If You Want to Comment on the Poll Before it Closes

I realized when I made the current poll about the presidential candidates that some of you, who participate in the poll, may have something to say before I actually write a post about the results, and this was confirmed by my friend Kathleen.  I have created this post not to share my own perspective at this time, but to allow you all to comment on the current poll.  I know there are a lot of current and potential candidates and you may not have even heard of some of them, I know I hadn't.  If you would like to see something on each candidate follow the link and have fun.

Addendum to Afghanistan Post

President Obama addressed the nation yesterday and outlined his plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan and an ending to the war.  He wants a removal of 10,000 troops starting in July and to return to pre-surge troop levels by next summer.  He also projected an end to the war by 2014.  I was pleased to hear him discuss the need to protect the advances made in education and for women and girls.  I was also glad to hear him imply that the war on terrorism is not one that is fought on a battlefield, but rather one that needs to focus on specific targets. I think the greatest mistake we made with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was to initially treat them like normal combat wars.  It was not only less effective, but it also helped to contribute to the image of the US as an imperial force--making it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members.

President Obama also turned the focus towards the future of the United States.  He spoke about taking the middle road between the extremes of military isolationism and troop overextension.  The idea that we need to work with international allies to prevent and stop the evils that are occurring in the world is a sound policy.  I know that many feel that this diminishes the clout our military may have in the world, but that should not be the focus of our worries.  As the president said, we need to focus on nation-building here in the US.  Instead of rallying together as we did following 9/11 and with the initial operations in Afghanistan, we have become a nation that has warred with itself and become more destructive with words and ideals than we could have been with weapons.  It is time to come back together as a proud people, not to boast of ourselves in front of the world, but to support each other in accomplishing our dreams.  We need to become less self-serving and more service oriented--willing to help those in need.  It is time to reclaim what made the United States great from the beginning--our willingness to sacrifice our desires for the greater good.

Before I was able to listen to the address, I had heard that President Obama mentioned the troops would be home by September of 2012.  I was all ready to write about the president's use of the war to further his presidential re-election campaign.  If this was mentioned in another context, then I am disgusted that the troops in Afghanistan are being used as pawns in the elections. and if that is the intent, we might as well just bring them all back now and watch Afghanistan crumble without the loss of more American lives.  However, this is not what was mentioned in the address to the nation and the timeline of concluding the combat phase of this war.  I am hopeful that the US military and civilian forces will be able to train Afghani troops, police, and the general population as the president indicated.  My one fear is that the president has indicated the need for the Afghanis to patrol for and protect against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  I worry that focusing too much of our rebuilding of Afghanistan on their security may turn Afghanistan into a militarized nation as it was under the Taliban.  Hopefully, the military and police forces will be trained not to rule the nation, but to ensure and protect the rights of the people from those who would oppress.

If anyone who reads this has served in Afghanistan, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on the issues brought up in this post and the one that preceded it.  I am not an expert on Afghanistan and I am not in the military.  I know what I learn from books and the news isn't the whole story, but that is all I have at the moment on which to base my comments.  If anyone has greater insight into the situation in Afghanistan, I would love for you to share your thoughts.  Again, I have to reiterate, this blog is intended to start a discourse--an exchange of ideas.  I want to learn more about these issues as much as anyone who reads this blog.  If you don't feel like an expert, but have questions, suggestions, or different opinions than the ones I share, I truly want to know what they are.  Please make a comment if you are so moved.

War in Afghanistan Poll

Well, I guess I haven't come up with any intriguing polls, since my two polls have only managed to bring in 20 votes total and the new poll currently only has one participant.  Two of those votes were mine, so really the total stands at 18.  I would appreciate it greatly if you would comment on this post with suggestions for new polls.  My only guidelines would be that your suggestions focus around the Middle East and/or the United States, since that is the focus of this blog.  I thrive on interaction and I truly desire hearing your opinions about the polls and the posts on this blog.  You can comment anonymously or publicly, but please comment so I have something from which to build.  Thank you so much for reading this blog and for participating with me.

