The Risk of Saving Americans

These days, and perhaps it has always been this way, President Obama can do nothing to impress the ravenous denizens of Washington, aside from resigning. The latest issue plaguing the president is the rescue of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl was held prisoner by the Taliban in Afghanistan for five years, but through talks and a swap of prisoners, he was released back to his country. There are many questions left unanswered about this entire ordeal, but the main complaint is that President Obama negotiated with terrorists, which is a maxim that has become indoctrinated into the American psyche. As will be shown, this blanket statement is untrue, unwise, and unhelpful.

The return of a missing in action U.S. service member is normally a cause for celebration, but that celebration was short lived and Bergdahl has not become an American darling. According to notes sent home to his family, the young sergeant had become disillusioned with the war and questioned America’s involvement in it. What happened next is still undetermined, yet Bergdahl left his post, either on accident or on purpose. While this is a military crime, thinking he did not deserve rescuing for such a notion, goes against every utterance of “leave no man behind’. There is the fact that soldiers died looking for Bergdahl which is heartbreaking, but did he deserve to be left with his captors for such reasons?

Obama’s Balancing Act:

President Obama is consistently called weak by his opponents, yet when he makes a strong move to save an American citizen, he oversteps his boundaries. Obama doesn’t even live on a razor’s edge between right and wrong, because that would imply there is actually a middle ground, free from criticism. Bergdahl was also criticized for his negative views on America and the ‘War on Terror’. The fact that someone in a war, began to hate said war, is as common as soldier’s being afraid of dying. Bergdahl is protected by the sanctity of the first amendment, but because of what he said, he is somehow seen as a “bad” American.

The legal ramifications of Obama’s actions have been received as more troubling than his moral ones, however. Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban members who had been in Guantanamo Bay prison since 2001. This move is being heralded as irresponsible, since the terrorists were reintroduced to the wild and, of course, their next step is to bring revenge against Americans. While this may or may not be true, let’s make an educated bet that America can stop this threat. Regarding all the bravado that is American exceptionalism, politicians act scared whenever there is talk about enemies testing our defenses. America’s military, defense, domestic and international surveillance budgets are astronomically high, so let’s hope they are good enough to stop five washed up terrorists.

There is also the fact that Congress must be told about the removal of Guantanamo prisoners 30 days in advance. The White House apologized for going it alone, a bad precedent to set, but one that meant something will actually get done, since Congress would have shut it down immediately. That is, after all, the only thing they are good at these days. The major foil here is the almighty “the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist” clause. At face value this seems like an easy mandate to follow, but why has this become the norm?

To Deal with Terrorist or Not To Deal with Terrorists:

The historical record shows that the American government has dealt with terrorists in the past to ensure the end of the Iranian hostage crisis as well as many other situations similar to the Bergdahl case. This clause is supposed to show how America is too strong and clear of concious to deal with such dirty enterprises, but this is an unhelpful sentiment. A good foreign policy means that all options are open because American safety is paramount. Time will tell if the President’s decision will cause any more danger, but the immediate results have made one American safer.

Another facet of this issue is the dulling of the warhawk’s notions that every enemy is completely evil. The Taliban are terrible, and have committed atrocities, but this small sign of decency adds a dash of humanity to their image and, for most Americans, it is a lot easier to fight monsters. The Taliban should not be off the hook for all they’ve done, though perhaps this swap has credited the smallest bit of goodwill that could blossom in the future.

It’s hard to call this a shrewd political move because of all the fallout, except President Obama did accomplish some political goals with the swap. The issue of the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a sore reminder of failed initiatives that candidate Obama endorsed. Yet, Obama has lessened the amount of prisoners currently being held indefinitely, while saving an American soldier. If more deals like this could be made to end the human rights violation that is Gitmo Prison, while saving Americans abroad, the decision should be repeated. But in such a toxic political climate, this was probably the first and last time.

Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers call him a deserter and want him court martialed. Politicians on both sides of the aisle criticized the President’s decision to protect his citizens. Yet, an American’s life was saved. It’s sad that a scared young man, who has been through unspeakable hells, might have been better off in the clutches of terrorists instead of back in his country.

