Exposit

2004-09-04T15:37:00.000-04:00

To Have and To Hold
By Anna Schwartz

In the early 1990s, pundits and politicians warned of the forthcoming "culture wars," in which the traditional values of middle America would be pitted against those of the coastal liberal elite – a fight to the death, these experts warned, and one which would fundamentally alienate both sides, causing a decisive split in the American polity. In the era of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, the battle raged, as those so-called traditional values had found representation in Washington. The Republican party, reeling from its 1992 loss of the White House – the first in 12 years – made a concerted effort to win over voters concerned with the erosion of conservative social values. The marriage of fiscal and social conservatism has always been troubled, and now it seems headed for divorce (that is, if the social conservatives don’t attempt a constitutional ban on that as well). Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks last week in support of states’ rights to define marriage demonstrate that strain.

The cornerstone of conservative thought in the United States’ history has been states’ rights – the idea that the federal government should stay out of the affairs of the states in any and all possible ways. In opining that it should be up to the states to define the parameters of marriage, Dick Cheney conforms to a strand of thought with roots as deep as The Federalist Papers. Fiscal conservatives, concerned with limiting the purview of the federal government in terms of the liabilities of the budget, see no inconsistency in Cheney’s position about gay marriage.

A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the impact of permitting same-sex marriage would be a positive one for the federal budget. With the budget strain of this administration’s foreign policy-decisionmaking – the liberation of Iraq did not come cheaply – the $400 million per year in savings for the federal government is hardly chump change. The problem with this study, however, is that it fails to account for the fact that feelings about same-sex marriage are not economically motivated. None of the anti-gay-marriage protestors who set up shop outside the Massachusetts state house earlier this year carried signs or chanted slogans having to do with taxes: the polemic "God hates fags," a perennial favorite of the protestors, relies not on Congressional Budget Office findings, but – purportedly -- on the bible.

It is not the business of the government, however, to legislate feelings. The same principle in the constitution that guarantees the separation of church and state should inform the politics of marriage: it is not the government’s business which God one worships, or which gender one marries. In an ideal world, the social conservatives that comprise a large part of the Republican "base" would understand and accept that logic. In reality, however, these voters have expressed outrage at the position expressed by the Vice President.

Cheney’s remarks may have been an intentional distraction from the administration’s adoption of a hard-line on the issue (one which may alienate precious swing voters), but it is nonetheless an articulation of a commonly-held position, made personal by the fact that Cheney’s daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. Cheney also has nothing to lose – if re-elected, this will be his last term in office – and his decision to diverge from the party line will not cost him his nomination.

The base of socially-conservative voters lack political representation other than that of the Republican party, and thus it is natural that they expressed outrage at Cheney’s remarks. But since these voters will check the box for Bush anyway, the Republican powers-that-be should re-evaluate whether it is necessary or logically consistent to respond to their outrage. Ultimately, however, Cheney is right – constitutionally and morally – that "freedom means freedom for everyone."

2004-09-04T15:32:00.000-04:00

A Lesser of Two Evils
By Eric Lorber

This week, at the cost of hundreds of Mehdi army militiamen and dozens of Iraqi government soldiers, Iraqi forces secured the most sacred site in Shia Islam, the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Although government forces have achieved control of the mosque complex, the question remains, have they silenced Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army for good? What does it mean that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the respected Shia cleric, brokered the peace deal, and not the Iraqi government? Is this resolution the first step towards a more stable, less violent Iraq?

A concrete resolution was necessary to ensure that al-Sadr’s Mehdi army could not challenge the sovereignty of the fledging government. Al-Sadr could not have been allowed to maintain control of Najaf, a Shiite stronghold, because it would fracture the country along sectarian lines. If Najaf remained as an independent fiefdom, where the Iraqi government did not exercise control, then the goal of both the United States and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to create an Iraqi government that encompasses Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish populations would be impossible. In addition, the last time the United States and the Iraqi government confronted the Mehdi army two months ago, they backed down to avoid an outcry of public dissent for taking action that could jeopardize the Imam Ali Shrine. The militia used the period between the current flair in fighting to rebuild its arsenal and organization. The U.S. and Iraqi governments could not accept anything short of complete disarmament and disbanding of the army this time around for fear that history would repeat itself and al-Sadr would use the reprieve to once again build his forces. Finally, action had to be taken to avoid the Fallujah syndrome: leaving an ungoverned region where extremism could breed.

The immediate crisis seems to be over, as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, a rival of al-Sadr, brokered a peace treaty that provided al-Sadr immunity from an indictment that he murdered a rival cleric Abdel-Majid al-Khoei last year. In addition, the Mehdi army, already reeling from a sustained siege of the city, has disbanded and its members have retreated, returning to their jobs and routines in Najaf.

Far from being a rosy picture of a conflict resolved without a final siege of the Imam Ali Mosque (which would have caused an uproar in Iraq and the Muslim world), al-Sadr and his Mehdi army remain an influential force in the region. First, in an interview with an Iraqi government spokesperson, the immunity granted to al-Sadr appears tenuous. The immunity from charges will last only as long as the interim government remains in power; when elections come next year. This has serious implications for al-Sadr’s future actions. If he fears being jailed despite the immediate promise of immunity, it is quite conceivable that he will attempt to rally his supporters to his cause once again. In addition, although the Mehdi army has been disbanded, they are by no means gone. They have retreated into the houses and business of Najaf. They have given up their weapons, but not their ideas nor their support of al-Sadr’s politically active version of Shia Islam. Al-Sadr could easily reorganize this force if his power or freedom was threatened. It is also important to note that, while the fighting has ended in Najaf, the Mehdi army continues to operate in the Sadr section of Baghdad and other cities throughout the country. The threat al-Sadr poses to the Iraqi government is far from over.

Beyond this unvanquished threat, the brokering of peace in Najaf has created a super-empowered religious leader in al-Sistani. The Shia Cleric, already well respected by both Iraqi and Iranian Shiites, has proven himself more powerful and capable than both the United States and the Iraqi Government; he ended the Najaf standoff non-violently when the others could not. The question arises, have attempted to remove al-Sadr from a position of influence only to replace him with another fundamentalist cleric?

At first glance, al-Sistani appears to be a far cry from al-Sadr; he is an elder, extremely well respected and relatively moderate cleric where al-Sadr is young, firebrand and fanatical. Al-Sistani also comes from the Quietist school of thought, a Shia school that believes clerics should advise leaders but not actively engage in politics. Al-Sadr, on the other hand, takes the Khomeini approach: religious leaders should be political leaders. However, looking at al-Sistani’s words leads one to be nervous about acquiescing such power to him: he wants to create an independent Shia state in Iraq. In addition, his ties to Iran are troubling. Al-Sistani is Iranian-born and continues to maintain close contacts with the Iranian government and people. Although more moderate than al-Sadr these ties and his stated objective to create a Shia state in Iraq indicate that the United States and the Iraqi government might conflict with al-Sistani in the future. Now that al-Sistani has proven himself to be more affective than either the United States or the Iraqi government, it is possible that Iraqi Shiites will support him and not the current government.

The Iraqi government now controls Najaf, but at what cost? A temporary disbanding of the Mehdi army, the failure to bring al-Sadr to justice, and the empowerment of an individual with objectives contradictory to the goals of the government. In the Imam Ali Mosque, gunfire has quelled and replaced with prayer, but at a cost that was far too high.

2004-09-04T15:04:00.000-04:00

Texas Hold ‘em
By Steven O'Brien

Organizations known as 527s have become the big issue on the campaign trail. The harsh ads created by Moveon.org, were beneficial to Kerry and a clear attempt at damaging the credibility of the president. Recently the right struck back with ads by a small group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked the credibility of Kerry’s war career upon which he has based his campaign. The accuracy of each group’s ads is questionable. Dirty politics are in season and the camp that wins this battle may win the White House. Now that the smoke has cleared, Bush is sitting pretty and Kerry is wondering how someone who cannot pronounce the word ”nuclear” may have just locked him out of the White House.

No one had Bush pegged as a tactician, but what he has accomplished over the past two weeks has been a dazzling political display. The battle started when Moveon.org came up with a malicious ad directed at George Bush. The Bush campaign, instead of reacting immediately, sat back and absorbed the blow, allowing Bush’s ratings to slip. The fall continued as Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 struck gold at the box office. Yet, the Bush camp remained quiet even as the blatant lies in the film hurt his rating. At some point, Moore even had to issue an apology for changing a headline of a newspaper in the film and distorting information to negatively implicate the president, all of which slid under the media radar. Bush’s approval slid until the Democratic National Convention when Kerry did not get the boost expected. From there, the momentum shifted in the incumbent’s direction. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unexpectedly hit Kerry with negative ads and published a book questioning his service, Unfit for Command, which currently occupies the number one spot on the NY Times Best Seller list.

