In addition to this war being forgotten in the USA, many Americans believe falsely that the war is being "won" - when it's becoming apparent that counter-insurgency and other military tactics have not succeeded in their goals. (I'm not certain of the accuracy of the polls by this site, but Rasmussen has a monthly poll on the percentage of Americans who believe that the USA and its allies are "winning" the War on Terror: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update ...would be interesting to see the figures from an early August poll.)
Nice addition to a strong list created by Professor Cole. I do not mean to sound insensitive toward the death of a small child, but the choice of the American media to cover the trial of an accused murderer so extensively definitely ignores other terrible events presently occurring in the world.
I would venture to add No. 12:
Avoid a two-party system and establish a system that allows multiple parties to have the potential to receive federal representation. That way, maybe the Arab world can avoid the back-and-forth competition that the USA has experienced since the Federalists held power and those who disagreed with them created an opposing party in order to seek power.
Thanks for the numbers from the 2002 Senate and House votes for the Iraq War. Though I knew authorization to go to war had been granted fairly easily, I hadn't realized the votes were that much of a majority. Makes me curious what the votes from 2002 and today would look like if the country were not constrained to a two-party system and if politicians actually voted based on principles.
Quoting from the CNN article you cited in this post, I agree with the statement by Senator Levin, believing "The level of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan needs to be significant to achieve its purpose --- letting the Afghan government know we are determined to shift primary responsibility for their security to the Afghan security forces." Additionally, a significant reduction of foreign forces in Afghanistan will let the enemy know that the American government is serious about withdrawing and will hopefully encourage forward momentum with the "secret peace talks" that have recently begun. It should also let the American public know that Obama (though he did mandate the troop surge) wants to end this war.
Despite ongoing violence in Afghanistan, it should be recognized that most enemy attacks aim to harm either foreign forces or those that support foreign forces (i.e. the Karzai government, although in recent months even Karzai hasn't been too supportive of the foreign military presence). The goal of the enemy at this point seems to be to oust the foreigners, and until all (or at least a majority of) foreign forces withdraw, it's likely that substantial moves toward peace will not be taken (despite some preliminary talks). It's obvious Afghans and Americans are weary of this war. It's been nearly a decade long and the costs and casualties for both nations (as well as for nations supporting the American-led intervention) have been high.
Although instability still reigns in many parts of Afghanistan, I do not believe security can be fully achieved until all foreign military forces are out of the country. It would be unwise to continue a foreign military presence in Afghanistan in hopes of establishing COMPLETE stability and security because the satisfaction of terrorists and insurgents comes from their ability to harm their targets. Instability and insecurity will continue as long as the enemy continues to be satisfied. The enemy will continue to be satisfied as long as they have an easy time of attacking their targets (namely, foreign forces and those supporting foreign forces).
I think removing 10% of the current troop level by the end of this year is enough of a withdrawal to let the enemy, Americans, and Afghans know that this war is now moving toward an end.
Senator Levin suggested 15,000 troops be withdrawn by the end of this year.
You have said that Obama's decision to withdraw 10,000 troops by the end of this year was unexpected, but I am curious: do you support his decision or would you have recommended more (or fewer) troops be withdrawn by the end of this year?
The federal government's choice to task individuals with spying on an American professor rather than on the person responsible on some level for the attacks that prompted a war that has already spanned nearly a decade (and looks like it will be lasting much longer than that) is certainly perplexing. It's ridiculous to think that the potential benefits of your research and opinions were crushed on some level by those seeking to destroy any opposition to Bush. Although the Bush administration didn't seem interested in reading or hearing what you had to offer, your attempt to inform the public hasn't been all in vain - as is proven by the number of comments on many of your posts and the numbers of times people share your posts.
I did not read your blog nor know anything about you during the time that the CIA thought it necessary to spy on you. I am pleased that you have such an extensive network of people that support you and your work today and that did so during that time. I am also pleased that Glenn Carle was willing to expose what he experienced when asked about it. I hope the NYT article he and you were interviewed for spreads to as many Americans as possible. Additionally, I am pleased that Yale University "scuttled" your possible appointment to their faculty, so that I was fortunate enough to receive your instruction while attending the University of Michigan.