Russian Aggression: The Two State Solution

Violence and tensions are on the rise in Ukraine, as government forces clash with pro-Russian separatist groups.  This fledgling civil war all started in November of 2013 when the Ukrainian President backed away from a deal with the European Union due to pressure emanating out of the Kremlin.  Like a Cold-War flashback, a country had to decide between the West or the Soviets, and the results of such a choice always leave a country split.

The current Russian Czar, Vladimir Putin, has already wrestled control of Crimea away from Ukraine by deploying troops to the small region.  Now parts of Eastern Ukraine want to join the Russian Federation as well, bringing the country to the brink of collapse.  Putin’s aggressive actions should not be tolerated, but the issue of state sovereignty and autonomous rights make this entire geopolitical situation a learning lesson for the rest of the world.

No One Likes a Bully:

Belligerent invasion or subversive incitement should be condemned by the international community, and America has firmly backed this stance.  While this notion is hypocritical, it is also the correct path to take. The issue of sanctions are widely debated, but the Russian economy is momentarily weak from external pressures in response to it’s bullying behavior.  The Russian dictator’s strong handed moves are hurting Soviet credibility abroad, while President Obama’s even handed approach shows how far American foreign relations have progressed since George W. Bush. No one likes being bossed around or dealing with a bully, which is what Putin thrives on and Obama shies away from. Of course, the American conservatives have openly praised Putin’s strong leadership style to criticize Obama.

A masculinity complex from a bygone era has permeated the American Republican party.  It’s clear they were raised on John Wayne movies as children, and continue to think the toughest guy in the room is the best one.  There’s a time to be strong and Obama has often come up short in this aspect, but you can’t always be the bully waving your clenched fists around.

The Problem with Arbitrary Lines:

Having already gained control of Crimea, Czar Putin has begun destabilizing farther into the Ukraine.  Above is a CNN map which, surprisingly, is not of the Indian Ocean, but instead shows the cultural divide within the current border of Ukraine. Pro-Russian groups have seized government buildings and, according to the American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, these actions are “tell-tale signs” of Russian involvement.

The pro-Russian groups are wearing masks and do not have any markings on their uniforms, but it seems they match those worn by similar forces in Crimea.

Russia has troops on the eastern border of Ukraine which will either be used in an open act of war or, more than likely, are there to give the pro-Russian dissidents a sense of support.  WIth the clear divide between the two cultures, a two state solution may be the way to end the bloodshed.

A proposed split should come about through democratic votes like those conducted in Crimea, free from external or secret internal pressures.  Most would say that Russia is influencing these decisions, which very well may be true, but those Russian identifying Ukrainians deserve to be their own autonomous region, free to align with whomever they want.  Empires are a thing of the past and large, multiethnic and multireligious countries could very well be the next to inevitably splinter.  America is the shining example of how this isn’t true, but the clear divides of the population in the U.S. are bringing effective governance to a standstill.

Fifty years from now a world map will look much different than it does today, as more countries split up in favor of a more like minded, concentrated area.  Those looking for a new world order or those with a belief in growing cosmopolitan regions, will be disappointed by increased secessions. If the eastern part of Ukraine wants to secede to be apart of Putin’s Russian bloc then let them go.  Western Ukraine can become their own entity with close ties to the European Union.  It seems like a win-win.  Why does the world hold so much stock in these vast and multifaceted conglomerates called nation states?  Most were created arbitrarily and can disappear arbitrarily.

Russia should not be let off the hook for creating chaos and furthering bloodshed, but if the way out of this is a two state solution then so be it.  As long as Putin is in power, which could be forever, this type of aggressive foreign policy will continue.  Macho masculinity is not a practical, logical, or helpful way to run a nation. Let this be a warning to future world leaders that you can be strong without resorting to macho tactics.