The Kerry camp’s response to this concern has been pathetic. He first sent out his lawyers who threatened TV stations and bookstores with groundless lawsuits if they aired the ads and sold the book. Then he searched for connections between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans. The first casualty was Bush campaign attorney Benjamin Ginsberg, who resigned when he admitted to advising the Swift Boat Veterans while concurrently working with the Bush-Cheney campaign. In contrast, Joe Sandler, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, felt no need to resign after serving as legal counsel to both Moveon.org and Moving America Forward. Kerry’s next move was to try to get Bush to denounce the Veterans group and their ads. The Bush camp, seizing the opportunity, woke and responded by saying they would happily denounce all 527 groups. Why has Kerry not agreed? The answer is simple; his entire campaign is funded by them.

Republicans from Texas tend to have unlimited funds. The soft money from the Swift Boat Vets only represents a minuscule amount of Bush’s finances. On the other hand, Kerry is dependent on the money he gets from 527s with deep pockets in the form of supporters like George Soros. It is almost as if the Bush camp had this planned all along. They made a point of never questioning Kerry’s military record and remained quiet when a response seemed necessary. Now Kerry is stuck, having made his bed with soft money. However, if he plans to sleep in it, he has to let the Vets stay. If the 527s go, so does Kerry’s campaign financing. Like it or not, Bush beat Kerry at his own game and may be a little craftier than we thought.

Now watch him hit that drive.

2004-09-04T14:51:00.000-04:00

Ad Nauseum
By Jermaine Smith

The lingering effects of war in Iraq. An economy on a roller coaster of peaks and valleys. The loss of jobs overseas. The growing menace of terror. These are the issues troubling America as we approach the presidential election in November. Unfortunately, rather than addressing the nation’s concerns, our Democratic candidate is playing a game of he said/he said.

An anti-John Kerry ad run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) sparked a firestorm of accusations and complaints when it charged that Kerry, oft-noted for his Vietnam service, denounced the actions in Vietnam after returning from combat, in addition to lying to get both his Bronze Star and Purple Heart. The Kerry camp responded swiftly, denying the allegations and calling on President Bush to condemn the ads. After initially ignoring the request entirely, President Bush did criticize general ads, but not that of the SBVT specifically; a fact not overlooked by the Kerry campaign.

Kerry’s campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the SBVT ads were illegally coordinated with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Bush campaign, however, claims not only that the ad was independent, but also that retired Air Force Colonel Ken Cordier, a campaign advisor, appeared in the ad without the knowledge of the campaign. True or not, Bush has since urged both Kerry and Senator John McCain to condemn both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush ads created by “527” groups (527 referring the federal provision that makes the groups tax exempt and allows them to receive unlimited donations). The Kerry camp has not responded to the president’s request. With all of the back and forth, it is difficult to place blame on one side or another. Perhaps the Bush campaign is making use of 527 groups for re-election, and perhaps Kerry is going too far in requesting President Bush condemn independently-run partisan groups.

This, however, is not the first use of negative campaigning in this election year or any other year, for that matter. In April, the Bush campaign accused the Kerry camp of also working with 527 groups running anti-Bush ads. Not surprisingly, Kerry denied the allegations. However, negative advertising has been a staple of political campaigning for all of recent memory. It is no surprise that negative ads, third party or otherwise, have diluted the election process. This election, regarded by some as the most significant in several decades, is no exception to the rule. Damaging commercials are tactless, but the focus on them is absurd.

The problem is that the Democrats are concentrating on the ads, and not the issues. While Kerry makes his case with the FEC and pleads with President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans, President Bush can avoid concerns such as the raise in poverty. After President Bush denounced the ads of all 527 groups, Kerry should have walked away from the matter and accepted the response. The Democrats’ obsession with negative campaigning may be working against them.

As John Kerry and his campaign advisors scramble to link 527 groups to the Bush campaign, the race remains tight. At this rate, President Bush need do little more than rest on his laurels and await his re-election in November. Recent polls show the incumbent has a 50-47 lead, certainly not a wide gap but enough to retain the presidency. In fact, most polls show that topics in which Kerry had overtaken Bush near the Democratic National Convention are sliding back in favor of the president. These questions, largely related to homeland security and Iraq, are the issues Kerry must address if he hopes to oust Bush from the White House.

America bases elections on personal values. Americans value strength. Americans value responsibility. Americans value honesty. Currently, our politicians value themselves above all else, and this trivial quarrel proves that fact. Once John Kerry finishes attempting to tout himself as the pure saint in this election and gets back to the issues, maybe we can sneak those other values into our election, as well.

2004-08-16T21:52:00.000-04:00

A War of Ideas
By Eric Lorber

The “War on Terror”. This phrase can be heard everyday, echoed by our politicians, our news media, our friends and families. But what does this term mean? What are we fighting against? Are we really fighting against terror?

We are not fighting against terror. Terror is not a goal, but rather a strategy to achieve that goal. With the huge focus in American society on preventing terror and stemming the flow of terrorism, often we forget to examine not only the causes of terrorism, but also the goal of those who employ it as a tactic. We must examine its causes and objectives to formulate an appropriate response.

We are aware Islamists are the primary force behind the current trend of terrorism. Pundits and politicians claim that, by providing young Islamic men with political representation and economic opportunity, the U.S. can end terror. However, who is leading the movement employing terror? Is it a poor, humiliated Islamic man? Osama bin Laden was worth an estimated $300 million dollars. This is hardly the realm of poverty.

For what then are the leaders of the Islamist movement arguing? The answer is no less than the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, a single religious and political leader that will serve as the monarch of all of Islam. But why? What is their grievance with liberal democracy? Hasn’t the success of Western civilizational development, from Plato to Luther to Locke and Hobbes, shown them the best way to live their lives?

No, and the reason is the ‘hideous schizophrenia’ of the West. But, before discrediting the term as offensive and radical, one must closely examine its meaning. Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist philosopher who was involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually executed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, coined it. It refers to the moral degradation that has occurred in the United States because of the separation between church and state, hence schizophrenia. Islamists, and moderate Muslims for that matter, believe living a fulfilled life means incorporating religion into all aspects of it. Before dismissing this analysis as fundamentalist, take the example of one’s occupation. Does it often fulfill any deep spiritual need, does it serve a higher purpose? Looking at pop culture further illustrates this complaint. Does listening to Britney Spears on the radio serve some deeper purpose or greater good? These are extremely serious questions and need to be asked and answered. Clearly, it appears that these Islamists, although heinous in their methods and actions, may have a valid point in their criticism of our culture.

What is frightening is the amount of planning and strategy that Islamists, from bin Laden to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, have put into ensuring that the Middle East does not fall victim to the same schizophrenia. They are proposing an alternative system, the Caliphate, and they are vigorously pursuing this goal by attacking all the governments blocking their way, both Middle Eastern and American.

The more perplexing issue is our response to such a profound challenge to our ideas. The terminology I have heard used in our fight against an ideological attack is nowhere near the same level. We respond with attacks on our culture and morality with words like pre-emption, democracy, and freedom of speech. While certainly important terminology, we are not addressing their core critique. We are not asking ourselves if we should become a more spiritual society. We are not asking ourselves if indeed, their critique is valid.

There is a fundamental disconnect between their strategy and ours. President Bush advocates meeting the terrorists head on, but how can we meet them head on when we are fighting their profoundly felt ideas with our politics? In order to win a war one must know thy enemy.” It is quite evident that we do not. We cannot even correctly identify that we are fighting a war against ideals, not terror. Until we realize exactly what we are facing, America will never be safe from attack.

2004-08-16T21:44:00.000-04:00

Musical Chairs
By Jermaine Smith

With the November election edging closer and the White House up for grabs, President Bush took aim at solidifying the military vote with a quizzical move.

The president offered a new plan to decrease the number of troops abroad, instead stationing them domestically for longer periods, with the possibility of re-stationing in the future. Though many military men and women abroad and their families will receive this proposal well, it may prove disadvantageous to national security. The death toll of American soldiers since the start of the war on terrorism has now reached nearly one thousand, and certainly played a role in the President’s decision to remove troops from locations where they appear obsolete. Nevertheless, if President Bush hopes to remain strong on national security and the war on terror, he may be setting himself up for defeat.

