readings and from what we discussed in class last week, I feel like it is safe to say that the genocide in Rwanda springs from a mix of reasons that may never be fully explained. Origonally, the Hutus and Tutsis were living together relatively peacefully, and using each other for recources that they did not have by themselves. The Hutus were there first (sprung from Bantu tribe) and then the Tutsis migrated north. When the settlers came from europe, they brought in ideas about superiority of the lighter skin, and certain features, and created an imbalence of power between the two.
As the power was distrubuted, however, it appears that the manipulation of the state by a political elite is MOST to blame for the present-day hatred in Rwanda. While there may have been ancient dislikes between the two tribes, it was spurred on by the present political superiority complexes. Because of the delacacy of the situation, it is difficult to say what the best response would be from the international community. It is easy to say that they should go in and stop the genocide, but who's to say that it won't resurface in a few years due to political superiority complexes? It is interesting when considering the way that the genocide is viewed in Rwanda: "Personally, I don't believe in the genocide. This was not a conventional war. The enemies were everywhere. The Tutsis were not killed as Tutsis, only as sympathizers of the RPF." (Mbonampeka p.98).
While it is easy to blame one reason or another (especially when the reading presents several and we discuss several in class), I believe that the genocide springs partially from ancient roots, but should mostly be discussed as the fault of modern-day political hierarchy that causes unrest among peoples.
Internationally, people must think of the delacacy of the situation, and as pointed out by Gourevitch, understand the reasons behind the genocide to better extract its source. He discussed several angles on it, and does not state directly which one is the "cause," but rather suggests that the reason could be a melding of history and modern politics (in concurrence with my opinion). It is for this reason that there is not much the international community could do save for holding peace conferences and finding a way to better balence the power. Otherwise, there will be more war insuing in the future.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Britain to Pull 1,600 Troops Out of Iraq, Blair Says
ALAN COWELL
"LONDON, Feb. 21 — In sharp contrast to the American troop buildup in Baghdad, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain announced today that up to 1,600 of the roughly 7,100 British troops in southern Iraq will begin withdrawing in coming months." Consequently, the Danish and Lithuanian troops are also considering removing the troops that they have there from Iraq. He decided that it would be better for both the welfare of British troops (who were under constant fire from insurgents) and for the rising governmental and army power in Iraq that they remove themselves from southern Iraq. They are going to keep troops near the Iranian border, however. The White House supports this decision by Blair and endorses the removal of troops to continue through July as planned.
This is both good news and bad news for the American army. It means, of course that there are people going home, which may lead to the future removal of American troops as well; however, it also means that for the time being, they are on their own in these areas. Hearing this raises my optimism about the war, and thoughts that perhaps they will come up with a solution faster that they have seemed to be finding one in the past. If the next few weeks are not worse than the past few, perhaps there is some hope of bringing some men home soon.
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON? A GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING FOR CEO's
This is an article that was forwarded to me from my Dad. If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing (Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political,
economic and world events. These transformations have profound implications
for American business owners, our culture and our way of life.) Email me on oncourse or at allenka@indiana.edu and i will forward it to you. It is really very interesting for those who are interested in International relations and/or culture studies.
This article is about the roots of the Middle East/Western conflicts and the reasons for the hatred today. It discusses an early battle between the two (ironically on September 11) and suggests reasons for the continuing conflict today. I can't help but think if we could analyze these reasons more thoroughly and with more understanding/ willing acceptance we could come up with a reasonable solution to the problems between the regions. Here is the Iraq portion of the article, as the rest talks about other issues of globalization:
by HERBERT MEYER* (Reagan administration CIA - see below)
1. The War in Iraq
"There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity,
Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity
reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a
way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center
of life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic
liberty, individual rights, human rights, all these are defining points of
modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but
didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and
Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that
happened, it unleas hed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring
of art, literature and music the world has ever known.
Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems
around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak
within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western
civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century,
and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from
the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna. It was in
Vienna that the climactic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place.
The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date
of that battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile
with the modern world.
Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical
Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units
of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down
terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity.
Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are
covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war
in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war
is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the
moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a
way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's what our
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.
The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of
people can kill a large number of people very qu ickly They can use
airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a
first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you can't
stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political horseplay has
dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons
of mass destructions.
Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East.
That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give
the moderates a chance to hold power, they might find a way to reconcile
Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq, it's
important to look for any signs that they are modernizing. For example,
women being brought into the workforce and colleges in Afghanistan is good.
The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good. People can argue about
what the U.S. is doing and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests
Islam is finding its way for ward is good."
economic and world events. These transformations have profound implications
for American business owners, our culture and our way of life.) Email me on oncourse or at allenka@indiana.edu and i will forward it to you. It is really very interesting for those who are interested in International relations and/or culture studies.