In the last poll, I provided an incomplete statement to which I wanted you to add your opinion.  The statement was:  Now that Osama bin Laden has been found and executed do you think the war in Afghanistan is  

justified                                                                            1 
                                                                                              (33%)

another US intervention that will one day backfire         1 
                                                                                              (33%)

a lost cause                                                                       0 
                                                                                                (0%)

a mistake                                                                          1 
                                                                                              (33%)

One individual believes the war is justified, I'm the one who indicated the second option and another individual believes the war in Afghanistan is a mistake.  It is interesting to me that no one was willing to place a vote indicating the war is a lost cause.  Although I’m sure there are those out there who believe that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause, no one indicated as such.  This makes me glad because we can't afford for the war to be treated as a lost cause.  Whether the US should have entered into a war in Afghanistan or not, it is necessary now to focus on finishing this war and providing the Afghanis with the security and organization they will need to ensure the positives that have come from this war (i.e. education of girls, greater rights for women, the destabilization of the Taliban) are not lost when the US withdraws from their country.  What this requires is the patience to stay in Afghanistan until these things are secured.  This means that many more years are required for the US to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which is not a popular option for most Americans and, therefore, not good political policy especially as we enter the presidential campaign.  However, it is my hope that President Obama doesn’t fear a campaign loss if he keeps us committed to Afghanistan and doesn't start to make promises of huge troop withdrawals in order to appease the voters.  I don’t say this because I want us to be forever engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but I also don’t want us to ever have to return because we didn’t feel like making things right the first time.

This is one of the reasons I said this war is another intervention that will backfire on us.  Our record of intervention in the Middle East is not very good.  Almost everything, if not everything, with which we have involved ourselves in this region has ultimately come back to haunt us.  In 1953 we staged a coup of a democratically elected prime minister in Iran, who was an ally to the US (both Prime Minister Musaddiq and Iran) and we paid the Iranian ayatollahs annually in order to ensure their support of the Shah we installed (see William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, pg. 72).  Now Iran is one of the most verbal haters of the United States led by the ayatollahs to whom we paid millions.  In 1963, a decade later, we decided to try our hand at another “successful” coup and we unofficially aided the coup in Iraq that overthrew ‘Abd al-Karim Qaasim and led to Saddam Hussein’s rise to power (whom we courted at the time).  To continue with Iraq, during the 80s we supplied President Hussein with weapons to fight our now Iranian enemies, whom we created.  Soon after the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and became an enemy to the West using the weapons we freely supplied to him just a few years prior.  It is too soon to tell what the results of the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be, but if we look at the results of the past, we might get some idea.

I’m afraid it is too late for us to do anything about Iraq.  The one thing we have learned in both Afghanistan and Iraq from our past mistakes in the Middle East is to not replace one dictatorial government with another.  Unfortunately, we have still imposed a government on the people of each nation and preselected its leaders.  We have imposed democracy on both Afghanistan and Iraq without truly working with the people of the two nations to help them build something that is more organic.  The instability that still exists in Iraq is partly due to this very fact.  Given the sectarian nature of Iraq, setting up a government that would be agreeable to all involved was going to be a challenge, but trying to impose a western structure in this situation without a real investment from the masses could quite possibly lead to the same situation we had in Germany after World War I.  We forced democracy on the Germans; we made them pay for the war, which they couldn’t, thus economically destabilizing them; the Great Depression hit the world and Hitler rose from the ashes to cause even greater destruction.  I certainly hope we haven’t created another Weimar Republic in Iraq, but if we don’t remain somehow invested in its future and stability, we may have done just that.

In Afghanistan, not only have we imposed democracy, but we have supported people of questionable integrity because they had the clout we needed to fight against the Taliban.  If we are not careful and we leave Afghanistan in the hands of these new leaders who used to be or still are drug lords and weapons dealers, we have not only created a breeding ground for a new dictator, but we have also associated democracy with tyrannism, deceit, and corruption.  It is in our best interest not only to train Afghani police forces, but to help the Afghanis rebuild their nation.  Again, we need to work with the Afghani communities, which are tribal, and find out from them what they need and how we can be of service to them.  Anything we build without community support won’t last even if it is good and beneficial to the people.  We need to help the Afghanis to be interested and invested in their own nation building.