The president’s proposal is most problematic in two strategically important areas: Europe and Asia, most notably South Korea. In the midst of a delicate series of conversations with North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons program, President Bush wishes to gradually remove troops from South Korea. This move certainly conflicts with the invasion of Iraq, as there is more empirical evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea than there was in Iraq, where the administration relied more heavily on intelligence gathering and guesswork. In contrast, decreasing troops in Europe will not affect them in a military aspect. Nevertheless, it will exacerbate existing problems over foreign policy, while negatively affecting those economies of our allies’ which center around U.S. military bases abroad.

However, if President Bush insists on adjusting the troops’ positioning, perhaps a better solution than bringing them home would be reassignment to Iraq. U.S. forces in Iraq can use the extra assistance and a few thousand extra soldiers walking the streets of Baghdad would help restore order, particularly around election time. The lack of proper American military presence has directly contributed to the steady loss of lives in Iraq, and this measure would help to counter that trend.

The timing of President Bush’s recommendation lends itself to further criticism and speculation. Given the fast-approaching election, the effort to appeal to military voters appears to be the key motive, rather than national security. President Bush has a clear hard-line stance on the war on terror; he is similarly unyielding regarding the defense of democracy, ridding the world of dictatorships and regulating weapons of mass destruction. However, Kim Jong-il, an infamous dictator in his own right, has led North Korea to openly defy the international regulations concerning nuclear arms and recently ended talks to freeze their weapons program.

This shift of soldiers is not an entirely new philosophy, but its timing is certainly questionable. In defense of the shift, removal of soldiers from Germany will likely have minimal effect. Many of those military plans were remnants of the Cold War, which effectively ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. By decreasing troops in both Europe and South Korea, the military hopes to allow for quicker deployment in future conflicts. This strategy would be particularly useful in a war on terror, where the enemy lies not in one set area but many. President Bush’s plan is simply the practical manifestation of such a policy.

Most likely, President Bush will get his wish with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lending his support to the cause. The true value of this new “lily pad” approach will eventually reveal itself, but in the meantime, President Bush will score thousands of votes from military families domestically – not to mention abroad. Still, the question remains: is the presidency worth effectively ignoring a member of the “axis of evil?” President Bush votes yes.

2004-07-29T23:10:00.000-04:00

Out of Commission
By Anna Schwartz

Beneath the din of the media frenzy at the Democratic National Convention, a quieter battle for political proprietary rights to the 9/11 Commission report has begun. Both the Bush administration and the Kerry campaign have advocated the adoption of many of the report’s less-controversial proposals. The White House move towards advocacy of the report’s recommendations, however, (a capitulation which took place in less than a day), is nothing short of a partisan attempt to steal any momentum garnered by the position of the Kerry campaign: that the Commission should remain in place for an additional eighteen months, in order to ensure that the administration and Congress employ its proposals. Less than a week after its publication, the Commission’s report, perhaps the most carefully crafted bi-partisan work in decades, has become political battleground.

One of the more controversial proposals in the report, the creation of a so-called “intelligence czar,” (formally, Director of National Intelligence), a cabinet-level overseer of all the intelligence agencies, plays a key role in this battle for political ownership. The underlying issue here is not whether September 11 could have been prevented, but rather who is to blame for the lack of prevention. The creation of a Director of National Intelligence – a position which will be far from apolitical – poses several problems, not the least of which is that it already exists, in a non-partisan form, in the position of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Notwithstanding George Tenet’s reign of incompetence, the DCI is, technically and legally, the overseer of the entire intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSC. Tenet’s lack of control and cohesion stemmed partially from his own failings, but mainly from the fact that the DCI controls only 12 percent of the intelligence budget; the Secretary of Defense wields a mighty 85 percent share of the purse.

The creation of a DNI may seem like a good idea in theory, but it poses three major risks if established: first, that the DNI will become a presidential puppet, a risk all cabinet members share; second, that the DNI will become a paper pusher like Tom Ridge; and third, that the DNI will be subject to the Weberian problem of bureaucracy, valuing self-preservation and aggrandizement over action. Even advocates of the creation of this position admit these perils: the creation of a new czar has the potential to “produce a Frankenstein's monster of disparate parts stitched together like the Department of Homeland Security.” The problem of bureaucracy is immediately visible, even during the debate over the creation of the position: the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have made it clear that they wish to be considered for the appointment – indeed, the word on K street is that they are forerunners for the position. At its most benign, this hustling undermines the credibility of the commission’s recommendation for the creation of the position.

Rather than creating an entirely new position, Congress should amend the existing position of the DCI, giving him full control over the intelligence budget in addition to a fixed term. Cabinet positions are inherently political, and even an office with a fixed term is subject to the political whim of the president who makes the appointment. The overseer of this nation’s intelligence, especially with the continued presence of a terrorist threat, should have no involvement in partisanship. And although the 9/11 Commission has proven to be exemplary evidence that bi-partisanship is possible, two crotchety old men who have come out of retirement to run the commission have no business running the intelligence community. Instead of adding to the unwieldy behemoth that is the intelligence bureaucracy, Congress should take measures to streamline and amend the current intelligence infrastructure. Protecting this nation is anything but a partisan issue, and the creation of a Cabinet-level DNI will serve exactly the opposite purpose that the 9/11 Commission intended it to serve: in an election year in a nation more politically polarized than it has been in decades, nothing is sacred. Two candidates that have no qualms mobilizing the issue for their campaigns will certainly have no qualms in appointing a party hack to the new position.

2004-07-29T22:13:00.000-04:00

Achieving Strategic Stability in South Asia
By Eric Lorber

With the recent resurgence of high-level talks between India and Pakistan’s foreign ministers, friendly cricket matches, and development of Confidence Building Measures (CBM’s) such as direct hotlines, a resolution to some of the conflicts between the two nations may not be far behind. But is an end to the threat of nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent finally here?

No. On the surface, these talks appear indicative of a trend that will lead to an eventual resolution of the Kashmir conflict as well as an eventual non-aggression pact between India and Pakistan. A closer examination, however, reveals the extreme instability of the region: an immediate, bilateral resolution to Kashmir is not close at hand. Both countries have avoided the Kashmir issue in recent talks and any amelioration of the situation will require drastic changes on both sides of the valley. Pakistani President Musharraf will have to rein in Islamic militants – an action which he has thus far been unwilling to take. A primary reason for continued Islamic terrorist attacks is the valid assertion that Kashmiris are being abused by Indian military and police forces. India claims these actions are legitimate because they are designed to crack down on terrorism, and therefore will not take action to stop them until Pakistan stems the flow of militants into the region. This cycle is vicious at best.

The situation becomes more pessimistic when viewed from a strategic perspective. Although confidence-building measures and nuclear response centers are being developed to increase nuclear stability, the development of Indian armed forces counters these positive measures. War is certainly possible between the two nuclear powers, as they have fought limited wars in 1999 and again in 2002. India has begun a process of force transformation that is designed to give all of its divisions offensive strike capability. Pakistan cannot keep up with these military developments, and has begun to rely more and more on nuclear weapons as a balance to Indian conventional power. If another war were to break out, Pakistan could easily use nuclear weapons against Indian forces, triggering a nuclear war in the region.

With such a doomsday scenario so plausible, the question then becomes how to prevent it. The answer: to broker peace in Kashmir through third-party mediation. Kashmir has served as the catalyst for conflict over the past half-century, most recently in 1999 and 2002. If a peaceful resolution can be found to this problem, then the possibility of nuclear war between the two nations will be nullified. India, however, is reluctant to allow intervention to occur, a reluctance which stems from its belief that any advantage it holds in bilateral negotiations will be negated by third-party intervention.

The United States is the only nation in the position to intervene. The leverage that the United States enjoys is purely mathematical: currently, the U.S. gives Pakistan $3.5 billion in aid; India’s economy has prospered from U.S. Direct Investment.

The U.S. has an important strategic interest in both countries; peace and prevention of nuclear war is in our best interests. U.S. companies are heavily invested in India (GE alone makes a profit of over $1 billion annually) and Pakistan is an important ally in the War on Terror. If these two countries were destroyed by nuclear war, so too would our economic interests and our invaluable partner in the War on Terror.