This article is about the roots of the Middle East/Western conflicts and the reasons for the hatred today. It discusses an early battle between the two (ironically on September 11) and suggests reasons for the continuing conflict today. I can't help but think if we could analyze these reasons more thoroughly and with more understanding/ willing acceptance we could come up with a reasonable solution to the problems between the regions. Here is the Iraq portion of the article, as the rest talks about other issues of globalization:
by HERBERT MEYER* (Reagan administration CIA - see below)
1. The War in Iraq
"There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity,
Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity
reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a
way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center
of life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic
liberty, individual rights, human rights, all these are defining points of
modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but
didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and
Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that
happened, it unleas hed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring
of art, literature and music the world has ever known.
Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems
around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak
within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western
civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century,
and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from
the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna. It was in
Vienna that the climactic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place.
The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date
of that battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile
with the modern world.
Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical
Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units
of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down
terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity.
Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are
covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war
in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war
is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the
moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a
way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's what our
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.
The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of
people can kill a large number of people very qu ickly They can use
airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a
first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you can't
stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political horseplay has
dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons
of mass destructions.
Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East.
That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give
the moderates a chance to hold power, they might find a way to reconcile
Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq, it's
important to look for any signs that they are modernizing. For example,
women being brought into the workforce and colleges in Afghanistan is good.
The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good. People can argue about
what the U.S. is doing and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests
Islam is finding its way for ward is good."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Assault on American combat outpost north of Baghdad
MARC SANTORA
"...suicide bombers drove one or more cars laden with explosives into the compound on Monday, while other insurgents opened fire in the ensuing chaos, according to witnesses and the American military." An effective attack, there were 2 deaths and at least 17 injuries to American soldiers. Shortly afterwards, there were gun battles and injury evacuations by the military. They believe the attack to be the work of Al Qaeda members from Mesopotamia. "A family of 13 was killed on the road leading to Falluja, and were dragged out of a minibus, lined up and shot. The bodies remained on the highway for hours because people were afraid they would be ambushed if they collected the dead, witnesses said." The increase in fear around Baghdad is strongly preventing the progress of the American army to quickly alleviate the violence in Iraq, and recent events have continue to dissuade Iraqi trust in the soldiers.
This bombing is just a continuation of the events that have been causing Iraqi animosity towards American soldiers. The occupying force that is supposed to be helping them form a more stable way of life is allowing more death and destruction recently than it has been deterring. While American forces are doing a good job of trying to set up ways of safely forming stable society and government in Iraq, they need to think of a way that includes all sides of the conflict if they ever want the violence and distrust to end.
"...suicide bombers drove one or more cars laden with explosives into the compound on Monday, while other insurgents opened fire in the ensuing chaos, according to witnesses and the American military." An effective attack, there were 2 deaths and at least 17 injuries to American soldiers. Shortly afterwards, there were gun battles and injury evacuations by the military. They believe the attack to be the work of Al Qaeda members from Mesopotamia. "A family of 13 was killed on the road leading to Falluja, and were dragged out of a minibus, lined up and shot. The bodies remained on the highway for hours because people were afraid they would be ambushed if they collected the dead, witnesses said." The increase in fear around Baghdad is strongly preventing the progress of the American army to quickly alleviate the violence in Iraq, and recent events have continue to dissuade Iraqi trust in the soldiers.
This bombing is just a continuation of the events that have been causing Iraqi animosity towards American soldiers. The occupying force that is supposed to be helping them form a more stable way of life is allowing more death and destruction recently than it has been deterring. While American forces are doing a good job of trying to set up ways of safely forming stable society and government in Iraq, they need to think of a way that includes all sides of the conflict if they ever want the violence and distrust to end.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Response paper #2
Zakaria and Friedman both make points about the possibility of democracy in the middle east. Some of these points are better supported than others (such as the fact that lower oil prices would make for a more democratically inclined society) and some make fine points for multiple options. Zakaria says that it is more likely for the Middle East to have not become democratic because of the Arab heritage, and NOT because it is primarily Muslim. He backs this up with the explanation that the Koran never says anything about democracy one way or the other. Interestingly enough, neither do the old or new testaments of Judaism and Christianity.
The economy is a big part that is also questioned by both Zakaria and Friedman, although Zakaria makes a good point that the price of oil is almost directly connected to the amount of influence that democratic ideas can have on the Middle East. Knowing both positions on the matter, I feel like it is safe to agree more with Zakaria's idea about the economy playing a big part on the amount of influence (and therefore possibility of installment) of democracy in that part of the world; consequently, it is going to mean a long time for the eventual change in Iraq to occur, and a lot of things will have to go right (ie change in us demand for oil, greater economic stability, a reliable system of government, and the acceptance from the people) for the change to democracy to occur successfully.
