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.

2003-10-22T21:25:00.000-04:00

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Iowa?
By Anna Schwartz

Two of the nine remaining Democratic presidential candidates, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Senator Joe Lieberman, announced Monday that they would be skipping out on the Iowa caucuses. For Clark, this is probably a sound strategy: he joined the race approximately a month ago and will have neither the time nor opportunity to create the political network necessary to win the January 19th caucuses. Devoting his personnel and campaign funds to states where he has more time to make an impression, and a better chance of winning the hearts and minds of voters, makes sense (although it is, nonetheless, a risky move). In Lieberman’s case, however, bowing out of the Iowa race may be attributed purely to cowardice.

Iowa’s political significance originated in the 1976 primary when Jimmy Carter used the momentum he gathered there to kick open the door to the White House, and since then, no candidate who has skipped its caucuses has gone on to win the nomination (John McCain being the most recent example of this failure in the 2000 Republican primary). The Iowa caucus is one of the earliest and best indicators of a candidate’s chances at nomination – Democrats in Iowa represent the core of the Democratic party: blue collar workers who are to the left of the Democratic party spectrum and who are some of its most loyal voters. Howard Dean and Congressman Gephardt will be battling to win the state, with Senators Kerry and Edwards fighting for third place. Though Edwards offers that his parents were blue-collar workers, his status as a millionaire trial lawyer undermines this attempt to forge a blue-collar identity, positioning Dean and Gephardt as the two populist, labor-friendly candidates and thus the two most likely to have standpoints that resonate with Iowa voters.

Lieberman has not been polling well there – not surprising, considering his Iraq war hawkishness and penchant for international trade and globalization, two positions that most Iowans oppose. Nevertheless, not competing in Iowa is likely to have two consequences: first, it will alienate voters there and cause resentment in an important swing state in the general election (Gore won by only 4100 votes there in 2000). And secondly, it will destroy his credibility as a bona fide fighter and a bona fide Democratic candidate, rather than an overly intellectual, less attractive, Jewish version of President Bush. Forfeiting a state that is such an excellent proxy for left-leaning Middle America is tantamount to admitting defeat facing Bush next fall: if a Democratic candidate cannot even fare well in a state that contains the solid core of the leftist Democratic voters, how will Democrats ensure those votes come November? Not everyone can be a winner, no, but being an also-ran is a better choice than being a never-ran. Maybe, as Richard Perlstein argues in this week’s Village Voice, Lieberman should take the hint and drop out of the race altogether.

Whether or not the decision is voluntary, Lieberman will be steamrolled in the early primaries (although perhaps not in New Hampshire, given its proximity to Connecticut, his home state). His candidacy, based on name recognition and the fallacious logic that he is almost as conservative as Bush on many issues, (and will therefore be the best choice to beat him next fall), will soon be over. The moderate candidates – Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, one of whom is guaranteed to be at least the Vice Presidential nominee - bring enough centrism to the fold. Americans who vote Democratic in the fall do not want a different party’s reincarnation of Bush – they want a candidate who has strong, dissenting opinions that are neither too radical nor too conformist to Republican values. By admitting his failure to appeal to the left and center-left, Lieberman has entered the third tier of presidential candidates – that populated by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun – who will accomplish nothing by their candidacy other than wasting a great deal of donors’ money and getting face time on C-SPAN at 3am.

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Iowa? Joe Lieberman, whose absenteeism will fail to expand the sphere of political debate and fail to win him the nomination.

2003-10-22T21:16:00.000-04:00

To Live and Die in the U.S.A.
By Jermaine Smith

Lately, our government has been sticking its nose where it does not belong.

Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman, is comatose. Mrs. Schiavo suffered heart failure over a decade ago that left her in a vegetative state, rendering her incapable of caring for herself or eating without a tube. During this period, her husband, Michael Schiavo, supported her and her family to the best of his abilities. However, after more than 12 years, Mr. Schiavo lost hope in his wife’s recovery, as doctors assured him there was no chance of improvement. With this diagnosis and Mrs. Schiavo’s personal request before the incident, Mr. Schiavo chose to have his wife’s feeding tube removed, allowing Mrs. Schiavo a peaceful end,.