Mediation of this conflict requires that the United States totally re-evaluate its policy towards the region. Currently, the United States has a policy of crisis management. This means that, when a conflict occurs, the U.S. sends an envoy to region to broker an end to immediate hostilities, as occurred in 2002, when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage successfully calmed tensions over the Line of Control. Crisis management policy is designed to allow the United States to maintain good relations with both countries and avoid becoming entangled in the complicated politics of Kashmir, as U.S. policy makers fear becoming involved will threaten good relations with both countries.

This crisis management approach has serious flaws: it is reactionary in nature and with the speed of modern warfare; the United States might not be able to react in time to prevent a conflict. Crisis management fails to solve the source of the conflict; it merely tries to treat the symptom. With Stephen Cohen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Brookings Institution predicting at least two more conflicts between India and Pakistan, the need to act decisively now becomes even more pressing.

The proper approach is conflict resolution. This would effectively end the risk of conflict from occurring by settling the issue of contention. The potential negative consequences of a conflict resolution approach, such as India decreasing economic ties with the United States, are not likely to occur because Pakistan needs US foreign aid and India requires US investment capital to keep its economy growing strong.

An agreement over Kashmir would be beneficial for India, Pakistan, and the United States: it would ensure stability, economic growth, open markets, and increased trade for India and Pakistan, and would allow the United States to further its economic interests in India and security interests in Pakistan. Now is the time for the United States to shift its policy towards the region to ensure a stable, peaceful relationship between India and Pakistan, and maintain our interests in the region.

2004-07-29T21:26:00.000-04:00

Silence of the Sacrificial Lambs
By Jermaine Smith

War is the most popular means to an end known to humanity. Throughout history, nations have warred over land, warred over power, warred over religion. Last spring, the United States engaged in an oft-questioned war for the liberation of Iraq. Sixteen months after the start of the war, however, hawks and doves have a common goal: the safe return of soldiers and officials who risked their lives.

Months after the incursion officially ended, the death toll in Iraq still rapidly approaches 1000. The vast majority of these deaths occurred after the administration officially declared the conflict over last May. Given those numbers, it is neither surprising nor disagreeable that the American media and citizens create heroes of the men and women who lose their lives in battle. Although the media keeps track of the deaths of U.S. troops, the unwilling sacrifices of common citizens go virtually unnoticed.

In the last few months, terrorist groups have repeatedly kidnapped civilians, American and otherwise, and made demands for nations to withdraw forces or face a penalty. This consequence, in nearly each scenario, has been the cruel death of a hostage by beheading. Perhaps more disturbing still: each hostage has been civilian. There have been no captured majors, lieutenants or even infantrymen. There were no diplomats (minus the recent kidnapping of Momdoh Kotbm who has since been released). Terrorists abducted these men, performing jobs as immaterial to Iraqi liberation as truck driving, from their work sites in Iraq.

The abductions of these men, chosen randomly, made headlines worldwide, as the terrorists’ brand of justice works, ironically, blindly. When terrorists made demands that would spare their lives, their countries often balked. America’s own Marines follow the axiom “Leave no soldier behind”: are we to believe that these civilians’ lives are expendable? It is difficult to accept these vicious deaths as casualties of war; these individuals are not warriors, they are ordinary citizens doing ordinary things under extraordinary circumstances. Each refusal to bring them home safely, when soldiers benefit from hospital rescues, is inexcusable.

The outrage stems partly from the inhumane circumstances of the deaths; while some of the groups attempt to justify their actions based on Koran interpretations, their brutality and mob-like justice sufficiently negate all attempts at validation. The natures of these crimes, compounded by the seeming helplessness of forces attempting to handle the situation, add a dimension of terror to the attacks that these men and women face daily.

The response of negotiating with terrorists, generally, is an international no-no. However, the withdrawal of Filipino soldiers from Iraq raises the question: at what point do U.S. and allied forces cut their losses and head home? While experts condemn the move, claiming terrorists will intensify the kidnappings, it is difficult to classify the effort as simply cowardly. Certainly, President Bush or Prime Minister Blair, after months of pushing for intervention, would have much more to lose politically in such a situation than Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

With politics and terrorism the major players, where do civilian workers fit in the plan to rebuild Iraq?

There is, admittedly, no easy solution to deal with this growing problem. Terrorists have recently released more hostages, but there is no guarantee or reason to believe this trend will continue. While American and allied workers remaining in Iraq will continue to live in danger, the risk of reducing forces or habitually yielding to terrorist threats presents a dilemma. Do leaders continue to accept losses when there appears to be no end in sight, to preserve political and military power? Do leaders negotiate when they have more to lose than to gain? Or, simply, do leaders find a way to protect those who cannot protect themselves, a similar idea behind the motivation for Iraq’s liberation?

Experts maintain that fighting terrorism on an international stage is a large-scale type of cat and mouse, as evidenced by the elusiveness of Osama bin Laden. However, for the civilians taken hostage, this is no game. Until the people in charge decide, the most hazardous job in post-Saddam Iraq is not behind a desk or an automatic assault rifle: it is working for Haliburton.

2004-01-28T22:21:00.000-05:00

In Mod We Trust
By Anna Schwartz

Sen. John Kerry was quick to declare victory at the New Hampshire primary, announcing his triumphal speech even before the majority of districts had reported. Victory in New Hampshire was imperative for Kerry to maintain the momentum that began with his surprising Iowa victory. Moderate Democrats have come to Kerry in droves – and the February 3rd states (New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Delaware) are all states in which the more moderate candidates are likely to fare well; Democratic voters in these states, especially the Southern ones, tend to be more centrist than their Northeastern and Western counterparts.

Although the race is far from over after next week, early success translates to an influx of campaign donations for the leading candidates – and, as history has shown, money (or lack thereof) can make or break a campaign in these early months. Without an imminent victory, the more conservative candidates – specifically Senator Lieberman and General Clark – may soon drop out of the running due to lack of funds. Kerry is the most obvious second choice for the supporters of these candidates, as his platform is distinct from the populist hysterics of Dr. Dean. Moderate voters in New Hampshire preferred Kerry to Dean by a margin of 2:1, or 43% to 18%, according to exit polls.

As of last quarter, Kerry was second to Dean in funds raised -- $20 million, only $5 million behind Dr. Dean (both candidates have decided to forego federal fund-matching in order to have unrestricted ability to spend). Kerry’s decisive victories in Iowa and New Hampshire will no doubt reap the benefits, both strategic and financial, of the fast-imploding Dean campaign.

With Kerry as the frontrunner, November looks promising for the Democrats – that is, if and only if Kerry selects Edwards as his running mate. The two candidates complement each other, and together, comprise the only genuine chance that the Democrats have to beat Bush. Kerry’s experience in the Senate and as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts will offset Edwards’ relative inexperience; Edwards’ Southern roots will offset the handicap of Kerry’s association with old-school Massachusetts liberalism.

President Bush’s approval rating, currently holding strong at 59%, may falter in the months leading up to November if the economy does not recover as promised in last week’s State of the Union address. But a recent CNN/Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents thought that the Democrats would do a better job on key domestic issues, such as health care, education, and the economy. The Democrats may also benefit from the lengthened race, which has kept the candidates in the media spotlight far longer than the tenure of the primary season itself. Though Bush is still favored to win in the fall, the media frenzy over the Democratic candidates during this primary season will work to the Democrats’ advantage, creating the potential for a highly competitive election.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket will capitalize on this media exposure, with two of the top tier candidates who have received the least negative coverage (of late, Dr. Dean has taken a beating for his howling during what should have been his concession speech in Iowa). To win next fall, Kerry and Edwards must attack Bush where he lives; instead of framing the debate around God, Gays and Guns, the Democrats must frame the issues of the economy, health care, social security and tax cuts. Kerry is 2004’s “comeback kid,” and as long as he continues his current momentum, with Edwards as his running mate, he will march straight to the White House. Moderation, not red-faced agitation, is the key to opening the Pennsylvania Avenue gates.

2004-01-28T22:17:00.000-05:00

Divide and Conquer
By Jermaine Smith

The Democratic primaries are heating up as election time comes near, and candidates are quickly discovering just how fickle the constituents can be.

Sen. Joe Lieberman is all but done, Gen. Wesley Clark is biding his time and Dr. Howard Dean is orchestrating his resurgence for the Democratic nomination. Rep. Kucinich should go home. Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry has a commanding lead after winning both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries in impressive fashion.

What happens now?