I think all intelligent individuals would agree that a democratic government should be working to benefit and protect its citizens rather than looking for ways to discredit or even arrest its citizens. The so-called PATRIOT Act seems to have the goal of protecting Americans by catching terrorists harboring within the USA. Given the recent renewal of the PATRIOT Act, do you believe that the federal government, under Obama, has squashed any chance to be distinct from the Bush administration (with regards to surveillance of citizens)?
Is the purpose of government surveillance really to protect Americans or is it only to protect the politician in office?
Great post! It certainly seems contradictory that the nation that so often feels it can intervene militarily around the world (under the pretense that it is spreading democracy) is also the nation that has gradually been limiting some of the rights its own people should be entitled to in a democracy that truly ensures equality and freedom for all citizens. Most Americans don't have the desire to follow "their news" as you call it - the stuff that actually matters in a global context - because that would be less entertaining than "our news." Laughing at Sarah Palin and the mistakes she frequently makes when speaking publicly (and the subsequent satires/parodies that people like Tina Fey and Stephen Colbert create) allows Americans to ignore tragedies and conflicts. It makes it easier for them to go on with their own lives, paying attention to the things that they see directly affecting them. It's disappointing to realize that although there is the potential for globalization to decrease apathy and improve the world in one way or another, it isn't really happening. For example, you see American youth more concerned with watching reality t.v. shows like "16 and Pregnant" than with following, say, news coverage of the wars that their country is fighting.
I only wonder if there is a solution to this imbalance between "our news" and "their news" and "our youth" and "their youth." To continue with my example from above, I think it would be a step in the right direction if reality t.v. shows like "16 and Pregnant" did not exist. That way, maybe American youth would focus more on global events than on the life of a teen mom. Unfortunately, I don't think a television network would ever replace reality t.v. shows (that attract large audiences) with shows that present genuine news. Do you have any solutions to offer as to how Americans might care more about and have more access to genuine news?
Is Osama bin Laden really dead? In looking at Ben's comment - speaking about Republicans - I am wondering: might the Democrats be using images like the one you posted here as a tool for their 2012 Presidential campaign? Do you believe Osama bin Laden has just now been killed or might this be a way to increase support for President Obama within the USA (and potentially outside of the USA)?
In addition to this war being forgotten in the USA, many Americans believe falsely that the war is being "won" - when it's becoming apparent that counter-insurgency and other military tactics have not succeeded in their goals. (I'm not certain of the accuracy of the polls by this site, but Rasmussen has a monthly poll on the percentage of Americans who believe that the USA and its allies are "winning" the War on Terror: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update ...would be interesting to see the figures from an early August poll.)
Doubtful that Petraeus will admit that counter-insurgency has failed - he would more likely say that it has had "some success" (as he basically did in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death - see this ABC News article: http://abcnews.go.com/International/gates-petraeus-us-winning-afghan-war/story?id=13771705 ).
Nice addition to a strong list created by Professor Cole. I do not mean to sound insensitive toward the death of a small child, but the choice of the American media to cover the trial of an accused murderer so extensively definitely ignores other terrible events presently occurring in the world.
I would venture to add No. 12:
Avoid a two-party system and establish a system that allows multiple parties to have the potential to receive federal representation. That way, maybe the Arab world can avoid the back-and-forth competition that the USA has experienced since the Federalists held power and those who disagreed with them created an opposing party in order to seek power.
Thanks for the numbers from the 2002 Senate and House votes for the Iraq War. Though I knew authorization to go to war had been granted fairly easily, I hadn't realized the votes were that much of a majority. Makes me curious what the votes from 2002 and today would look like if the country were not constrained to a two-party system and if politicians actually voted based on principles.
Quoting from the CNN article you cited in this post, I agree with the statement by Senator Levin, believing "The level of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan needs to be significant to achieve its purpose --- letting the Afghan government know we are determined to shift primary responsibility for their security to the Afghan security forces." Additionally, a significant reduction of foreign forces in Afghanistan will let the enemy know that the American government is serious about withdrawing and will hopefully encourage forward momentum with the "secret peace talks" that have recently begun. It should also let the American public know that Obama (though he did mandate the troop surge) wants to end this war.
Despite ongoing violence in Afghanistan, it should be recognized that most enemy attacks aim to harm either foreign forces or those that support foreign forces (i.e. the Karzai government, although in recent months even Karzai hasn't been too supportive of the foreign military presence). The goal of the enemy at this point seems to be to oust the foreigners, and until all (or at least a majority of) foreign forces withdraw, it's likely that substantial moves toward peace will not be taken (despite some preliminary talks). It's obvious Afghans and Americans are weary of this war. It's been nearly a decade long and the costs and casualties for both nations (as well as for nations supporting the American-led intervention) have been high.