However, Mrs. Schiavo parents, backed by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had different plans for her.

By order of Gov. Bush, Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube will be reinserted and she will be rehydrated. Mr. Bush and Mrs. Schiavo’s surviving family feel it is in her best interest to remain in this comatose state with the hope of improvement their doctors have guaranteed them. On the surface, this seems it should be a private family matter, but Gov. Bush’s intervention has made it not only a state issue, but also an issue with federal implications.

Allowing Gov. Bush to make the final decision over a personal choice such as the right to die places a frightening amount of power in our government’s hands. In America, there are two absolute truths: you will pay taxes and you will die. If the courts uphold Gov. Bush’s order, backed by the Florida legislature, ultimate control of both could lie in the hands of the government. Florida’s governor is not the only Bush interested in our private matters, however.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill, passed by the House earlier this year, banning “partial birth abortions,” a specific type of late-term abortion. President Bush voiced his enthusiasm and support for the legislation almost immediately, and plans to sign it into law. This would, many experts agree, openly defy the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to choose to abort a pregnancy (although this right was not unrestricted). While this legislation is an unpleasant suggestion to pro-choice advocates everywhere, the larger question is the precedent it will set for the legislation of social norms and the governmental incursion into matters of private choice.

With recent events, most importantly 9/11, the American government has increased its ability to encroach on many civil liberties, bending them in the effort to defeat terrorism. While the argument over these infringements continues, it is more alarming that recent legislation, such as the abortion bill, meet overwhelming acceptance in the House and Senate. Unlike the circumstances surrounding the Patriot Act, there is no longer a need for hasty judgment, no terrorist threat to thwart. The abortion bill allows the government into American citizens’ personal lives for no reason other than invasion, pure and simple.

Advocates of the abortion bill point to the cruelty and unjust nature of “killing” a human being, but ignore that the decision of Roe v. Wade, though giving a woman a right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy, defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. Effectively, this would declare illegal most abortions past the 1st trimester barring physical complications in nearly all states, the alleged function of the new measure.

The trend with the Bush administration is clear: there is no decision so personal that the government does not have input. This cavalier attitude towards private issues sets a precedent that may open the door to limitless legislative intrusions. If the administration aspires to shape the social landscape in America more effectively, perhaps they should start with simple comprehensive health care and let its citizens decide when and where to live or die.

2003-10-16T23:29:00.000-04:00

Cry Me a River
By Jermaine Smith

It’s a free country, or at least that is the rumor. Lately, however, that seems to apply merely when everyone agrees with your opinion.

During the United States’ relatively short history, the nation has endured a host of discriminatory practices toward a variety of religions, sexual orientations and ethnicities. Our nation’s past is not always a proud one, but most times a hopeful one, as we grow from our earlier mistakes to build a healthier society.

Nevertheless, there are times when we can be too sensitive.

Rush Limbaugh, the infamous radio talk show host with a penchant for instigation, made the mistake of voicing what many feel a tactless opinion on an ESPN sports show. Although it is simple to write off Mr. Limbaugh’s opinion as racist or prejudiced, this attitude does not challenge our country to think. Very few agree with the statement, and it may have been imprudent, but is it fair to label it bigotry?

Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “the greatest dangers of the American republics proceed from the omnipotence of the majority.” It seems our sensitive nature has created a sense of supremacy; alternative viewpoints, regardless of significance or intention, meet harsh criticism and, in some cases, even harsher consequences. In Mr. Limbaugh’s case, it cost him his job.

However, Mr. Limbaugh is not the first case citizen to bristle America by exercising his right to free speech. Look no further than the war in Iraq and one will find an unrelenting firestorm of criticism. From anxious soldiers to ,frustrated senators, there was no safe harbor regarding the war outside of popular opinion. Despite their backgrounds, these men were labeled as unpatriotic because they voiced an outlook that did not correspond with the fashionable view.