Should Kerry continue to perform well in the upcoming primaries, he will indeed win the Democratic nomination and have an opportunity to unseat President Bush as Commander-in-Chief, but it is difficult to predict how well Kerry will compete in the South. Southern states, including primary-site South Carolina, are historically more conservative, but experts believe they will lean towards Dr. Dean and perhaps Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Kerry’s great success should be surprising given that his more conservative agenda places him to the right of the other Democratic candidates, save for Senator Joe Lieberman. However, the platforms of the other Democratic candidates have pushed the Democratic Party into a more centrist position, a trend many liberal Democrats find disturbing. The Kerry campaign, moderate but effective, overshadows his less liberal characteristics and sets him apart from Gen. Clark and Dr. Dean, whose large deterrent remains their position on the war in Iraq.

These possible scenarios illustrate two key elements of this year’s election: first that the primaries can be unpredictable, and candidates can gain and lose ground with striking swiftness, and, more importantly, the divisions within the Democratic Party. This is evident this year more than recent election years.

This election year, the Democrats find themselves in a unique position. Reaching the White House is only an outside chance for most of the candidates, few of whom seem qualified to be leaders of the free world, and the sharp divide within the party only exacerbates this problem. This rift is rooted in the issues: healthcare, the economy, same-sex marriage and, of course, the war in Iraq. Interestingly enough, this election year is an excellent opportunity for a liberal candidate to make a strong impression; a candidate representing the opposing views of the current president would fare well, but many classify the current Democratic candidates as moderate at best. This lack of definition leaves many Democratic voters with the impression that the difference between Bush and Dean or Bush and Kerry is negligible.

This creates a logistical problem for the Democrats.

Should he win the nomination, the Kerry camp’s main concern will be the intentions of the remaining Democratic voters come November. While Kerry is doing well, there is no assurance that he will secure the votes that may other wise have gone to Dean or Clark; Clark’s campaign is a bit more moderate, Dean’s a bit more liberal, and the two seem to be largely splitting the remaining votes. The worst scenario may actually place those votes in the hands of Bush as voters looking for an extreme liberal may not be satisfied with Kerry, whose greatest draw is simply the label Democrat. In this sense, Democratic votes may be a vote against Bush more so than a vote for the best candidate.

However, with only about 1.5-2% of the delegates decided, it is far too early to label the winner of this race. Regardless, the Democrats must unify behind their nominee if they hope to remove Bush from the White House. Upsetting Bush in November may be a long shot, but it is not a pipe dream. If a single candidate from the party can fuse the gap of liberals and moderates, this year’s bid for the White House will be strong.

2003-12-03T19:42:00.000-05:00

Higher Education
By Jermaine Smith

In war, there are always casualties. It is no wonder, then, that the war between church and state has taken its fair share of victims.

Joshua Davey recently brought a lawsuit against Washington state regarding a state-funded scholarship he lost in 1998. Davey, then a student at a private university, received the scholarship based on academic performance and financial hardship, only to have it stripped away when he declared his majors: business administration and theology. The school informed him that the choice would negate his scholarship, so Davey chose to pay out of pocket to complete his degree.

While this is hardly the first case to question the scope of separation of church and state, the precedent it will set is an important and historic one. It may seem unfair that a student who labors persistently to earn a scholarship loses it over his choice of field of study. However, overlooking a seemingly minor infringement can prompt debate; consequently, this can lead to change, or creation, of major legislation.

If Davey, or any student, utilizes federal or state funding for religious education, it conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, 36 other states have similar laws regarding state-supported scholarships as they pertain to religious studies, but all operate under our U.S. Constitution, which explicitly asserts "no public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment." This is a stiff battle line, and Davey unfortunately falls on the wrong side of it.

Overturning this ruling will have a domino effect. Foremost, it opens the door to hundreds if not thousands of appeals, for example, the removal of the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse. Decisions such as these are in jeopardy because they all rely on the same basic principle. Secondly, it allows for cohesion of church and state. This may include federally supported religious institutions and schools. While that does not seem particularly threatening, the question becomes the allocation of funds and, more importantly, who decides how to divide these resources. These are only a few of the possible results.

On the other hand, supporting the initial decision to deny the scholarship may seem harsh. In some ways, it is unfortunate that state scholarships will not subsidize religious education. In this case, Davey is very much a martyr. However, this is a stance the courts must take across the board to demonstrate unity in the resolution and to move forward. The effect of this ruling on separation of church and state is larger than the educational needs of one student.

Perhaps the best way to prevent conflicts such as these is to start at the source. Eliminating the study of religion as truth, e.g. ministerial studies, from public institutions would help prevent a conflict. State schools, which receive state funding, should not offer the study of religion as truth. Private institutions, including seminaries, can provide this alternative, while public education should provide programs in the empirical study of religion.

It is understandable that Davey’s educational costs became a burden after the loss of his scholarship; but the burden is his to bear, not the state. Moreover, the argument that Washington's stricter laws regarding funding may impede consitutional rights is not reasonable, given the law. And, a foot in the door for religion will only open the floodgates down the road for legislation with religious undercurrents; the Bush administration has already taken liberties with its Faith Based and Community Initiatives.
.
Ending this dispute with the judgment to deny the scholarship, while perhaps not a popular decision, is the best choice. We are entrenched in war, nursing a sick economy and anticipating a momentous presidential election; the last thing America needs is a burgeoning religious crusade.

2003-12-03T19:25:00.000-05:00

What Would China Do?
By Anna Schwartz

On the eve of a Taiwanese referendum on independence, mainland China's intentions are clear: stop a formal declaration of independence at any cost. Chinese officials have declared that even the referendum itself would be cause for war. China is willing to risk its booming economy, its hosting of the Olympic Games in 2008, and its world reputation in order to prevent a formal secession in Taiwan, which the government regards as a “renegade province.” Now that China has explicitly stated its bottom line, a position from which it is unlikely to step down, United States policymakers must decide how to handle the issue – one that is delicate at best, and disastrous at worst.

During the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. formally recognized Chang Kai Shek’s Taiwanese government as China itself; this changed with Nixon’s engagement with China in 1970, and economic ties with China have continued to deepen ever since. Moreover, China is an essential ally in the United States’ negotiations with North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons program. However, the United States must also remember its principles: the right of self-determination of any nation that believes itself sovereign, for legitimate reasons, is one that is fundamental to United States ideals. Mainland China’s decision to use force in order to prevent Taiwan from declaring its sovereignty is one that the United States should neither support nor tacitly accept: China’s might does not make right.

In practice, however, the United States’ defense of Taiwan, due to Chinese aggression, would be unwise. The United States values its strategic partnership with China in its attempts to dismantle the North Korean weapons program, as well as its trade with the Chinese mainland (trade with Taiwan is only a fraction of that with China). In the event of a Chinese attack, the United States will, at minimum, slap the Chinese government with economic sanctions – an act that will be just as damaging to our economy as it is to theirs – but it must not engage in military defense of Taiwan. The necessity of this distance is twofold: first, our military is spread far too thin and our political capital with the rest of the world is far too low to launch yet another war of liberation, even if it is warranted. Second, North Korea’s weapons program is of much greater strategic importance to the United States than an inter-Chinese scuffle – China’s government is unlikely to democratize anytime soon, and because we are already heavily engaged in trade, we must accept the Chinese aggression out of self-interest.

The Taiwanese parliament’s decision to change the requirements for referendum will help to postpone the issue, but not indefinitely: although the bar has been raised on the requirements for referendum, it is still possible that one will occur – possibly as soon as next March. The Taiwanese incumbent president, Chen Shui-ban, has used the China issue as a political device to propel his re-election campaign, and the referendum is sure to occur during Mr. Chen’s next term if he is re-elected. China is already unhappy with the United States’ position (or lack thereof) on the Taiwan issue: Sunday’s upcoming state visit by China’s Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, is sure to include discussion of China’s displeasure at the United States’ deficiency in stating its position on Taiwan’s agitations.

The United States should use the leeway gained by the postponement of the referendum to expedite Chinese negotiations with North Korea, so that if Chinese aggression does occur, our strategic links will either be solidly in place, (if the talks are well underway), or of diminished importance (if the negotiations have concluded). Regardless, we must not allow China to use North Korea as political currency against us on Taiwan. The United States should distance itself from the conflict if possible, but simultaneously take actions to make clear to China that we will not be out-bullied.