The Middle East Stories: Progress and Regression

There’s always news coming out of the world’s most tumultuous region, but a few stories regarding Islam and the Middle East have piqued interest as of late. People’s views on Islam and Arab culture have been solidified by extreme events of terrorism and vitriolic rhetoric that the world should know only represents a small minority. Islam is an old, complex religion that cannot be reduced to stereotype and oversimplifications.

These two stories hail from different Muslim majority nations and help to highlight the intricacy of the region. There are no two countries that are the same and not even a shared religion solidifies similar policy. The cases described below help frame the evolving nature of Arab culture, its relationship with Islam, and it’s compatibility with 21st century human rights issues.

Lebanon Makes Human Rights Progress:

Earlier this month in Lebanon, a judge struck down a notorious piece of legislation that makes homosexual sex a crime. The law in question was Article 534 of the Lebanese Penal Code and it states that “sexual intercourse contrary to nature” is a punishable offense. Abolishing this law is a progressive achievement in the Middle East and Islamic world, but it should not be as big of a surprise if one looks at Lebanese demographics:

• 54% Muslim population
• 39% Christian
• 6% Druze

With the best percentages of religious diversity in the area, Lebanon is one of the most accepting of human rights. WIth more diversity and coexisting, tolerance forms.

In regards to Article 534, the decision was built off of a 2009 precedent case where the judge ruled that sexual relations between two consenting homosexuals was not against nature because “man is part of nature and is one of its elements, so it cannot be said that any one of his practices, or any one of his behaviors goes against nature, even if it is criminal behavior, because it is nature’s ruling.”
What a remarkably secular and rational explanation, if only other parts of the Muslim world could adopt such views. Even many American’s could learn something from that.

According to a PEW study in 2013 60% of Americans believe society should accept homosexuality but 45% of the country still think it’s a sin. No data could be found about American’s views on punishment but, more than likely, the number would be extremely low.

Unfortunately, other parts of the Muslim world do have opinions on punishment for homosexuality and they are harsh. There are forty-nine Muslim majority countries on Earth and all but a handful have laws in which homosexuality is illegal as this map from the Washington Post displays.

Out of all those countries, ten enforce the death penalty for homosexuality which is in accordance with Sharia law. It is disheartening to see many countries still using archaic rules that trample on human rights, but hopefully countries like Lebanon become beacons of hope for the region and the religion.

Saudi Arabia Sees Enemies Everywhere:

Within the past week, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia took drastic steps in labeling enemies of the state. This new law, or rather, this new royal decree, sets up a system where just about any thought or action against the state is considered a terrorist activity. But it isn’t just things contrary to the state, it also expands to anything threatening Islam.

As a theocracy, Saudi Arabia combines church and state which leaves very little wiggle room for opposition. Any dissent against Islam is dissent against the state and vice versa. This dangerous stance basically abolishes free speech and tosses liberties aside with reckless abandon. Also at stake is religious freedom which has subsequently become non-existent overnight.

With one broad stroke the kingdom labeled its enemies, creating dire circumstances for many with disparate beliefs. One such endangered minority are atheists. Nonbelievers are now terrorists even if they’re committed to the monarchy and its aims.

This repression of religious, rather, non-religious freedom does a great disservice to Islam. There are parts of the faith that are not kind to non-Muslims, but most modern day moderates have no problem with those outside of their faith. Now an entire Muslim country with close ties to America has quelched freedoms that are commonplace in all of the world’s developed countries.

According to Human Rights Watch, the language in the decree is very disconcerting. The law states anyone “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” is subject to punishment. Is this an Orwellian example of thoughtcrime?

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim majority country that practices a special sect of Islam called Wahhabism. Wahhabism, as one could probably have guessed by now, is an ultra conservative viewpoint. The move is shocking, but not without logic by the Saudis. As Brian Whitaker of the Arab news blog “al-Bab”  states, “since the entire system of government is based on Wahhabi interpretations of Islam, non-believers are assumed to be enemies of the Saudi state”. The rationale is there for an autocratic monarchy to maintain dominion over their populous, but this is not representative view.