America, its past hatred and current discrimination still fresh, condemns all that challenges the status quo. Mr. Limbaugh, unfortunately, finds himself the latest victim of a society that fears its own criticism: America would rather make him the scapegoat than examine its own behavior. In this particular case, the topic was only football players and their relationship with the media. Mr. Limbaugh’s criticism, intended to address the media’s mishandling of African-American quarterbacks, has made him into the poster boy for racial insensitivity.

What is it that we Americans fear? It is far too easy to ascribe our problems to these scapegoats. Are the allegations of discrimination and treason earned, or are they contrived? It seems omniscient America is stifling the freedom of expression, and in turn, we must ask ourselves if the wisdom of collective judgment is failing.

In recent decades, much controversy has arisen over issues of social equality, the most recent examples of which are affirmative action and homosexual marriages. While such issues often bring to the surface what some perceive as offensive comments, it is important to not lose sight that when people speak their minds, there can be positive change. It took almost 150 years for women to get the right to vote, and nearly another 30 to allow blacks and whites to attend the same schools. What gives us the audacity to think our decisions, perhaps meaning well at the time, are absolute? We have been wrong before, as our history indicates.

It is time for America to stop being so sensitive about its choices and accept a little criticism. How do we hope to improve our nation when we cast all who oppose the standard into exile? If our nation trusts in the values on which it stands, we must rededicate our energy to the pursuit of justice and equality, not mud slinging.

On the other hand, perhaps the reason our country is so swift to crucify is that, ultimately, we are not so virtuous ourselves. Until we examine our own belief systems and accept what we as a country must address, no one’s opinion is safe; the majority rules, and in these cases, it is crying foul.

2003-10-16T23:21:00.000-04:00

Just Say No?
By Anna Schwartz

The Bush-sponsored $87 billion Iraq spending bill currently being ushered through Congress will send the nation soaring into deficit, and is a zero-sum loss for spending on domestic concerns. But aside from partisan hostility, on what grounds can the Democrats reject the bill? This $87 billion, if spent efficiently, will recreate the infrastructure that we blew up last March – a fact that John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards seem to have forgotten or wish to forget about.

The Democratic Presidential candidates currently in Congressional office have rallied around the position of rejecting the White House-sponsored bill (save Joe Lieberman, who should not be considered a Democrat in the first place). John Kerry’s position is the most practical of the five: his approval of the Iraq spending would be conditioned upon the reduction of the Bush tax cut by an equal amount and ensuring that other nations share the economic burden of reconstructing Iraq.

Did the other Democrats forget to enroll in Foreign Policy 101 in college?

Although it may prove to be a pipe dream, the Bush administration’s plan of creating a stable democracy in Iraq – replete with all of the necessities for a functioning state, such as roads, electricity, and running water – is an excellent long-term foreign policy goal for the United States to pursue. Earlier this month, Dr. Rice’s speech at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations outlined the Bush administration policy -- culled from the rhetoric, this is the key point around which the policy revolves: “A free, democratic, and successful Iraq can serve as a beacon, and a catalyst, in this effort [toward progress in the Middle East].”

A democratic Iraq is a means to an end as well as an end in and of itself: although the administration touts the project as a moral mission, that is only part of the picture, as American interests can be measured not just in tax dollars, but in the stability of the region as a whole. A prosperous and free Iraq could create a domino effect in the Middle East, or so the Bush administration hopes. But the most compelling reason to shell out $87 billion? It would prevent Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for terrorism.

With that said, $87 billion is not a magic number. Despite this, Dennis Kucinich’s position that Congress should not approve a cent of it is untenable – dropping bombs and going home is a terrible policy that would have unthinkable consequences. Leaving Iraq in a state of total chaos with no money, government or order will undoubtedly facilitate the rise of a regime like the Taliban.