I would say that the war in Afghanistan was justified as much as I think the war in Iraq was justified, not for the reasons given—housing al-Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan and WMDs in Iraq—but for the ending of an era of oppression and massacres in both nations (not to say the wars haven’t had a large number of casualties).  Removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been good things from a humanitarian point of view, so I would say the wars are justified.  However, if we don’t make sure the people are invested in their new governments and lives, I do feel like we will one day experience the repercussions of our intervention and that will be our greatest mistake.

Anti-Semitism

I actually contemplated writing this post as my first entry when I started this blog, but felt like I should wait.  Well, the waiting is over.  I have been struck again by the need to write about anti-Semitism.  I'm sure that it is quite obvious from the posts on my blog that I don't have much love towards the government of Israel.  I do feel though that some readers may perceive my anti state of Israel stance as anti-Semitic.  I say this, because it is a common label given to people and organizations that speak up about the less than stellar actions of the Israeli government.  I have not, as of yet, received any comments or other messages from people to indicate that my blog has been viewed in this light, but I still feel that it is important for me to make it perfectly clear that my intent here is in no way fueled by malicious motives.

© Chad Card

My goal for this blog is to make people aware of the situations that are not reported or are reported with specific biases.  Of course, I am just as biased, but my biases are based on personal experiences in the region of the Middle East.  I have no sponsorship to which I must be loyal and I like it that way.  I have become so frustrated listening to the news and politicians because there is such a slant when it comes to the Middle East, which has been perpetuated for decades.  I have a few colleagues in my degree program with whom I can discuss these matters and I can also yell at the television, which I have been know to do, but this doesn't solve the problem.  Glenn Beck's call for a gathering in Jerusalem to support Israel was the straw that broke the camel's back and I could no longer relieve my frustrations by singing to the choir, although I know some of you are reading this.  I am hopefully reaching many more people who may not have been aware of the situations as they are, because our media and political outlets are not structured to provide us with this information.

Western Wall  © Chad Card

Back to addressing anti-Semitism.  The term anti-Semitism was coined by Wilhelm Marr, a German,  in 1879.  His coining of the word was not for the purpose of human rights awareness, but rather to celebrate an aversion towards Jews.  As you can also read in the link above, although this term has been purely associated with the hatred of Jews, especially since the atrocities of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism actually means a hatred of Semites, which includes Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians and other indigenous groups in the Middle East and Northeastern Africa.  Anti-Semitism is not an accurate term to describe a dislike or hatred of the Jews because it includes these other people as well.  Only one who hates all Semites could truly be called anti-Semitic.

Nevertheless, the origins of the word and its true meaning do not negate its actual usage and meaning and that is what I want to address in this post.  I have spent much of my adult life traveling to countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  As an American, I have had to bear the burden of representing the United States.  I have lost track of how many people have said to me that they hate the US government, but they love Americans.  This is the general response I get from people, usually within the first five minutes of meeting.  One the the most memorable meetings was while I was living in Berlin, Germany.  I had gone to a nearby café with my roommates and we met a man who was quite amicable to us until we told him we were from America.  He became both visibly and verbally angry, but it was not directed at us--his hatred was towards the government.  We learned that he was from Iraq and he still had family there about whom he worried.  Sadi and his German wife Petra became two of our best friends while we were in Berlin.  I share this, because I believe the many reports that have come to us for decades via our media and politicians about those who hate America are misleading us and perpetuating mutual animosity.  I would wager that the majority of people who "hate" America do not hate Americans, but have serious difficulties with our government.  Is that really hard to imagine?  I know there are plenty of issues that have sparked my disdain for our politicians.

Banksy's statement on the occupation  © Chad Card

My comments about Israel should also be interpreted in the same light.  My issues have nothing to do with Israelis or Jews, but are specifically concerned with the Israeli government.  However, the issues I have are issues I have with any government that imprisons a minority population and violates international laws for the purposes of "security".  The United States would have to be included in that group given the Japanese-American internment camps created in the US during World War II.  This type of action is reprehensible and I cannot support it.  However, does this mean I hate America and secretly wish for its destruction?  Of course not!  There are many actions that our government has taken in the past and even currently with which I do not agree, but I love America and I am proud to be an American.  I can't say that I haven't also been ashamed to be an American at times.  We are a nation that is built on the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, and brotherhood about which I am proud, but when our government or people act in a manner that is not in harmony with our ideals I find it difficult to be proud.