A 2012 WIN/Gallup International poll found that almost 25% of Saudis described themselves as not religious. Over that group, 5% declared themselves outright atheists. Going off of those statistics, a quarter of the population could be considered enemy combatants. Those numbers are important and larger than the Saudi kingdom would like to admit, but the monarchy will probably ignore those numbers and continue to rule on their own narrow terms.

The ebb and flow of progress is indicative of an always changing set of societies that place value in disparate discordant entities. Yet, there should be something all countries of the world agree on: freedom of equality. Lebanon needs to continue to press for equality, while Saudi Arabia needs to guarantee freedoms for all their citizens. A tight grip on people led to the Arab Spring, so thinking a tighter one to be beneficial will definitely become a problem in the kingdom.

A ‘Peaceful’ March

March of 2014 is the first month since January 2007 that there were no combat-related deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan.  It seems a bit somber that a death free month is cause to celebrate. Certainly this news is a blessing for military members and the country at large, but some are framing this month as a sign of American supremacy.

The above picture is obviously not indicative of every single citizen’s view of the milestone, but it is still representative of a mindset that’s troubling.  A month where no soldier dies in combat shouldn’t be viewed as a sign of strength and efficiency of the military.  It should be viewed as a sign of what can be achieved when you decide not to fight.  It is not an American victory but a victory for peace in general.

A Wartime Review:

While it has not been the costliest fatality wise, due to technology and tactics, the war in Afghanistan has been the longest.  It has been over twelve years since America first invaded, kicked the Taliban out of power, and established a quasi-democratic government.  These results seem great except for the fact its all coming unraveled, only to intensify after American withdrawal by 2015.

So yes, it is a great feat that no American combat forces died in March, but fourteen have died so far in 2014 according to iCasualties.   There has not been as peaceful a month since January 2007 and July 2002 before that.  When was the last time that there were two consecutive combat fatality free months?  All the way back in August-September of 2001, which should come as no surprise because, after that, American military interests went off the rails.

Hopefully, due to the withdrawal of troops, there are no further fatalities overseas, but that should not excuse all the deaths that happened throughout the struggle in the Muslim world.

According to the Pentagon, 2,312 military members died in Afghanistan and 4,423 died in Iraq.  The American lives lost hurt the entire country, but it pales in comparison to the 13,000 Afghan police and soldiers who died during the American occupation.

The withdrawal of American troops will only bring more casualties for Afghan forces who undoubtedly face another civil war, but the American public clamors for peace.  As shown below, a February Gallup poll shows just how different the U.S. feels about war as compared to 2001, the immediate aftermath of the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks. Americans are getting what they want and a death free month supports their wishes, but the fatalities of our troops abroad are nothing compared to the ones at home.

The War Goes On:

It is known that the soldier can leave the battlefield, but they will forever be fighting those battles within their minds and lives.  So the question now becomes, when will America have a veteran suicide free month?  A big task for sure, but one this country is woefully abysmal at trying to solve.

In a sobering factual article about veteran mortality rates, the Huffington Post pulled from the Department of Veteran Affairs the fact that, in 2012, there were twenty two veteran suicides each day.  By that number, there are about 660 veteran deaths every month. That means 7,920 veterans will commit suicide in a year.  What makes all those numbers worse?  They’re based off of just twenty one reporting states so the numbers are most likely much higher.  It must be noted that the majority of veteran suicides are by people fifty years of age and above, thus making them veterans of earlier conflicts but the statistics remain.  Sadly, this number will rise with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. If the men and women who are coming back now make it to age fifty, will the rates be even higher than they are now?

It is paramount that, with the end of war, those who fought are cared for appropriately.  America has a terrible history in regards to veterans affairs and this has to change. Every single politicians wants favorable outcomes in this arena, but still nothing major is undertaken to improve the lives of returning soldiers.  We should have learned two lessons from the past decade plus of war:

1. You have to be able to pay for it before you start

2. You have to be able to pay for it after you finish

It is morally hideous that suicide rates are as high as they are amongst veterans.  A month of peace is significant but dwarfed by the trauma within our own borders. Here’s hoping for more combat free fatality months and, to push even further, combat fatality free years.  Unfortunately, with escalations in the Ukraine, who knows how long this positive trend will last.