Those liberals and Democrats who did not support the war in the first place had good reason: despite David Kay’s waffling, there has been no concrete evidence that Saddam had acquired or was ready to use weapons of mass destruction. Opposing the war was an excellent move for some Democrats, and the same plan has thus far worked brilliantly for the Dean campaign. Despite Democratic opposition, the war transpired and American troops remain in Iraq, whether liberals are keen on the idea or not. Leaving the country in tatters is not a viable foreign policy option.

Opposing Bush’s proposal will ultimately not harm the President himself – sticking to his guns on the Iraq policy has increased his approval rating by a few points over the past weeks – but will harm the Iraqi people. Though the Iraqi people are not Congressional constituents, security in Iraq will ultimately do wonders for American national security interests.

President Bush may have been wrong initially about Iraq, but his current course of action is spot on. War is costly; the aftermath is costlier. The Democratic Presidential Candidates should embrace nation building, the type of foreign policy that Clinton championed. The war on terror has affected America’s course in foreign policy. But just saying no is just not an option.

2003-10-08T23:57:00.000-04:00

SPYGATE?
By Anna Schwartz

In the midst of the Arnie hype, the saga of Joe Wilson IV, a former US ambassador, and his CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame, has become yesterday’s news. Mr. Wilson alleges that an administration official disclosed Ms. Plame’s identity in retaliation to his CIA report in which he concluded that there had been no uranium trade negotiations between Iraq and Niger (a finding that, if true and conclusive, could have significant implications in the Bush administration’s justifications for war).

Last week, Mr. Wilson appeared on Meet the Press to explicate his findings in Niger as well as to denounce the Bush administration’s alleged reaction (his wife refuses to appear in public for comment). Wilson fingered Karl Rove as the culprit in the incident, citing evidence that Karl Rove had called Ms. Plame “fair game.”

Further scandal erupted when the administration announced that the Justice Department would conduct the investigation into the scandal rather than appointing an independent counsel, as senior administration officials such as Karl Rove purportedly have close personal and financial ties with Attorney General John Ashcroft. Rove, along with two other senior administration aides, has denied any connection with the scandal. At a press conference yesterday, President Bush declared confidence in the investigative process, but later said, “I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration and there's a lot of senior officials. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is.''

Is this the next Watergate or a profoundly inopportune case of hubris on Mr. Wilson’s part?

Mr. Wilson’s report was a mid-level CIA report, conducted last November, which the President was not briefed on until much later; the leak of Ms. Plame’s name to the press did not occur until this summer (or, at least, was not published until Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14). Moreover, although it provides fuel for Congressional Democrats’ hysteria about the sixteen words used in Bush’s State of the Union address, Wilson’s report does not provide conclusive evidence that there were no uranium negotiations between Iraq and Niger; nor does it rule out that there may have been negotiations between Iraq and other states.

Wilson’s report proves only that the officials he spoke to, given the climate in which he spoke to them, did not admit to negotiations with Iraq – their responses could have been biased by a multitude of factors, including fear of American sanctions and self-censorship due to awareness that American officials would see the report. Wilson himself admitted that his report was not conclusive: it was “one of only several reports on that particular subject. It never promised to be the definitive report, and if there was other intelligence, then, indeed, there may have been something of which I was unaware.”

George Tenet, director of Central Intelligence, released the following statement on Wilson’s report: “It did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, …we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government, and this might have influenced what they said.”

Other White House scandals this century have had equally modest beginnings: even Watergate began as a small investigation into a break-in at DNC headquarters. But this scandal smacks of overblown hype: if Mr. Wilson’s allegations are true, and a senior administration official retaliated to Wilson’s report by exacting revenge on his wife, there is valid cause for concern – the official’s actions were unethical and unseemly, and the should be punished. But this scandal lacks the gravity of Watergate and the magnitude of Whitewater.

Thus far, evidence points to the likelihood of one of two possibilities: first, the administration was unaware of Wilson’s report; or second, that the administration was aware of Wilson’s report but dismissed it as inconclusive. Whether senior officials have been putting pressure on Central Intelligence to tailor their reports to suit the Bush agenda is decidedly a matter of concern to the American public, but this scandal does not address that issue. Precious tax dollars are at work to investigate one woman’s reputation: personal and partisan vendettas aside, Ms. Plame’s career is the only issue on the line.

