Is War with Afghanistan the Best Approach?

The first question is: can we win? The evidence seems to suggest that we won't. The FATA (the mountainous border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan) are largely ungovernable, and answer not to Kabul or Islamabad but only to their local warlords. Historically and currently, this area has been a haven for members of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These areas contain the largest illegal arms market in the world, and are inhabited by the men who have been living by tribal customs for centuries, who can make guns with their bare hands in caves. These areas are barren, and some of the poorest in the world in terms of both money and natural resources. It is questionable whether or not the U.S. and Pakistani forces being sent in to combat them are up to the task. The Soviets learned the hard war back in the 1980s that it is virtually impossible to beat them, and we may make the same mistake. It seems that the main thing that can change in this area is our response to it, not the area itself. It seems wiser to work with them, not against them. Negotiations with local tribal leaders will probably be more effective than outright war and bombing with the entire nation. Though the U.S. did achieve some success in ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, it seems they have simply migrated into Pakistan, where they are regrouping and becoming stronger than ever. The Pakistani army is having some success in combating them, but there is still disturbing evidence of the Taliban taking over more and more chunks of Pakistani territory, and inching ever closer to Islamabad. As A.Q. Kahn nuclearized the Pakistani central government, it is truly terrifying to consider the consequences of Pakistan's falling to the Taliban. A "nuclear Jihad" would be likely. Also, the U.S. would have no base/support from which to attack Afghanistan: only a small base in Uzbekistan. We need a policy that takes all of this into account: simply bombing large chunks of Afghanistan is not gonna cut it. We need a comprehensive policy that includes Pakistan, and India as well as Afghanistan that emphasizes negotiation as opposed to combat. It is essential to keep in mind that Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups (Taliban included) are not loyal to any state: they operate as stateless networks, and they answer to no one. They cross borders with ease, as evidenced by the Pakistan situation. If our goal is to eliminate the Taliban, then we must think about the issue in this way. War with Afghanistan may weaken the Taliban, but it is not a permanent solution. We need to work with other nations, not against them, and come together with multilateral action if we have any hope of success.

We Need Global Police Action for Globalized Crime

There are new types of crime, and the very nature of criminal activity is changing right before our eyes. It is clear that old ways of monitoring criminals, etc are simply not going to cut it in this new world of globalized crime. In Foreign Policy, Moisés Naím points to five "wars on crime" that cross international borders, and will render traditional crime fighting styles virtually worthless: drugs, illegal arms trade, intellectual property, human trafficking, and money. These decentralized, stateless networks filled with individuals motivated by either religious extremism or money are pitted against governments who are bound by traditional notions of sovereignty, which severely limits their ability to fight these well-financed, worldwide networks. The author writes, "In one form or another, governments have been fighting these five wars for centuries. And losing them." We need more police forces like Interpol, and we need to put more resources into improving Interpol itself. This applies equally to terror, as it does to the five wars motivated by greed mentioned above. International connections have made distance a non-factor in criminals working together. We need teams of good guys to rival these forces, or we risk losing the "war" for good.

Yes, global warming should be at the TOP of the political agenda

Someone in one of my classes commented that "we shouldn't worry about global warming until we get the economy back on track." I beg to differ. Though everyone has started to jump on the "green" bandwagon, we need to step up our efforts to prevent this devastating climate crash. It is affecting animals in the arctic. It is already affecting nations on the coast that are going to be the earliest of the nations hit (like Vietnam). It will soon be affecting all of us. If we are facing floods, fires and other almost-Apocalyptic and dramatic climate changes like the ones moderate scientists are predicting, the economy will be the last thing on our minds. Trust me. I'm not a sentimental person, but this picture really gets to me. .

Customized News Content: Too Much of a Good Thing?