Although instability still reigns in many parts of Afghanistan, I do not believe security can be fully achieved until all foreign military forces are out of the country. It would be unwise to continue a foreign military presence in Afghanistan in hopes of establishing COMPLETE stability and security because the satisfaction of terrorists and insurgents comes from their ability to harm their targets. Instability and insecurity will continue as long as the enemy continues to be satisfied. The enemy will continue to be satisfied as long as they have an easy time of attacking their targets (namely, foreign forces and those supporting foreign forces).
I think removing 10% of the current troop level by the end of this year is enough of a withdrawal to let the enemy, Americans, and Afghans know that this war is now moving toward an end.
Senator Levin suggested 15,000 troops be withdrawn by the end of this year.
You have said that Obama's decision to withdraw 10,000 troops by the end of this year was unexpected, but I am curious: do you support his decision or would you have recommended more (or fewer) troops be withdrawn by the end of this year?
The federal government's choice to task individuals with spying on an American professor rather than on the person responsible on some level for the attacks that prompted a war that has already spanned nearly a decade (and looks like it will be lasting much longer than that) is certainly perplexing. It's ridiculous to think that the potential benefits of your research and opinions were crushed on some level by those seeking to destroy any opposition to Bush. Although the Bush administration didn't seem interested in reading or hearing what you had to offer, your attempt to inform the public hasn't been all in vain - as is proven by the number of comments on many of your posts and the numbers of times people share your posts.
I did not read your blog nor know anything about you during the time that the CIA thought it necessary to spy on you. I am pleased that you have such an extensive network of people that support you and your work today and that did so during that time. I am also pleased that Glenn Carle was willing to expose what he experienced when asked about it. I hope the NYT article he and you were interviewed for spreads to as many Americans as possible. Additionally, I am pleased that Yale University "scuttled" your possible appointment to their faculty, so that I was fortunate enough to receive your instruction while attending the University of Michigan.
I think all intelligent individuals would agree that a democratic government should be working to benefit and protect its citizens rather than looking for ways to discredit or even arrest its citizens. The so-called PATRIOT Act seems to have the goal of protecting Americans by catching terrorists harboring within the USA. Given the recent renewal of the PATRIOT Act, do you believe that the federal government, under Obama, has squashed any chance to be distinct from the Bush administration (with regards to surveillance of citizens)?
Is the purpose of government surveillance really to protect Americans or is it only to protect the politician in office?
Great post! It certainly seems contradictory that the nation that so often feels it can intervene militarily around the world (under the pretense that it is spreading democracy) is also the nation that has gradually been limiting some of the rights its own people should be entitled to in a democracy that truly ensures equality and freedom for all citizens. Most Americans don't have the desire to follow "their news" as you call it - the stuff that actually matters in a global context - because that would be less entertaining than "our news." Laughing at Sarah Palin and the mistakes she frequently makes when speaking publicly (and the subsequent satires/parodies that people like Tina Fey and Stephen Colbert create) allows Americans to ignore tragedies and conflicts. It makes it easier for them to go on with their own lives, paying attention to the things that they see directly affecting them. It's disappointing to realize that although there is the potential for globalization to decrease apathy and improve the world in one way or another, it isn't really happening. For example, you see American youth more concerned with watching reality t.v. shows like "16 and Pregnant" than with following, say, news coverage of the wars that their country is fighting.
I only wonder if there is a solution to this imbalance between "our news" and "their news" and "our youth" and "their youth." To continue with my example from above, I think it would be a step in the right direction if reality t.v. shows like "16 and Pregnant" did not exist. That way, maybe American youth would focus more on global events than on the life of a teen mom. Unfortunately, I don't think a television network would ever replace reality t.v. shows (that attract large audiences) with shows that present genuine news. Do you have any solutions to offer as to how Americans might care more about and have more access to genuine news?
Is Osama bin Laden really dead? In looking at Ben's comment - speaking about Republicans - I am wondering: might the Democrats be using images like the one you posted here as a tool for their 2012 Presidential campaign? Do you believe Osama bin Laden has just now been killed or might this be a way to increase support for President Obama within the USA (and potentially outside of the USA)?