The administration would have made a case for war with Iraq with or without Mr. Wilson’s confirmation of evidence – his report was neither strong nor important enough to affect the administration’s agenda, and ultimately will have little effect on the justifications for war.

Despite Mr. Ashcroft’s continual efforts to make it so, we do not yet live under a totalitarian regime. This incident, while unfortunate, is not worth the newsprint.

2003-10-08T23:33:00.000-04:00

Arnold Does Sacramento
By Jermaine Smith

From porn kings to former child actors, the 135 gubernatorial candidates in California presented a smorgasbord of options to replace Gov. Gray Davis. There was no suspense on October 7, however, as experts predicted well before the last polls closed that Arnold Schwarzenegger would indeed be California’s next governor.

Governor-elect Schwarzenegger is the first California governor to take office due to a recall. In fact, 1921 was the last time such a recall successfully removed a governor from any U.S. state: North Dakota’s Lynn Frazier. The citizens of California spoke with their votes, but what did they say?

The novice politician only recently outlined his first 100 days, but failed to account for the fact that he will inherit a nearly $40 billion deficit (the largest single state deficit in American history), 1 million unemployed citizens and a state economy in jeopardy. To make matters worse, the state Legislature is Democrat-controlled and party politics are nearing a fever pitch not felt in decades.

The task of being governor proved difficult even for Davis, the state’s governor for the past 5 years. What qualifies Schwarzenegger to improve the situation in the state of California?

Schwarzenegger’s campaign, though lacking common conventions employed by most politicians, worked brilliantly. Schwarzenegger declined debate after debate until the 11th hour of the campaign, avoiding unnecessary media scrutiny. There was no need to dash around the political circuit; unlike his opponents, whom the average citizen may have been less familiar with before the recall, Schwarzenegger is a household name. When he did make appearances, his speeches were without exception comforting platitudes and promises of grandeur, with little or no concrete plans of action and no platform.

But Schwarzenegger’s ace was neither his popularity as a celebrity nor his remarkable platform; it was the charm of his inexperience.

Given the grim troubles looming over the state, the seat of governor was available to whoever presented the best case. Schwarzenegger had the advantages of name recognition, time and desperation. The appeal for a recall itself indicated the mindset of the citizens: Californians wanted change, and they wanted change now.

Ushering in a new governor under these extraordinary circumstances requires great diplomacy, and this situation is unprecedented: it requires the expertise of an experienced politician, perhaps even a bit of luck. In spite of this, the emphasis on immediate resolution created an excellent opportunity for Mr. Schwarzenegger.

Mr. Schwarzenegger’s lack of direct political knowledge eliminated his doubts and blinded him to the severity of the task before him. Though political strategists agree that the situation in California will take years to resolve, he is able to deliver promises of immediate change to the populace with confidence because he may actually BELIEVE he can solve these problems in an expedited fashion.

Other candidates with more experience, or simply more political savvy, address these concerns with an apprehension that desperate citizens do not find appealing. Schwarzenegger’s political ignorance caused him to exude more confidence because, frankly, he does not know to be afraid.

Schwarzenegger is in a situation similar to the Depression (though a much smaller scale): a large deficit, rising unemployment and a stagnant economy. Whom should the average citizen trust? A politician, whom many feel are at the very root of the crisis at hand, or a star that puts on a good face and asserts he is for the people?

Aside from his fame and fortune, Mr. Schwarzenegger is very much an average citizen. His lack of experience may enchant those who have lost faith in politicians, given Davis’ failure. Schwarzenegger has a can-do attitude that appeals to the hope nearly 50% of those who voted for him cling to: that California is poised to recover.

There are few guarantees in politics, as the citizens of California have reminded Gov. Davis. There is no assurance that Governor-elect Schwarzenegger will indeed solve any of California’s crises. Nevertheless, he has given Californians hope; and in the desperate political climate of California, that apparently will win you the governorship.