If you are a veteran in need of help, or know one who does, please call the veteran crisis hotline: 1-800-273-8255

Climate Change: Go Down Swingin’

In the Northeast the cold seems to finally be subsiding, giving way to warmth and Spring. Many would think such a prolonged and bitter Winter is proof that global warming is overblown or incorrect. It should be clear by now that global warming makes seasons more intense instead of eliminating any cold weather all together.

Yet, there is a still a large portion of the United States population, and elected officials, that have made up their minds: “It’s cold out, the seasons are acting normally”.

It’s odd, you would think most of those people are used to believing in something thats not always seen. Such denials are so widespread and evident that there must be tons of scientific and scholarly research to back up such claims. Of course there is not. The graph below shows just how harmonious the academic community is in regards to global warming.

Evidence Over Intuition:

Science thrives on disagreement and revision, but that does not exist in the field of climate change. Business Insider details how the graph that proves such a notion was constructed.

The creator, James Powell, is an MIT-trained geochemist, college professor, and served as a member of the National Science Board under Reagan and Bush Sr. His methodology encapsulated searching for all published studies in 2013 that mention keywords like “climate change” and “global warming” which yielded 10,885 papers. Of over ten thousand papers, only two from 2013 stated that global warming wasn’t a man made problem. Those sort of numbers are staggering. As Business Insider puts it, that’s a split of 99.99-.01%. You hear of disputes in the scientific community over these subjects, but that is a downright lie meant to coerce the gullible into avoiding the facts. Science has made up its mind.

Too Big To Deny:

In the past decade, Hollywood has produced enough movies depicting a post-apocalyptic Earth that one should have no trouble conjuring up the images of barren wastelands. In a study funded-but not endorsed by- NASA, author Safa Motesharrei makes the claim that our society is facing the same collapse scenarios that brought down the great empires of the past. It is known how certain societies like the Roman Empire and the Mayans came to their end but now a model has been constructed to show us our future.

All complex societies are impermanent and their destruction is based off of an imbalance. According to Motesharrei there are two key issues that cause societal collapse. They are the “stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity” and the “economic stratification of society into Elites and Masses” (as a side note, the methodology is fascinating and is worth checking out).

The wealth gap will be covered extensively in the future but the resource crisis needs immediate review. If a society cannot feed itself in the present with no viable technology to produce food in the future, than disintegration is imminent. Global warming’s disastrous effects on arable farm land, impact on animal species as part of ecosystems, and reliance on cheaper, more unhealthy methods of food production, fits this resource scare perfectly.

The end times are not here yet because the study does not give a timetable, but don’t get complacent. The paper insists that it is not too late to change our ways and ward off extinction. This is far more possible to humans in 2014 than previous generations because of our abundance of technology. History repeats itself but we can ward off past mistakes by inventing, investing, and invigorating the scientific community to keep humans prospering into the future.

It is in this arena that America can once again lead the world. While we are behind other advanced countries in measures of sustainability, it is not too late. The tides have been turning lately, perfectly setting up President Obama to push for another legacy project. Russian aggression leads to avoiding foreign oil. Consumer demands for cleaner food helps put resources in perspective. Clean energy sources have never been cheaper. America has rescued the world before when calamity struck, lets hope we do so again before it’s too late. For the deniers out there, why not go down swinging?

Long Term View on CPC Straw Poll Results

A little under two weeks ago the Conservative Political Action Committee held its yearly gala and, once again, it was full of newsworthy stories. It might seem like the ultimate goal of this conference is to strengthen the message that America is the best country on earth and many evils, both domestic and abroad, are trying to change that. As if anyone there thought differently.

The real aim is to crown a victor, a precursor to the presidency, that gets a huge profile bump and gives news agencies a reason to talk about presidential elections that are often years away.

