A New Chapter

As the war ends and American troops leave the Middle East, new goals are made as well as a forming partnership between the two nations.

"'Our goal is simply to make sure Iraq succeeds, because we think a successful, democratic Iraq can be a model for the entire region,' Obama said."

To do so, Obama told the Iraqi prime minister that they will build up trade relations, support the building up of Iraq's democratic capacity, help Iraq rebuild its air force, and possibly help in training Iraqi troops

"The U.S. goal 'is a sovereign Iraq that can protect its borders, protect its airspace, protect its people,' Obama said."

In order to help achieve its goals, nonmilitary U.S. personnel will remain in Iraq.

So could this truly be the start of a "new chapter" as Obama says?

Droning on about Drones

Earlier this week, a main force in the al Qaida movement, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed as the result of a drone (here and here). The drone was obviously effective and useful so what's the big deal?

First of all, Awlaki was an American citizen. That in itself is a big deal and for the U.S. to kill a citizen without due process is shocking. However, this has been defended by using a quote from Lincoln: "the U.S. could 'treat its own citizens as enemies when they take up arms in rebellion.'"

For a couple of years now, drone warfare has been a topic of debate. Mainly, the legality of it. Should the U.S. continue to use drones even though the UNHRC has said that it needs to stop? The Obama administration continues to support drone warfare despite this. After all, drone warfare is considerably cheaper than sending in humans, and we have less causalities on our part.

I personally am against drone warfare as a little mistake in a calculation can lead the drone off target and kill innocent people. And, drones give the U.S. a considerable advantage and so if our enemy at the time decides to use it wouldn't it lead to another arms race and we'd experience MAD all over again? The main thing that concerns me is the large advantage that we have as a result. Wouldn't this advantage simply turn the U.S. into a killing machine because we can fairly accurately kill anyone we want at any time we want?

Some further reading here and here. Video below.

Value of the Olympics

In years past, Olympic games have been suspended during wartime, and countries participating in wars did not participate. During World War Two, the Olympics were suspended for twelve years. This year, the United States participated even though we have an ongoing "War on Terror."

If we consider this a war, then why are we still competing?

The media has exaggerated our presence in the country compared to past wars because of it's decreasing popularity. Our presence in Iraq isn't necessarily a war, it's an attempt at fixing a big mess we've created by overthrowing the government, which was arguably necessary. We're calling this a "War on Terror" to try to unite the country by making it seem like we have a clear mission in the Middle East, even though most of it is trying to convince ourselves and the rest of the world that we will remain global superpowers. The Olympics give countries a sense of patriotism and pride in a time that it's fairly obviously needed. People are losing faith in the government because of the failing economy, and are looking to find a new reason to love their country.

Taliban Leader says U.S. is in Defeat

In a transcript of the message posted Wednesday on the Afghan jihadi online magazine Al-Somod, the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar said "You and your allies are facing an absolute defeat, and nothing will change that even if you send more troops, no matter what your strategies are, because the logic of force will have no impact on the mujahedeen and you will never be able to control the Afghan people by physical force or by your satanic hypocrisy."

In March, the president ordered more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. This really scares me. Are we just fighting a losing battle? Do you think sending more troops to will help? Or was this message just sent to manipulate and scare the American people? How seriously do you think the government will or should react to this message? It's pretty frightening.

Enough is enough

"If the president should listen to McChrystal and adopt a troop "surge," the question remains: How many is enough?"

Currently the United States has around 48,000 troops in Afghanistan not including Iraq. General Stanley McChrystal plans to put 40000 more troops into the area to help keep things "under control."

But is there a point to all the troops going into Afghanistan? Will the 40,000 US troops make a difference in subduing the insurgencies going on?

The current state in Afghanistan has gotten to point where it is nearly a civil war. Although Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War claims that the extra 40,000 troops may reduce the amount of violence in the country, I feel that adding the 40,000 may not help the overall of the war. Sooner or later, the US will have to pull out because our economy won't be able to support our troops there and the insurgents aren't just going to fall back and retreat just because we added in a more troops.

Just last week, eight more US soldiers were killed fighting hundreds of insurgents in the lower areas of the Nuristan province. If we add 40,000 more troops, what's stopping the insurgents from rallying up even more people to help "fight the US" off?