2003-06-08T00:04:00.000-04:00

The Steep Price of Victory
By Anna Schwartz

Congress Republicans pushed through a tax cut on May 23rd of $350 billion, which will help usher in highest deficits ever recorded in this nation. The bill, which is less than half the size of the president’s original proposal, passed the House with a margin of 231-200; the Senate, however, was deadlocked at 50-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. President Bush claimed victory at the passage of the bill, although he denounced the same bill as mere pittance just a few weeks ago.

Although the Republicans have spent months pitching the tax cuts as beneficial to American families, the legislation is really intended to kick-start business investment – the people will actually benefit very little. The Democratic party’s criticism of the bill is that it is a tax cut for the rich – this is not, in fact, entirely accurate – the dividend tax reduction that was so important to Bush’s bill plays a much smaller role in this version of the bill. But the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center did calculate that 58% of the benefits of the bill would go to the 8.6% of taxpayers who earn over $100,000.

As the elections approach, both the White House and Congress Republicans will remind voters of how they have benefited their constituents – average Americans, who earn an income of $41,000, will get back a whopping $211 at the end of the year. The Republicans are banking on that $211 to win elections – most of the tax reductions will take place in the first three years of the bill. But just as Reaganomics, “read my lips, no new taxes,” and Bush’s first tax cut failed to resuscitate flailing economies, this too will fail. The intention of this bill is to allow people to keep their own money,” said Representative Thomas (R-California). But for the vast majority of voters, an extra $211 will not make a major difference in the amount they consume or they save.

Voters are looking for tangible assurances, and Keynesian economics has proven its implacability, although the extreme versions, in the form of massive social welfare programs, are useless and irrelevant in a nation that has turned against big government. The choice is binary: one form of economic thinking precludes the other – cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time will create gaping deficits. However, this is exactly what Mr. Bush plans to do. Republicans, often lauded for their fiscal discipline, are actually worse than Democrats about increasing spending while in office.

Congressional Democrats have been criticized for having neither effective policy ideas nor party discipline (although the tax cut vote in the Senate was mostly along party lines, big names like Zell Miller (D-Georgia) voted for the measure). And the Democrats’ tax plan, proposed in opposition to President Bush’s, was nothing more than a blip on the radar – no break from Democratic policy of the past, other than providing working families with a larger tax credit, it did not contain any feasible measures to boost the economy. The Democratic plan was simply a piece of oppositional legislation, created in order to demonstrate dissent. Although Democratic leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, seemed to take the plan seriously, few others did.

Regardless of whether the Democrats managed to create a viable alternative, the Republican plan will do nothing to kickstart the economy. President Bush’s approval rating may be at 66% now, but over the course of the next year, with war issues dwindling and the issue of the economy being pushed into the forefront by Democratic contenders, the current 21% economic confidence rating will diminish even further. Despite the threat of further terrorist attacks, Gallup polls show that 49% of Americans believe economic problems are a higher priority than terrorist attacks. Democrats will use this to their advantage: the Republicans’ tax plan, which will undoubtedly be ineffective in creating jobs and boosting the economy where it counts (i.e. not for those who are already Republican supporters, but for those voters who make far less than $100,000 a year and who are suffering most from economic setbacks), will serve as the focal point for Democratic criticism, and will facilitate a shot at the White House, as well as a great deal of leverage in Congressional elections next fall.

2003-04-29T12:12:00.000-04:00

Bush is Here to Stay
By Jermaine Smith

I would not suggest that President Bush start filling out any change of address forms any time soon.

He sent troops into Iraq. He has done nothing to improve the economy. He is tracking a ghost called terrorism. With so many disappointing dealings and unwelcome complications, at first glance it would seem that Bush’s reign as leader of the free world is deteriorating. However, Bush has an excellent chance of re-election.