This year’s straw poll winner (for the second time) was libertarian leader and Kentucky Congressman Rand Paul. While not the most wild of outcomes, there is a part of Representative Paul that does not exactly jive with his conservative and republican brethren. But before we get there, let’s take a look at some CPAC history.

Big Tent for Like Minded People:

The conference was first started in 1973 by various groups of conservatively minded individuals. Over the years, it has grown immensely with as many as 10,000 people in attendance. It was originally held every four years but, in 2005, it gave way to annual scheduling. With this switch to a yearly meeting the media hype around the event grew. There have been twenty conferences and, at twelve of those events, the patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, spoke. I don’t want to say the word cult but I just did. The speeches often remain the same but the accolades are what matter. Besides the straw poll, there are five other awards given out:

• The Ronald Reagan Award: This illustrious award is dedicated to a conservative activist.

• The Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Word (JKAFW for short): This goes to a conservative educator.

• The Defender of the Constitution Award: Awarded to the biggest defender of the Constitution.

• The conservative Blogger of the Year Award

• The Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award: I believe this goes to the person who brings the most guns to the event.

Those awards are great and all, but the straw poll is where real worth is found and, in the twenty event history, there have only been eleven winners.

Mitt Romney has the all time record with four wins. Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp tie for second with three wins respectively. With this latest win, Rand ties his father Ron Paul with two wins each. Most likely Rand will pull ahead next year as his star continues to rise.
According to the official CPAC PDF file, the straw poll voting rules are thus:

• Ballots are collected from Thursday morning up until Saturday afternoon,
• Only registered attendees can vote,
• All 50 states and DC are represented.

With conservative citizens from every state, there is a wide array of similar mindsets, but the amount of votes, and what they represent, is surprising. With 10,000 people in attendance, only 2,459 votes were cast which is under 25%. Why so few? Can these people be that anti-establishment?

Even with a low turnout there are still results. There were only two candidates who garnered more than 10% of the vote, Rand Paul (31%) and Ted Cruz (11%). Eleven other contestants received around 2%..

The amount of diversity is heartening to see. It makes sense that the hero of liberty, Rep. Paul, won the straw poll, but its implications for the 2016 presidential race are worth visiting.

There is almost no correlation between who wins the straw poll and who gets nominated for president, but let’s buck the trend.

Foreign Policy Role Reversals:

The most redeeming quality in Rep. Paul, which his father also possesses, is his stance on war, the military, and the industrial complex therein. The Republican party nominating an anti-war candidate would be a shocking choice. Perhaps anti-war is too strong for Paul but compared to his warhawk republican colleagues, he’s a downright pacifist. One could call Ron Paul an isolationist and it was thought Rand shared these views, but he has softened as the spotlight has shifted onto him and his future. In an interview on Huffington Post about a year ago, Paul waffles back and forth about the abolishment of foreign military bases. He then goes on to despair about American presence in other countries like Afghanistan (after such a long occupation). It is known that the American public grew tired of the war in Afghanistan much quicker than the politicians, but there are still some in charge who never want war to end.

Paul is against nation building which flies in the face of the Bush neocons. To Paul’s credit, his foreign policy seems very selective. He disavows the broad notion of America policing the globe, but are his constituents across the country going to buy that?

Of course, if he does get the nomination he will drift more towards the middle ground as is customary. But the true ideals he believes in will be brought forward and will appeal to many. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, could the Republicans actually be running a candidate who favors peace more so than the Democrats? The conservatives relish any chance they get to call Obama ‘soft’, but what happens if their candidate actually runs as a ‘softie’? Could the unthinkable happen? Would the Democrats tout their candidate as the strong (wo)man and lament about a weak Republican white house? What about the military industrial complex and it’s vast coffers lining the pockets of politicians on both sides? Could such a contingent doom Paul’s semi-isolationist policy?

If any of these questions come near the truth, then the 2016 primaries, and eventual presidential race, will be a referendum on America’s standing in the world. With foreign competition militarily and economically challenging U.S. directly and indirectly, America’s superiority hasn’t been tested this stringently in a very long time.