As Rep. Jim McGovern says, " We need to come up with a strategy that includes an exit strategy, because it'll also put pressure on the government of Afghanistan to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far."

Night of the Living Taliban

(I would read this post on the Taliban before reading the article, if you choose to do so.)
With the assurance that all combat operations will end in Iraq by late 2010, and that our troops will be evacuated by 2011, President Obama now refocuses American foreign policy and troops on fighting the problems in Afghanistan. However, the situation in Afghanistan is much like having a house whose occupants you evicted, you left for a while to deal with other houses and now those original occupants are back and bugging the current owners. Apparently, the Taliban are back and causing enormous problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But first, a little history of the Taliban (because I think it's important for later on):
The Taliban (which sort of means "religious students") started as a mujahideen ("holy warriors") group back when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. When the Soviets retreated, the Soviet-backed government had hard times trying to control the conflicting mujahideen and ultimately failed into obscurity around the early 90s, letting Afghanistan fall into the hands of corrupt warlords holding sway over their local territories. The Taliban up to this point, had been composed of various factions of religious students who had fought the Soviet occupation but were still unorganized and unpowerful when they were separated. However, in 1994, the Taliban united under the local faction of religious students in the city of Kandahar, taking that city, then began a push that eventually ended up with the now united Taliban capturing the capital city of Kabul and thus taking control of Afghanistan in 1996. At the head of the Taliban was a fierce cyclops of a man, Muhammed Omar, a one-eyed cleric who believed devoutly in the practices of Islam. He imposed Sharia, or Muslim law, over Afghanistan, banning education or other rights for women and supporting terrorists in the country. But yet, most citizens were relieved to see him come because he took power from the corrupt warlords and restored a sense of peace and trade to the region that it badly needed. Situations in the country deteriorated under the Taliban's rule, but Afghanistan WAS united (for the most part) rather than involved in an all out civil war. The Taliban continued in their oppressive peace from 1996 until 2001, when the United States invaded and took them out for harboring Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ("the base" for those who don't know) in their country. The United States forced the Taliban out of power by aiding the opposing northern alliance of Afghan tribes and by bombing key Taliban military installations. The Taliban fell out of power and the new government, led by a funny-hat wearing man by the name of Karzai, seemed fit to rule instead. We thought that the Taliban was dead. Most of their leaders had been killed or had fled, and the Taliban as a whole seemed to have lost all power. We thought wrong. While the United States was fighting for six years in Iraq, the Taliban had come back from the dead, like very determined zombies. Violence and attacks by the Taliban have been increasing annually, with two NATO troops being killed just today in a car bombing. Their ties to Al-Qaeda have only strengthened and they are making a comeback. Yet, now that the Iraq War is (hopefully) winding to a close with the agreements that we will have our troops out within a year or two, the United States is ready to come back into Afghanistan and kick some ass! But it's not as simple as we found it. We can't just focus on Afghanistan if the Obama Administration is serious about taking down Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who support them. There's a problem, though, in that the Taliban and the majority of their ethnic make-up, the Pashtuns, have very strong ties to not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan. We didn't eradicate the Taliban, we just let them slip through our fingers into Pakistan where they've been gaining strength and occasionally mounting attacks into Afghanistan. Muhammed Omar, the cyclops leader of the Taliban, still eludes capture and the Taliban themselves guarunteed a safe haven for themselves while we were busy dealing with the climax of violence in Iraq, around late 2006 to early 2007. In those years, ex-president of Pakistan Musharref ("friend" of the United States) signed a deal saying the Taliban could hold sovereignty and rule over the area they had been basing in, including the Pakistani city of Quetta, which seems to be the stronghold of the group. Fans of the agreement argue that it contains the Taliban and helps prevent more factions from springing up elsewhere. Critics say it gives the Taliban and thus, also Al-Qaeda, a base of operations. However, this region and the city of Quetta are where "Cyclops" Omar and the rest of the Taliban have been planning against the new Afghan government and the resurging United States' plans of operation. The Pakistani government (without Musharref now) have seemed ambivalent towards the Taliban living within their borders. The Taliban have fought against the established government and caused trouble for the current leaders. And thus, according the the BBC, "Mr Obama has pledged substantial economic assistance for Pakistan - more than $1bn (£684m) annually over the next five years - but the money will depend on the army's performance against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. " While Obama was at the G20 conference and touring Europe, he sent special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the capitals of the those respective countries to "clarify Washington's thinking" and guaruntee the funding to the Pakistani Government. However, at the same time, according to the New York Times, "American officials say that Pakistan's military intelligence agency has continued to offer money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban forces in Afghanistan as a proxy to help shape a friendly government there once American forces leave." Pakistan's government refuses to be resolute on where it stands and could become a threat to the United States when we start to focus our efforts on destroying Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Afghan War might just expand to be the Afghan-Pakistani War and destroying the terrorist organization and capturing Osama Bin Laden could become bigger than just "refocusing our troops in Afghanistan."
Obama "unveiled a new strategy which suggested both Afghanistan and Pakistan needed to be fully engaged in the confrontation if the militants were to be defeated." (BBC) The presence of the Taliban in Pakistan is a big threat to the United States for two reasons: one) The Taliban have been closely interconnected with Al-Qaeda for decades, and their presence in Pakistan means there is an Al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan. and two) their presence in Pakistan gives a major base of operations to oppose any economic prosperity and peace United States' troops could fight for in Afghanistan.