Bush has had an incredibly unlucky term. The Sept. 11 attacks immediately come to mind, but there is also the Anthrax scare, days of terror inspired by two sharpshooters and, of course, the volatile economy. While these are major hindrances, none were the fault of Bush himself; he was as much a victim as everyone else. It is rare that a president can get through a term without at least minor problems, but Bush has experienced one of the more memorable terms in the past 3 decades.

The war in Iraq, a hot topic from its inception due to potential lingering effects on international affairs, has garnered support from the majority of the country. While Bush may not be popular with his peers, voters remain firmly planted in his corner. He exudes confidence at a time when many Americans were hesitant. Bush’s less charming characteristics, often equated to ineptitude, prove to be his appeal.

Another promising trend in Bush’s favor: lack of good Democratic candidates for president. At present, the leading contenders have little on which to discredit Bush given his few accomplishments while in office (war aside), despite the fact his greatest project, tax reform, is under fire from critics. Those who have dared to attack Bush or his Cabinet, particularly concerning the war, find themselves running for cover from the media. It seems having an alternative opinion leads to certain political death these days.

Bush’s greatest challenge, the Sept. 11 attack, may also have been his best ally in securing at least an opportunity to retain office. Though the attack devastated our nation, the country rallied around the President and his words, cheering his determination to keep our nation safe. It was difficult to believe the same man who only months before was criticized for a fictitious appointment to president now had the automatic support of the millions who once opposed him. His masterful handling of that fragile situation caused his approval rating to soar. Now, with the 2004 elections nearing, the Bush administration has devised a method to capitalize on Sept. 11. Bush’s Sept. 11 success is perhaps what allowed him to pursue action in Iraq.

America is not in the good graces of many nations around the world. There is a severe lack of dedication to international unity from the Bush administration but the American public has expressed nothing but apathy concerning the matter. Were it not for its status as reigning world power, the U.S. would likely find itself in the international doghouse.

President Bush’s political shrewdness leaves him in a position to retain his position in office. By showing determination in times of despair, by standing by his decisions and, because his presidency has not left him room to make many of his own mistakes, Bush has greatly improved his election odds. At this rate, there will be no close election to dispute next November; Bush will win flat-out, and then his true presidency will begin.

2003-04-25T22:28:00.000-04:00

Bigots in a Blanket
by Anna Schwartz

In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum’s (R, Pa.) remarks equating gay sex with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery, Democrats have practically lined up to assert how politically correct and open-minded they are. Surprisingly, Republicans have not. After Trent Lott’s bigoted remarks late last year, which were denounced all the way up the chain of command, it would seem that at least one of the Republican higher-ups would attempt to distance the party from Santorum’s hateful views. Does the fact that no major players have come out against him indicate what Republicans really think?

The party is not winning any popularity contests with minorities – in fact, some of the strongest opposition to the war came from African Americans. Perhaps the intent of Santorum’s remarks was to further alienate minority groups in order to recover conservative confidence. The New York Times practically accused Santorum of strategic bigotry, saying that he may have used his remarks as a way to “reach out to conservatives.”

Whatever Santorum’s intent, his comments were not just inappropriate but also divergent from the mainstream Republican ideology of “compassionate conservatism.” But as conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan points out, Santorum’s remarks are even more radical than they seem at first: Santorum is advocating that the federal government police morality in the bedroom. Isn’t that kind of… un-American?

While the Constitution does not outline explicitly the right to privacy, major cases such as Roe v. Wade have set the precedent that it is implicit in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. Most states have dropped their anti-sodomy laws, and Santorum’s comments were in response to a pending Texas case. The problem is, you can’t have it both ways: a limited government cannot police moral norms, nor should it have the power to do so. Perhaps Mr. Santorum is correct in that sexual rights should not be included in the constitution or laws of a state – that is, after all, what his spokeswoman claims in defense of his comments. That being the case, neither should sexual mores.

Liberals agree that what Santorum said is disgraceful. Mr. Santorum is not some random backwoods kook – he is third in line in the Republican hierarchy. Given his status, Republicans should come to this conclusion as well. Santorum’s remarks are a poor reflection on him; the fallout is a poor reflection on his party.