2003-11-26T18:04:00.000-05:00

2003-11-26T18:03:00.000-05:00

History Repeating
By Anna Schwartz

Did Iran learn nothing from the war in Iraq? The International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear watchdog for the United Nations, slapped Iran with a censure for the nuclear weapons program it has concealed for the past 18 years this morning. The censure did not include any immediate action by the U.N., but did leave open the possibility for sanctions by the Security Council. After President Bush labeled it one third of the “axis of evil” in last year’s State of the Union address, one would expect that Iran would take the hint and dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Exactly the opposite occurred, however, and the Iranians have continued on the secretive path to weapons development by pursuing plutonium and uranium enrichment, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The threat of U.N. sanctions is an insufficient means to dissuade a nation that has pursued a nuclear weapons program, despite its agreement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to dismantle its program entirely. The New York Times recommended yesterday that today’s resolution include “a trigger mechanism to force international action if Iran reverts to stonewalling or deception.” Is the idle threat of “international action” sufficient recourse, however? Iraq faced the same ultimatum last fall, but when it came down to the wire, Security Council members were unwilling to commit to the use of force. The United States withdrew its position that today’s resolution should include economic sanctions – probably to build political capital with other nations within the UN – but this was an unwise decision.

Experts claim that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a few years, if its programs continued to develop at a rapid pace. But Iran’s only incentive to dismantle its program is the threat of United States-led invasion – and that threat has not been posed. The fact that Iran has been developing its weapons program for 18 years – since just after the 1979 Islamic Revolution – means that its commitment to the program is not likely to wane because of a slap on the wrist – a slap that comes with no force or negative reinforcement to back it up. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the I.A.E.A., called today’s actions a “very serious and ominous message” to Iran; this statement remains true only if the message that the I.A.E.A. intends to send is that the weapons program should continue.

The Iranian Foreign Minister claimed that today’s resolution demonstrated Iran’s commitment to “peaceful nuclear activities,” an exercise in diplomatic rhetoric: although Iran has agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program and give weapons inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities, it has not committed to total suspension of nuclear programs. Iran’s only practical use for nuclear weapons is as a deterrent against a United States attack, but the timeline is faulty: without actually possessing the weapons, Iran is powerless against U.S.-led invasion. The lack of support that the United States currently has for chasing down WMD – both domestically and within the international community – does not mean that an attempt to dismantle the nuclear program is unwise. As the global hegemon, the United States must sometimes pursue unpopular policy. For this reason, we should not have abandoned the idea of sanctions as a deterrent – especially if the Bush administration wishes to claim that the Iraq war was really about WMD. An I.A.E.A. censure is ultimately useless in preventing nuclear proliferation: in due course, for the interests of national security, the United States should make a more credible threat – with economic sanctions and the potential use of force. Only then will Iran learn to apply the lessons of Iraq.

2003-11-26T17:57:00.000-05:00

Oh Yee of Little Faith
By Jermaine Smith

In the war on terror, the challenge begins on our own soil, and it begins with our policy on terrorism.

Since 9/11, the government has taken many liberties in response to “terrorist activity.” There are currently over 650 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay alone, mostly members of al-Qaida or associated groups captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some may be guilty. Some, such as Capt. James J. Yee, may be victims of a fearful society.

The American military recently released Capt. Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, after nearly three months of detainment based on suspicion of espionage. The army dropped charges against Yee for transporting classified information without the proper cover; an infraction deemed insignificant as it pertained to national security. However, the detail of many charges both preceding and succeeding Yee’s detainment is vague. This fact, coupled with military law, gave the military not only the ability to make the initial arrest, but to uncover more scandal to mar Yee’s name.

Despite the dismissal of the original charges, Capt. Yee now faces fresh charges of adultery and storing pornography on his government computer. While perhaps a question of morality, this has little to do with national security. After an arrest for suspected espionage and accusations of adultery, neither of which have led to a conviction, what will be left of Yee? This situation has tarnished his name and status in the military, all for the sake of minor violations. If the courts ultimately clear Capt. Yee of all charges, is the military not to blame for its rash judgment of one of its own? Three months of false imprisonment and irreparable damage to Yee’s character are serious crimes of which the military is certainly guilty.

No one faults the government for its concerns for national security. Most citizens feel safer at night believing that all suspicious characters are imprisoned somewhere far away, where they can hurt no one but themselves. However, there must be a more judicious use of such authority. While it may be fair to investigate a threat to national security, the military has no right to invade the privacy of any citizen, civilian or otherwise.

In this case, Capt. Yee became a scapegoat. Once it was clear he posed no threat, the military brought additional charges against him that served little purpose other than to justify his arrest as an immoral character, not as a terrorist threat. It is irrelevant whether he is guilty of these allegations or not. Ultimately, he, and every other detainee held without evidence, is guilty is in the minds of the average citizen, considering the character assassination the media attention and accusations provide.

Allies have noted our practices and policies regarding these detainees abroad as well. President Bush recently made a goodwill trip to the UK, in hopes of garnering more support. However, our major ally, Great Britain, is beginning to question the ethics, or lack thereof, associated with prisoner treatment in Guantanamo Bay. Of course, the prisoners of particular interest to them are of British citizenry; nonetheless, one of Britain’s most senior judges has personally condemned the system, calling it a "monstrous failure of justice." From an ally whose justice system ours is based upon, that is a particularly unflattering description.

The cavalier attitude America has adopted towards fighting terrorism may well win Bush votes next Election Day, but the cost is an international showcase of American xenophobia. We compromise our nation’s integrity and lose the respect of other countries when we disregard basic civil liberties: the same civil liberties so important to the founding of this nation.

2003-11-19T21:53:00.000-05:00

2003-11-19T21:37:00.000-05:00

Baby Got Back
By Anna Schwartz

As Japan prepares to send troops to Iraq, the Japanese face the harsh reality that their soldiers participating in the rebuilding project may well come back in body bags. Despite President Bush’s declaration of victory six months ago, combat is far from over and the use of force will continue to be a necessity for the foreseeable future, while the original coalition troops, and those of newly-joined allies such as Italy and Japan, keep the peace. However, as other nations lend support to the American project, doubts about the efficacy of the United States-led military endeavors has multiplied. Even Britain, the United States’ staunchest ally in the war, has its doubts about the benefits of continued support (in Iraq and with regard to other unilateral actions that seem fated to occur).

Italy, certainly, has learned that providing support has dire costs: thousands of Italians showed up for the funeral mass of the nineteen Italian soldiers killed in the Nasiriyah attack last week. Most Italians were not in favor of the war from the start, and opposed the deployment of 3,000 troops to the region following the fall of Baghdad. The death of these 19 soldiers has made the Iraq problem more tangible to the Italian people, fostering resentment and anti-American sentiment in Italy.

Given the steep costs of participation, what benefit do other nations gain from backing the United States in rebuilding Iraq?

Italy’s commitment of 3,000 troops to Iraq was largely a symbolic measure; 3,000 troops are paltry in comparison to the number of British and U.S. troops in the region. These troops serve as a symbol of Italy’s good will toward the United States and its wishes to maintain diplomatic and economic relations – the troops are martyrs to the cause of placating the global hegemon. At the same time, however, Italy’s commitment of troops is a tacit acceptance of the United States’ unilateral behavior – an unspoken acknowledgement that the United States is running the show.

The United States has promoted the values of democracy and free trade since the beginning of its history, but most aggressively during the Cold War era, in the form of rampant anti-communism. Since that era, both Italy and Japan (as well as the other Western European nations) have benefited from the United States’ aggression in promoting these values – as the United States has become the world hyperpower, these nations have reaped the benefits of national security and economic growth. To not acquiesce to the United States’ efforts to build a functioning democracy in Iraq is tantamount to denying Italian and Japanese national history – most obviously in Japan, which owes both its constitution and nearly all of its economic development to the United States’ involvement in rebuilding the nation after World War II.

The commitment of troops and the diplomatic support that Italy and Japan have provided is an admission of the superiority of the American system and the necessity of continued American hegemony in order to maintain world stability. However, whether the United States will be successful in building democracy in Iraq, and spreading that democracy throughout the Middle East, is questionable. Even so, other nations will continue to get on board with the United States’ program in Iraq, because Iraqis should be able to exercise their freedom in the same way that those who have gained from American protection have been able to do for decades.

2003-11-19T21:26:00.000-05:00

I Thee Dread
By Jermaine Smith

The Presidential election of 2004 just got more exciting.

