As the war in Afghanistan creeps towards the nine-year mark (-from ~Oct. 2001), strategists and policymakers are realizing that a war on terror cannot succeed through a military-based strategy. First, let me clarify that for me, insurgents and terrorists are two different categories. Although the military has seen some successes in Afghanistan and Iraq in achieving regional stability, counter-insurgency operations require one commodity that the United States has comparatively less of than the insurgents, and that’s time-but I’ll save counter-insurgency (COIN) topics for another post.

One key problem with counter-terrorism operations is that terrorism is universal; it is not confined to a particular religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Piracy could even be considered an act of terrorism, as the tactics of terror and violence are often used to achieve a particular result (often a large ransom).

The United States cannot expect a stable, democratic Afghanistan to achieve global security. In fact, military force should hardly be an option towards combating terrorism. Often, terror groups will use military occupation or operations as recruitment tools  in stirring up the indigenous population or target group, and this result is certainly not what one would want of their efforts to counter terrorism abroad. What the United States needs to focus on is removing the conditions for popularity and recruitment. Often, recruits grow up in impoverished or less than ideal conditions. Perhaps they turn to local schools or programs to offer socializing or food. These programs may be sponsored or directly run by terrorist organizations, in turn, the members often get recruited from programs like these. Recruiters for these terrorist organizations likely use the surrounding decreptitude to illustrate their message. I would say that one who is content with their situation would be less likely to turn towards those kinds of groups without being unduly exposed and indoctrinated towards those groups.

As Tiger Woods’ personal life comes into the media stream and into the public eye, many of Tiger’s sponsors have withdrawn from supporting Tiger, likely from pressure to distance themselves from Tiger until the situation cools down (or until Tiger resumes the sport of golf). Tiger Woods was the highest paid athlete ever before taking his “indefinite” leave from the sport of golf, so he isn’t going to suffer all that much from taking a break from the sport for a year or two.

On one hand, Tiger’s actions were unfitting for a professional of his caliber, on the other hand, his personal life and athletic career should be two separate matters. I don’t support or condone what Tiger had been doing, but I believe that the incessant coverage of the story by every facet of the media was to blame for blowing this ordeal out of proportion. Unlike, say… a politician, who absolutely needs the public’s trust and of which integrity and good character are principles of the utmost importance, Tiger Woods’ career was simply athletic-depending on his ability to perform on the golf course and of which good character matters very little on the performance of the game (other than perhaps cheating or lying directly in the game, affecting the outcome). My point is that Tiger’s actions outside of the sport of golf shouldn’t have been so dramatic as to cause him to lose many of his sponsors and endorsements.

The US recently became aware of a secret Iranian nuclear uranium enrichment facility. The US demands Iran allow UN inspectors full access to the facility to gauge its intentions. The existence of the facility without proper disclosure to international authorities leaves many to believe Iran was trying to maintain a hidden nuclear facility for weapons development. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke, “It would have been disclosed if it were for peaceful purposes.” To make the situation worse, Iran recently test-fired long-range missiles. This only reinforces the common assertion that Iran, indeed, has some military ambition for its nuclear program to be weaponized.

The General Assembly of the UN has drawn some recent attention from the media. Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libyan de facto leader, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, both held speeches at the General Assembly and raised controversy in and out of the General Assembly. Gaddafi had trouble finding a place to stay, eventually pitching a tent in land rented by Donald Trump. Residents of the area protested against this.

For Ahamdinejad, once again, diplomats began leaving due to anti-semitic remarks and some diplomats simply didn’t show up such as Israel and Canada. As for Gaddafi, his 100-minute speech spanned subjects from the JFK assassination to swine flu. The attention from the media focused around the “circus” nature of what seemed to be pointless banter. Obama’s speech was likely the only understandable one.

I’m sure you’ve all heard something over Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s speech to Congress over reforming health care. Rep. Joe Wilson, a South Carolina Republican yelled “You Lie!” during Obama’s speech when discussing that the plan wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Democrats wish that Rep. Wilson apologize on the House floor; Wilson says he already apologized to Obama and said he would not apologize again. Wilson has drawn criticism from both parties for what many are saying was disorderly and improper conduct.

Do you believe Wilson was out of place? Do you think he should apologize on the House floor?

"YOU LIE!"

08.17.09

China on Oil Spree

Posted in Uncategorized at 5:13 am by Allan Lee

Every growing economy needs a sustainable supply of oil in order to flourish. China is no exception. With more and more people consuming gasoline in China more sources of oil are needed. China is looking everywhere, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Angola, and Iraq.  A global energy analyst at Eurasia Group said, “They are sitting on a huge pile of cash and they’re using this as a buying opportunity.”

It is believed that, in addition to boosting China’s oil supply for continued oil consumption and demand, China is also using this opportunity to spend its vast pile of US dollars that many worry will drastically shrink in value.

I noticed one thing while eating at a Korean BBQ recently. There is a key difference between Western and Eastern cultured restaurants other than the atmosphere and dishes. The difference is how they give the menus. In Western restaurants I’d expect everyone in the table to receive their own menu, whereas in Asian restaurants( likely ones actually in Asia rather than Asian restaurants in the West) only one person receives a menu-normally the head of the family or group. This is a subtle culture difference I only noticed recently. This is one culture difference that shows how Eastern cultures likely put an increased emphasis on the head of the household as one who would traditionally make decisions for the entire group. I would obviously have to do more research into possibly why there is this distinction between Western and Eastern restaurants.

Al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, recently issued a message to Pakistanis and many muslims in general. It was essentially a call to support Al Qaeda and jihad-nothing really new there. What I make of this latest message is a rallying cry. I think the regional organization of Al Qaeda is desperate. With Al Qaeda admitting to the effectiveness of American UAV tactics, I believe the regionally-based group is likely falling apart. Of course, Al Qaeda operates around the globe with recent growth seen in Africa.

On June 30, the US plans to withdraw troops from Iraqi cities, leaving the task to the ISF (Iraqi Security Force). US forces will still remain throughout the area conducting combat operations and advising the Iraqis and they transition responsibility to the local Iraqi forces. Many officials suspect an increase in violence across Iraq leading up to combat troop withdrawal from the cities and towns.

One thing I never understood was that if these insurgents wanted to the United States to leave as quickly as possible, then why would they bog down American forces and cause instability forcing the American military to continue operating until conditions improved. Perhaps they figured that after enough violence and death the American public opinion would wane (i guess that’s already happened to an extent where the majority wish to see an end to an American presence in Iraq- we are gradually withdrawing and shifting responsibility to the Iraqi government). I just figured that we would have likely left years ago had the violence died down and the Iraqis taken initiative with taking control.

News coverage regarding Afghanistan these days can rarely be seen or heard without mention of its neighbor Pakistan as well. In recent weeks, the Taliban has gained more control in the region. Now, talks are underway between Hamid Karzai, President Obama, and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to negotiate further cooperation in combating the growing Taliban threat. Karzai stressed the importance of infrastructure building in Afghanistan as a key role in combating the insurgency. More attention is being brought to Pakistan due to recent gains by the Taliban in nearing the capital of Islamabad. However, many argue over whether or not the Taliban poses a serious threat to Pakistan’s government.

Overall, the battlefields have shifted and the new front is Pakistan. While the Taliban operates in Afghanistan as well, Pakistan will likely play an ever larger part in combating the Taliban in the years to come. The US is already slated for the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, which would allocate roughly $7 billion towards nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years.