I likewise feel the same about Israel.  I do not believe that Israel should be destroyed or harmed in any way.  Do I think the creation of an Israeli state in Palestine was the smartest act of western intervention? No, but it is a reality and it is important to treat Israel as any other nation with sovereign rights.  What this also means is that we can't keep our blinders on when it comes to Israel.  We don't do that with other nations and I can guarantee you that other nations don't do that with us.  We have to stand up for what is right because that is the foundation upon which our nation has been built.  When we stop standing up for what is right, we threaten the very essence of our nation.  Exploiting another people because it is in the "best interest" of our nation is not the same thing as standing up for what is right, plus many of the things that have been pursued for the "best interest" of our nation have come back to bite us hard in the proverbial behind.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism represented  © Chad Card

Site of the disagreement © Luke Lavin

I guess I haven't come out and declared that I am not an anti-Semite, so to be clear, I am not an anti-Semite.  I don't feel like I have to make such a statement because I think my intentions are clear.  However, I don't want there to be any lingering doubts.  I have never had any negative feelings for or experiences with Israelis or Jews, except for a verbal argument with a border guard, which is another story.  I have many friends who are Jewish and I could not forgive myself if they ever felt I was attacking them.  I'm sure there are many that disagree with my positions and opinions, but I feel confident that those who know me, know that I have no malevolence towards anyone.  I encourage disagreement, because it is through such an exchange that we can grow.  Sure it is hard to have someone disagree with something about which one is passionate, especially if that someone is a close relative or friend, but disagreements should never be considered hatred or lead to it.  We need to quit the mentality of "if you're not with us then you're against us," and realize that our differences and disagreements are the very elements that provide us with the greatest opportunities for growth.

Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty 44th Anniversary

Today marks the 44th anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which was patrolling international waters in the Mediterranean in 1967, while Israel was in an short-lived war with Egypt.  It is this war that provided Israel with the gains of the Golan Heights territory, the Palestinian territories, and the Sinai Peninsula.  The attack on the USS Liberty, a United States naval vessel, resulted in the deaths of 34 service men and the wounding of 171 (I've also seen reports up to 174 wounded) others.  The reason I am posting this today is to commemorate the lives of those who needlessly lost theirs serving their country, to bring this tragic event to the attention of the masses (not that my blog is necessarily reaching the masses, yet), and to provide information that is not generally know about this event.

There are others who have done far more research into this event than I and for that reason, I feel it is better for me to provide links here that will be far more informative than I can be.  Please take a moment to check out some of these links and learn about an event of which most Americans have never been aware.  I have included links from both sides of the debate over the intentions of this attack.  If you have time, please look through it all and make your own assessment.

Timeline of USS Liberty Attack
Video with Members of the USS Liberty
USS Liberty Memorial
NSA Records of Messages from the USS Liberty
Anti-Defamation League's Assessment of the Attack

Presidential Terms Poll

© Chad Card

The results of the first poll are in and the first thing I have to say is that I hope the percentage of those who voted from the total number of people who visited my blog--especially those from the US, since this is a question more geared towards US citizens--is not indicative of real voting numbers.  If I assume those who voted were all from the US, only 4.5% of people from the US who visited my blog actually placed a vote.  I certainly hope more people participate in the next poll.  It is an easy way for me to gauge the interests and the opinions of those who are visiting.

The results are:
41% of the voters liked the idea of a limit to one term of six years for the president of the United States, 53% wanted to keep the term limits as currently constituted, and 6% thought we should just get rid of term limits altogether.  I'm actually quite intrigued by the one voter who represents the 6% of this poll.  I wonder if the idea would be to allow a situation similar to Senate and House elections, where there are no limits and as long as people keep winning their respective elections they are able to remain in office?  Or possibly the idea is more extreme like a dictatorship.  It is hard to speculate and although I appreciate this individual's vote, I would have to politely disagree with the concept of eliminating presidential term limits.