President Bush’s war on terrorism, the economy and, of course, the situation in Iraq, will all provide hours of debate as the Republicans and Democrats duke it out once more for the highest office in the nation. Next year’s election may have a new hot issue, however, and it has little to do with Bush or his administration.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled 4-3 against banning same-sex marriages in the state. Advocates of gay rights are hopeful this ruling will lay the groundwork for what could eventually be laws ensuring this right and legalizing same-sex unions. Opponents of the ruling point to the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, claiming that the union of a man and woman is the only true form of marriage – and one which the courts need to uphold.

This issue, which has been on the backburner of American politics for years, could be the deciding factor for the Democratic presidential candidate and, ultimately, for the office of president. Polls show that only about a third of Americans think that same-sex marriages should be legal and that gay couples should have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. With such a sharp split, which has remained through decades of debate, it is easy to understand why politicians on both sides are handling the issue with delicacy. None of the candidates wants to offend potential voters – Democrats especially, considering the majority of the homosexual population tends to swing their way. Regardless, there are too many votes to lose by taking a pro-rights stance.

The Democrats are taking that idea to heart. For candidates such as Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards, Congressman Dick Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, and the favorite, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, straddling the fence on the gay marriage issue has proven to be a good strategy. None of these candidates supports same-sex marriage, but all are in the race for the nomination. In fact, the three candidates who have expressed support of full marriage rights, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Sen. Carole Moseley Braun of Illinois are extreme long shots to win the nomination.

Given America's firm international position on spreading democracy, freedom and ensuring basic human rights around the world, it appears hypocritical to deny our homosexual citizens rights that our heterosexual population enjoys while other nations pass us by. And what better way for the Democrats to set themselves apart from the Republican Party? Distancing themselves from a very faith-influenced Bush administration that openly opposes same-sex marriage seems to be what the Democrats and their liberal agenda should stand for. The top tier Democratic candidates, aside from Dean, have thus far come off as liberal versions of Bush on most issues except the Iraq war – this issue could be a vehicle to win the hearts and minds of more liberal voters.

The primary duty of these candidates is to represent the opinions of the nation and serve the people, and in this respect, it is fair to argue that their positions reflect this. However, it is difficult to comprehend the stance of many of the candidates: full support of gay rights and equality, but just short of marriage. This seemingly contradictory position undermines the authenticity of their support. Do these candidates believe in equal treatment under the law, or is it a façade aimed at securing a nomination? The candidates must draw on their own personal experience as well; they should not simply play to the public opinion. Their best approach to the issue will be the honest one – after all, even the potential nominees’ lives are directly affected; Congressman Gephardt’s daughter is a lesbian and how the nation resolves this issue will affect his daughter’s life as well as his own.

These situations rarely present themselves on such a national stage, and at such an opportune time. The candidate who speaks out and leads the charge as opposed to following the herd may find himself ahead in the polls. It was only a few decades ago that similar arguments peaked over civil rights. Some states have only recently removed bans on interracial marriage. Those who led the Civil Rights movements are now revered heroes: the Constitution now protects these contested rights.

Ultimately, however, the fate of these hopefuls will rest with the voters. The candidates’ chances at success are based on whether their platforms resonate with the voters as well as their skills at politicking. To win the presidency in 2004, these candidates must learn to pander.

Ironically, the nation that sends thousands of troops abroad to spread democracy and freedom cannot guarantee these rights to all those on its own soil. The Democratic hopefuls should stand up for these fundamental rights of citizens rather than shying away from the first contentious issue to cross their paths.

2003-11-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

Save Us From Jessica Lynch
By Jermaine Smith

Some say there is no pride greater than to fight and die for your country. In Iraq, there are many proud American soldiers combating the terrors of war to deliver freedom to a devastated nation. For each soldier wounded or killed in the defense of democracy, a family grieves and mourns at home. Nevertheless, too many of these soldiers, despite the vigor with which they fought and the courage they displayed, remain faceless names on a wall or newspaper page.

Except for Pfc. Jessica Lynch of Palestine, West Virginia.

Lynch was part of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company captured by Iraqi soldiers that lost their way in the Iraqi desert. The account of Ms. Lynch’s traumatic ordeal is everywhere: New York Times headlines and CNN leads, a book deal and, most recently, a made-for-T.V. movie. America embraced the fallen heroine who courageously fought and stayed positive when her company was captured.

But Ms. Lynch was not alone.

U.S. armed forces rescued five other members of that patrol, seven overall, in addition to Ms. Lynch. While Lynch remained in a hospital, her injuries attended to, these men and women were at the mercy of Iraqi soldiers who beat them and often put their lives in danger.

It is tremendous that Ms. Lynch, as well as her comrades, made it home safely before meeting more harm. However, in the 7 months since her rescue, confusion has swirled around the incident. The Associated Press and BBC reported that, after speaking with several hospital officials and witnesses, there were no Iraqi soldiers preventing the “rescue” of Lynch, and insinuated that perhaps the government staged the rescue to serve American interest. Other rumors have emerged, but no evidence surfaced to support the claims. Assuming everything presented in the media was true regarding the miraculous rescue, it still begs the question: why was Lynch nationally celebrated while the other POWs, whose families and loved ones were equally as concerned, were virtually ignored?

Though not an opinion popular with patriots, perhaps Ms. Lynch’s rescue was staged. Even conceding that her injuries were serious, several facts still demand attention: Lynch was rescued on the 2nd of April, unlike her fellow soldiers who were rescued on the 13th, almost 2 weeks later; Lynch remained hospitalized, while her fellow soldiers were imprisoned, beaten and blindfolded; and Ms. Lynch was the only young white female of the group.

Lynch is an anomaly in the military; there are few young, attractive white females in the armed forces. Moreover, the U.S. Army’s new recruitment campaign to attract more “hip-hop” and urban recruits, hopes to ensure that truth in the future. The armed forces, stretched too thin by conflicts on multiple fronts, are attracting lower-class (often Hispanic and African-American) citizens, who often have fewer options after high school graduation.

By incorporating elements of hip-hop culture, the army hopes to enlist more of this demographic “to make sure it improves on representing all groups,” says Kendall Martin, account supervisor at Muse Cordero Chen, a multicultural advertising agency. Not surprisingly, the Army currently is level with or above the target percentage for both African-Americans and Hispanics.

It may not be fair to accuse the media, let alone the government, of using Lynch’s rescue as a rallying event because of her race and appeal. However, with other soldiers receiving less exposure, and perhaps worse treatment, it is difficult to not question the reasoning behind Lynch’s popularity.

With that said, Jessica Lynch was not responsible for her capture. She was not responsible for her injuries incurred. For that matter, Lynch is not responsible for the media frenzy that has surrounded her since that day. The fault lies with those who chose to single out Ms. Lynch and make her the poster child for the war in Iraq.

Despite the favoritism, Jessica Lynch’s story is remarkable: a young female soldier left for dead, brutalized by enemy troops and missing for over a week, she was fortunate to come home alive. Her charming smile and simple roots are likely what sparks her overwhelming appeal. Lynch’s parents point out, however, that it is sad the attention her book (I Am a Soldier, Too) has received focuses on the alleged sexual assault, because her story is “more than just one incident.”

That may be true, but let us not miss the big picture: focusing on a small aspect of Lynch’s story is sad, but ignoring the bravery of the other men and women who fought along side her – including the minorities who lost their lives for democracy - is unquestionably tragic.

2003-11-06T22:12:00.000-05:00

Howard’s End
By Anna Schwartz

Dr. Dean has lodged his foot so deeply in his mouth that its removal may require a specialist. The leading candidate in the Democratic primary, Dean told an Iowa newspaper last week that he wanted to be “the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks.” Dean insists that his only intention was to make clear his aim to attract Southern white voters, but the fallout from the comments was far worse than anything Dr. Dean could have imagined. His fellow candidates accused him of being a bigot, a racist, and stereotyping Southern whites – the Rev. Al Sharpton, not known to mince words, went so far as to call Dean’s record “anti-black.” In New Hampshire, Dean is polling fourteen points ahead of his closest competitor, Senator Kerry. Even so, the fallout after his shocking comments coupled with his subsequent refusal to apologize, which attracted media attention to the issue, could cost Dean his position as the leader of the Democratic pack.