I wanted to make sure people understood the background if this war gets bigger. Couple of questions though: Should we continue to fund Pakistan when we know there performance against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been shaky in the past? Would it be reasonable for the United States to expand it's war against terror into Pakistan, or would we be disrespecting the rules of internation law and sovereignty by exercising our own views and wills on a certain group? What should we do and how much power do we have to eliminate threats like terror in other people's countries? and to that same effect, what right do we have to carry on with drone attacks in Pakistan, and what does that show if our attacks are inhuman?

My information on the Taliban came from my own memory and summaries from the New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/) and infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html). The future plans of the Obama administration came from the article from the BBC and from the administration's website (whitehouse.gov).

Trade and War in Canada

President Barack Obama stepped cautiously in his first foreign trip Thursday, refraining from asking Canada to rethink its plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and saying changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement can wait.
In a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama acknowledged that he has said NAFTA does too little to protect U.S. workers and the environment. Canada, the United State's largest trading partner, is leery of changes to the deal.
Robust trade helps both nations, Obama said. Noting that NAFTA has side agreements on labor and the environment, he added: "If those side agreements mean anything, then they might as well be incorporated into the main body of the agreements so that they can be effectively enforced." He said he hopes there eventually will be a way to do so "that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationships" between the two nations.
Both leaders said that as economies around the world face challenges, it's important for the U.S. and others to resist calls for protectionism.

In Afghanistan, Canada plans to pull its 2,500 combat troops from the volatile south in 2011, following the loss of more than 100 troops killed in the country since 2001. Obama is headed the other direction, dispatching 17,000 more U.S. troops to the war zone.
Obama said Thursday he did not press Harper to reconsider. He said he praised Canada for its sacrifices and for making Afghanistan its largest recipient of foreign aid.
Turning to U.S.-Canada border security and the fight against terrorism, Harper said any threat to the United States is a threat to his country, too.
The prime minister said Canada has made "significant investments" in security and in border protection since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States.
But he said there's a "real challenge" in increasing border security in a way that doesn't limit commerce and social interaction.
Obama said he believes the ties between Canada and the United States will grow even stronger over the next four years. The men took questions from two Canadian reporters and two U.S. reporters in a room adorned with numerous flags of the two nations.
Obama later made a surprise visit to a downtown market in Ottawa leaving fellow customers stunned.

The war on terror has gone way too far.

In a recent article by the Guardian, cross-border attacks from Iraq and Afghanistan are apparently the tip of the iceberg of illegal raids into foreign nations in order to perform strikes on Al-Qaida. The article details raids into at least six nations other than the ones that the United States is occupying, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, Syria and reconnaissance missions into Iran. This is unacceptable. America has overstepped its mandate on combating terrorism around the world. America must stop, or we will face dire consequences with both the world community and the UN.
However, it is important that we save face in the world community by finding Bin Laden and finishing the Iraq war, both of which President Obama plans to do. This may prove risky, as the war is unpopular and many people have forgotten the war in Afghanistan. I think that all troops need to be sent home today, period. But practically, this is impossible.