As for Iran, it is more likely that the resistance lies much more in the economy than was the case for Iraq (where ethnicity also played a huge role). The US and other countries will have to find an oil substitute and decide to use it along with the oil that they already use from Iran so that the demand for said oil will decrease, otherwise the price will remain the same, and the economy (zakaria's opinion) will continue to flourish on the money received from it ruling out the need for a more democratic society.
The economy is a big part that is also questioned by both Zakaria and Friedman, although Zakaria makes a good point that the price of oil is almost directly connected to the amount of influence that democratic ideas can have on the Middle East. Knowing both positions on the matter, I feel like it is safe to agree more with Zakaria's idea about the economy playing a big part on the amount of influence (and therefore possibility of installment) of democracy in that part of the world; consequently, it is going to mean a long time for the eventual change in Iraq to occur, and a lot of things will have to go right (ie change in us demand for oil, greater economic stability, a reliable system of government, and the acceptance from the people) for the change to democracy to occur successfully.
As for Iran, it is more likely that the resistance lies much more in the economy than was the case for Iraq (where ethnicity also played a huge role). The US and other countries will have to find an oil substitute and decide to use it along with the oil that they already use from Iran so that the demand for said oil will decrease, otherwise the price will remain the same, and the economy (zakaria's opinion) will continue to flourish on the money received from it ruling out the need for a more democratic society.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Us blamed for bombing
Yesterday, the New York Times published an article online that was began with "A growing number of Iraqis blamed the United States on Sunday for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad the day before." The new American security plan in Baghdad has left more Shiite villages open and vulnerable to attacks from Sunni militants and other such anti-Shiite forces. As these forces (such as the Mahdi Army) have recently felt that their power and influence has been threatened will do what they can to take advantage of these opportunities. It was this that led to the worst suicide bombing in the war so far: a truck bomb that killed around 135 and wounded close to 300.I understand that this war is at a period where everyone is still trying to work out what they are going to do to ameliorate the situations in Iraq, but if America is going to try and help people, they need to make sure their "help" does not leave a group helpless!~~
Monday, January 29, 2007
I think this is how i'm supposed to do this response paper!?
There is no real way to completely eliminate global conflict. If there were, we would be a lot closer to finding it by now. All the ways that have been suggested to completely unify the world both politically and culturally have been met with some resistance by one group or the other. While the methods of Globalization suggested in the Dell Theory are feasible, they are not entirely practical. They suggest that we eliminate global discourse through more or less homogenization, assuming that every country that is interconnected with product activity and or single common interests. While this outcome suggests a utopia, we cannot expect that every party involved is going to agree on the methods of unification.
So far, much of The World is Flat has agreed with the ideas of International Studies today. It suggests that the world is becoming unified while still having its own cultural boundaries; however, it suggests that we try and cut those boundaries that make us unique nations, and veers toward the idea of some IS specialists that the world will eventually be one giant country. If through the Dell Theory and the theory of the Golden Arches we can better create a unified world, all the better, but it is very unlikely that because of product similarity/interconnectedness alone we will achieve a unified world without any efforts of other peacemaking. IE if the only thing we have in common or can agree on is economy, the unified peace will not last very long.
As far as my understanding of the topic goes, the best way to eliminate the excessive violence between countries is, ironically enough, understanding. Countries that fight because they feel threatened, or wish to threaten do so because of an innate fear of the unknown. Is this country a threat to me? Should something be done about it? or How long has it been since we showed some muscle, just as a warning? are oftentimes reason enough to go to war. If we as a global community could increase global understanding and decrease the gaps of "unknowns" between countries, perhaps we could make it easier to cohabitate and thus become less inclined to resort to violence.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Bush plan rejected
"The full Senate is poised to consider the nonbinding, yet strongly symbolic, repudiation of Mr. Bush as early as Wednesday. Democratic leaders agreed to tone down the language in the resolution, hoping to make it more acceptable to Republicans in an effort to send a strong, bipartisan rebuke to the White House."
This is not the time for Bush to send more troops into Iraq, in my opinion. If we want to make progress, we need to work on bringing them home. This isn't to say "haha bush you're wrong" but they want to make it clear that they do not agree with his suggestion. I don't either. Sending more in will only be more incentive for the war to continue.
This is not the time for Bush to send more troops into Iraq, in my opinion. If we want to make progress, we need to work on bringing them home. This isn't to say "haha bush you're wrong" but they want to make it clear that they do not agree with his suggestion. I don't either. Sending more in will only be more incentive for the war to continue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