The political strategy behind Dean’s assertions is correct: in order to win the general election by a comfortable margin, the Democratic candidate will need to appeal to white Southerners. However, Dean’s statement poses several logical and practical problems: first and foremost, he is not the Democrat who will appeal to white Southerners – his stance on social issues such as gay marriage is far too liberal, and his conservative affinity for balanced budgets will limit funding for key social welfare policy, already dangerously low in the South. Secondly, Dean should concentrate on ensuring that he will not hemorrhage middle-class black voters rather than focusing on converting whites – the number of poor white voters that he will be able to persuade to vote for him is negligible compared to the number of middle-class black voters (a strong presence in the South) who may vote for Bush in anger. In the past six elections, Southern whites have overwhelmingly voted Republican – no Southern state has carried a Democrat in recent history other than Al Gore in his home state of Tennessee in 2000, and even that was a marginal victory.

Dean’s statement was fundamentally offensive: the collective wound over the confederate flag controversy has not yet healed in Southern states such as Georgia. Regardless of Dean’s intentions, depicting all southern whites as guys driving around with confederate flags on their pickup trucks is an affront, and a false one at that.

The New York Times observes that Dean is “obviously no racist, and no one who criticized the flag comment imagined that he is.” Nevertheless, his gaffe placed him squarely into the middle of an issue that has plagued both the Democratic Party and the nation at large for decades. Race and racial representation in politics must, as the New York Times, asserts, be “handled with great care.” The more politically savvy, top tier Democratic candidates know this, and have chosen to use Dean’s mistake as a launching pad to undercut his credibility and viability (even John Edwards, who has mostly stayed away from ad hominem attacks, rebuked Dean in Tuesday’s debate). The comment and its aftermath will bring race, which has not been a major issue, to the fore in the primary.

Unfortunately, Dean has set himself up to lose in the dialogue that he wishes to start: the tarnishing of his reputation because of the flag comment is just the beginning of character assassination and record-bashing that will diminish his chances of surviving the primaries and the debates unscathed. Should Dean be fortunate enough to maintain his lead and win the nomination, the accusations of racism will follow him through the general election and will be excellent fodder for the Republican machine (itself not exactly friendly to minority issues) to use against him.

Dean’s team will have to do a great deal of damage control in order to smooth over relations with the black community and Southern whites. Unfortunately, attempts to spin the comment and demonstrate friendly relations with the black community will backfire on Dean – he will appear phony and desperate. Dean’s insensitivity simply expedited an inevitable realization: Dean is not a candidate who has a wide appeal outside of upper middle class, well-educated Northeastern whites – he is far too liberal and seems unlikely to become more moderate if elected. Dean will not be the Democratic nominee, no matter how many ten-dollar bills he collects from Ivy League college students, or how popular he is on Meetup.com. Appealing to the stars and bars marks the beginning of Howard’s end.

2003-10-29T17:03:00.000-05:00

The Artful Dodger
By Jermaine Smith

During President Bush’s tenure as Commander in Chief, he has exercised America’s military might with reckless abandon and absolute authority. Though he often times ignores expert opinion and occasionally defies outside authority, President Bush is a leader, albeit a headstrong one.

A man who repeatedly looked terrorism in the face and snarled, President Bush seems uncharacteristically timid recently in regard to what has become the “Iraq Situation.” In a recent news conference, Mr. Bush made it clear he has no intentions of sending more troops to Iraq, even adding that the decision rested with General John Abizaid, the senior commanding officer in the region.

Bush deferring power? That certainly seems unusual. However, Bush has developed a habit of giving credit where it may not belong. What is behind the sudden generosity exhibited by the Bush administration?

The flurry of terrorist attacks and a rocketing death toll in post-Saddam Iraq raise questions regarding the success of Iraq’s liberation, and why President Bush has done so little to combat these persisting problems. The 2004 presidential election rapidly approaching, President Bush can ill afford further disintegrating support over Iraq. Though it is impractical to remove troops from Iraq, it is nearly impossible to sell Americans on the idea of sending loved ones overseas indefinitely, especially given current headlines. Attacks on the al-Rashid Hotel (hotel of visiting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and other U.S. and coalition officials and contractors) and Red Cross, in addition to frequent car bombings, confirm what many have long suspected: Iraq is still a war zone.

What should the president do? There is now confirmation that more American soldiers died during the months following Iraq’s liberation than during the conflict itself. Sending in more troops to a slaughter will not improve his popularity. The Bush administration already adjusted its motivation for entering Iraq only days after its commencement in an effort to divert attention from purpose to the imminent victory. That move worked in the short-term, but spurred a fierce debate regarding the lack of WMD. Victory or not, it is clear post-Saddam Iraq is unstable and dangerous.

The clock is ticking, and the president is running out of time. As his public support deteriorates, President Bush must strive for damage control. The chaos in Iraq continues, and Mr. Bush must distance himself from it if he wishes to prevent it from damaging his re-election bid.

If Mr. Bush does not balance politically savvy campaign tactics with good public relations, the war in Iraq may change from a mid-term approval ratings boon to a late-term blunder. However, delegating major decisions in order to avoid criticism is a major faux pas, one that voters will remember on Election Day. President Bush’s best plan of action may be to draw focus away from Iraq by touting the improving economy or his tax cuts. The key is to not sacrifice his image as a fearless leader, which won over much of the nation following 9/11. The worst thing Mr. Bush can do at this point, however, would be to continue to mislead America, as critics claim he has done throughout his presidency.

Although some citizens have forgotten the American motivation for entering Iraq, there is no doubt that voters know what they want in November 2004: their families home for the holidays, a solution to the Iraq problem and an administration that will deliver both. President Bush should navigate his way around Iraq-related questions to prevent damaging his campaign, but if he gets too quiet, he may find himself unemployed.

2003-10-29T16:40:00.000-05:00

Keep It Clean
By Anna Schwartz

Christie Todd Whitman resigned from her position as EPA administrator in a maelstrom of controversy this summer and the president wasted no time in appointing another of his governor cronies with an even worse environmental record for the position. After several Senate Democrats withdrew their month-long hold on the nomination, the Senate confirmed Utah Governor Mike Leavitt by a landslide, with a margin of 88 to 8.

Mr. Leavitt’s confirmation will agitate those who oppose the Bush administration’s environmental policies, and his vague answers to questions posed at his nomination hearing indicate that he is destined to become a regime puppet. Leavitt’s record as Utah governor includes some blemishes; his prior dealings indicate, despite his reputation of “playing to the middle,” he often sides with the high rollers. Leavitt conducted secret negotiations with the Department of the Interior to remove millions of acres of land in Utah and other states from protected status – a move supported by developers and industry, but decried by environmental groups.

Why, then, did the Senate vote so overwhelmingly for his confirmation? According to Independent Jim Jeffords, he’s just a really nice guy. The vote-blocking tactic used by the Senate Democrats was apparently nothing personal against Mr. Leavitt; it was an effort to push the EPA and the administration to provide answers regarding immediate environmental concerns. The effort, led by Senator Clinton, was spineless and ineffective --politicking to make a racket with the hope constituents would notice, and had little to do with Mr. Leavitt himself.

Leavitt’s policy agenda as governor of Utah can be described as environmentally friendly, as long as that friendliness did not interfere with the wishes of big business. In Salt Lake City, for instance, he created an urban sprawl initiative that softened his criticism from the left. But in Washington, those wishes are magnified tenfold: genuinely environmentally friendly policy will not stand a chance in an agency that is subject to the whims of the Bush administration (which is subject to the whims of special interests and business lobbying groups). In Utah, Governor Leavitt was the final authority; in Washington, he is far lower on the totem pole. As EPA Administrator, Mr. Leavitt will find it much harder to solve problems by appealing to the “productive middle.” Thus, Mr. Leavitt’s strength of character and integrity are important factors to consider in the Democrats’ overwhelming approval of his nomination. To question his politics is irrelevant; to question his morals is not.

The 36 Senate Democrats who voted yes to Mr. Leavitt’s confirmation, however, did so for reasons more complex than an amiable relationship with the Governor. Their votes can be explained in two ways: first, the Democrats might be hoping that Leavitt will go the way of Whitman, and actually start to believe that his job as EPA Administrator requires him to promote policy that protects the environment. This realization cost Whitman her job, but Leavitt might be better able to hold his ground, given his commitment to problem solving and his friends inside the beltway. Second, the Democrats are picking the most bipartisan-oriented of the possible nominees – despite his spotty record, Leavitt does have a history of making some concessions on environmental concerns, even if those concessions are purely symbolic.

Ultimately, time will tell whether Mr. Leavitt is the best of the worst. But the EPA was created to monitor and protect environmental concerns, not as a forum for political squabbles. Mr. Leavitt may be able to keep his integrity while in office; Democrats can only hope that he leaves his politics behind.