I know that I'm probably going to sound like an old fogie for pontificating on the "dangers" of new media, and customized news content especially. However, with lots of experience in the field I have seen just how great the differences are between the old and new, and I am unconvinced that we have gotten to the point where all of the hallowed news values and steadfast ethics from the old medium are transferred to the new. We may get there at some point, but we are not there yet. It just seems like a lot of the supervision and fact-checking that goes on in traditional publications gets lost in the mix, not that there is not a whole lot of innovative stuff on the web, as well as some excellent reporting. Another concern is more directly related to audience consumption, and relates to this idea of "customized news content." Through new media tools such as RSS feeds and blogs, among other things, audiences can pick and choose exactly the content they they consume, what some media scholars have referred to as the phenomenon "prosumers."Though such content provides the advantage of providing audiences with content that suites their interests, it has the downfall of limiting too much content, and actually making audiences less informed, not more. By allowing audiences such ease in "controlling" their content, they not only have the danger of filtering out too much vital information, but also of filtering their information through either as strictly Conservative or Liberal lens, depending on their prior politics by only following Liberal blogs such as Huffpost, Conservative blogs, or even mainstream sites with a political bias such as Fox News.

How Does One Negotiate with Irrationality: The North Korea Problem

Kim Jong Il's reign over terror over North Korea was only brought into the spotlight once Il started to threaten the world with the country's nuclear arsenal, built behind the scenes and completely missed by UN nuclear inspectors and cultivated despite promises from Il to stick to his promise of obeying the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Il's tendency to break promises is one example of the extreme difficulty we face in attempting diplomatic negotiations with North Korea. It goes without saying that it is frustrating for U.S. leaders to spend endless effort in negotiations only to have these agreements broken. Il not only poses a problem on the world stage, but also in his own country. His brutalization of the people of North Korea is something that mainstream media seem to be missing out on in favor of covering the nuclear issues, but the atrocities Il has committed against his people are many and downright terrifying. Il is in essence starving the population, all industry and trade has been shut down in the nation: companies stand completely empty, and the only real trade going on involves either illegal drugs (opium mostly) or counterfeit currency. Anyone who dares speak out against the regime is herded into "camps" where they are then stoned to death, hung or killed in other horrifying ways. Joe Layburn's documentary, "Children of the Secret State" offers superb coverage of the North Korea situation.

What year is this, 1955?

Apparently, an interracial couple was denied a marriage license in Louisiana. I know that there is still a lot of "covert" racism nowadays, but this type of blatant and institutionalized racism is not necessarily more damaging but certainly more shocking. In this day and age, it is just unacceptable. See the link at CNN, I'd love to hear comments on this one. .

Underestimating Russia's Importance Could be a Fatal Mistake

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently landed in Moscow to meet with Kremlin leaders in order to get beyond a cold war mentality with the Soviet powerhouse. The U.S. and Russia have had notoriously bad dealings as of late in the area of nuclear arms control, but can it be blamed on a lingering "Cold War Effect? In my opinion, this seriously over simplifies the issue. I think the true issue lies in Russia's perception that they are no longer a world power to be reckoned with. I believe that Russia's leaders have been both surprised and dismayed by increasing U.S. dominance in the foreign sector since the cold war's end, and have noted the increased rise in power and influence of nations like China in the U.N. security council, as their star grows increasingly dimmer. Russia is also facing a slew of domestic issues right now, including severe under-population and an AIDs epidemic, all the more distracting from their larger policy foreign policy issues. However, underestimating Russia's importance in the world landscape is a huge mistake. For one thing, Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation is absolutely essential: there are still many unsecured Soviet-era nukes throughout Russia and the Stans that will obviously have devastating consequences if they fall into the wrong hands. By surrounding Russia with nuclear weapons of our own in an attempt to target our "critical areas of concern" like North Korea and middle eastern targets, Russia is increasingly alarmed, as they see they are in range (though our intent may be far from Russia, the unfortunate and potentially devastating perception remains). Also, with its huge land mass Russia's assistance in the area of climate control is also essential. It is worth noting that Russia's reports of grave human rights incidence must not be ignored. We should consider implementing bilateral pressure strategies involving more of a voice for Russia if and only if they work to improve these conditions considerably. We must let go of these ancient relics and confusions about our issues with the cold war, and focus on giving Russia the respect they deserve in the here and now. If we don't, potential consequences are lethal.