© Chad Card

There is the old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is my fear that an absence of term limits for the president of the United States, who is still considered the most powerful person in the world, would lead to major corruption in the executive branch of government.  This would not only have horrible repercussions for US citizens, but could potentially wreak havoc on a number of other world nations.  I'm inclined to say that the lack of term limits for senators and representatives has already proven to have corrupted the legislative system and it is this corruption that has produced the ragged state in which we find the US government today, but that is an argument for another day.

It can be argued that the US managed just fine without term limits before the Twenty-second Amendment was passed in 1947 and ratified in 1951, which created the two-term limit for the presidency of the United States.  No president served more than two terms other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to a fourth term, but died within the first year.  Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first president confined by the two-term limit, feared the loss of power  and the lame duck status the term limit would create, but he eventually decided that it gave him more power because he could be seen as acting in the best interest of the country and not to win another election.

The majority of voters (9) would like to see the presidential term limits remain as they are.  Most, if not all, of the people who have visited this blog don't know a US presidency without the term limit set by the Twenty-second Amendment.  They may also feel, like Eisenhower did, that the final term actually provides the president the opportunity to act in the best interest of the country and not for one's own best interest of electability in the future.  Unfortunately, the media has taken to referring to a two-term president as a lame duck and this labeling permeates throughout the consciousness of the masses and, I am sure, also affects the actual productiveness of the president's interactions with the legislative branch.

© Chad Card

If we take this as the general case, then a two-term president ultimately has about 3 1/2 years of productivity.  I'm sure many will disagree with this analysis, but this is how I see it.  The first year of a presidency is spent analyzing the policies and actions of the preceding president and determining what can remain as a part of the new president's vision and what has to go or be exploited to demonstrate how the new president is better than the last one.  This first year is still a year of campaigning to ensure the American people that they made the right choice and hopefully to convince those who voted otherwise of the same thing.  I do not consider this a productive year for the president.  The second year of the first term can definitely be considered a productive year.  There is enough distance between the outgoing and incoming president so that mistakes can no longer be blamed on the prior president (for the most part).  People no longer want to hear about the mistakes of the past, they want to know what the new president is doing to correct things.  As the president moves into the third year, re-election becomes a strong influence in the presidency and decisions are made not based on the best choices for the long-term future of the country, but on what will make the president look good short-term so that a re-election can be secured.  I would say about half of this year is productive.  The fourth year of the first term is spent campaigning for re-election, which makes this by far the least productive year of the presidency.

Now we enter the the second term.  The first two years are probably the most productive out of the 8 years in office.  There is no need to separate oneself from a prior president, policies are already set in motion and the president can continue to work towards achieving one's vision for the country's future.  By the third year, the media begins to talk about the lame duck as the legislative branch looks to ride out the rest of the presidency and looks forward to the new Commander in Chief.  Obviously, if the president's party is the same as the party majority in the House and Senate then the president can be more effective in the last years of one's presidency, but even then, these years tend to be more about maintaining the status quo so that a candidate from the president's party will have a good chance at election.  If the president were to do something extreme and these actions failed, then the chances of the same party remaining in power are ultimately lost.

© Chad Card

This brings us to the final choice presented in this poll.  6 voters and I chose the option of changing the term limit to one term, but extending the years of service from four to six years.  This is my reasoning for such a change.  Like I stated above, the first year of any presidency is a time to weed through everything that has come before and to learn what it really means to be president of the United States.  No one can truly know what this is like and what it entails until one becomes president.  With a six-year term, years 2-5 can be productive and there isn't the large gap in continuity that is created by the need to campaign for re-election or to create policies that only fulfill this short-term goal.  The president would no longer have to campaign while in office and could focus on the true welfare of the nation.  With this change, there is at least the same amount of productive time for the president, possibly more, as there is with a two-term president.  The advantage to the six-year single term presidency is the continuity of the president's administration and eliminating the need to campaign in office, thus eliminating the need to act in one's own self interest instead of the interest of the nation as a whole.


I can see that people like the four-year two-term limit because it potentially shortens the service of a "bad" president if one is unable to win re-election, but I truly believe that such a structure actually gives a president little time to demonstrate one's capacity as president in the first term for the reasons I have already discussed.  I believe the six-year single term offers a better alternative to the problems that occur with the current system while still restricting an individual presidency from the possibility of major corruption.  I look forward to reading any thoughts you may have on what I have presented here.