2003-04-16T03:23:00.000-04:00

Castro’s Revenge
by Anna Schwartz

While we were busy purging the Hussein regime from Iraq, the Cuban government arrested more than 80 pro-democracy dissidents, and executed three ferry hijackers who had attempted to flee to the U.S. earlier this month. These developments are alarming, although not surprising, as Castro’s tolerance for dissent is cyclical – after a period of relative laxity, a crackdown was inevitable. Though the New York Times accused the Castro regime of cracking down strategically, the world’s attention was diverted to that other evil dictator. As Colin Powell decried the human rights violations, the Latin American press speculated whether the U.S. would employ these accusations to garner support for ousting Castro, “shock and awe” style.

U.S.-Cuba relations have been rocky since the Cuban revolution in 1959; Cuba is the last bastion of communism in Latin America, but Castro will not keep his stranglehold on power forever. The dissidents and independent journalists arrested were part of the Varela Project, an initiative to collect 10,000 signatures on a petition to demand a constitutional amendment to guarantee freedom of speech, democratic participation, and other basic civil liberties. Castro’s effort to squash dissidents suggests desperation to maintain authority: scores of Cubans attempt daily to escape to the U.S., and a pro-democracy movement is an obvious manifestation of popular discontent with the Castro regime.

The arrests and executions may have occurred in reaction to U.S. interference: the Bush administration has cut the number of visas offered to Cubans drastically, prompting more Cubans to employ increasingly desperate measures to flee to the U.S., as exemplified by the spate of recent hijacking attempts. Additionally, James Cason, the chief of U.S. Interests in Havana, has been accused of violating diplomatic norms by providing the dissidents with resources and publicly supporting an overthrow of the Castro regime.

Regardless of whether Castro’s actions were exacerbated by U.S. interference, he is shooting himself in the foot: human rights violations have gone out of vogue, along with communism and authoritarian rule. Apparently, Castro didn’t get the memo.

But speculation that the U.S. will invade Cuba and remove Castro is ludicrous. Although we do not have a stellar reputation in terms of supporting democratic regimes in Latin America, the era of contras is over. Castro no longer poses a threat to us militarily, economically, nor as an ideological foe. Castro is holding on to a dying regime, attached to a dying ideology – the fall of communism marked the end of Castro as a threat to the U.S. Castro does, however, pose a threat to his own people, hence the attempts at mass exodus and the popular unrest. This recent crackdown might lead to international actions against him, by groups such as Amnesty International (although they hold no real power).

The U.S. could have invaded Cuba at any point in recent years – the fact that Cuba has not been on the radar, even during the seemingly war-hungry Bush administration, is a testament to the fact that it is not in our interests to do so. We did not attempt to justify our actions in Iraq as an effort to install democracy, although that will be the result – otherwise, we would have a long list of countries to invade (China, Zimbabwe, etc.). As Cuba has no weapons of mass destruction, it holds no appeal to the Bush administration as a country worth invading. Castro is megalomaniacal and vaguely evil, but his sway over Cuba is not worth going to war over.

Relations with Cuba were improving before Castro’s backlash; there was much bipartisan congressional support for easing sanctions, but that support has now eroded. Although the arrests and executions did not make the front page, they are indicative of the future direction of Cuban governance.

Unfortunately, Castro does not have the guns for it to matter.

2003-04-16T03:11:00.000-04:00

Smoke Screens and Red Herrings: Ingredients for a Successful War
By Jermaine L. Smith

Oh France, Germany, Russia and China; what do you have to say for yourselves? Do you still believe the war was a poor decision? And don't think we have forgotten your attitude concerning Iraq, either, United Nations.

The United States army marched through Iraq and, in just a matter of weeks, is close to declaring a victory in the liberation of Iraq. The Hussein regime, infamous for its torturous nature and ruthless leader, is no longer in power and little remains for discussion aside from rebuilding plans for the devastated nation.

And they said it shouldn’t be done.

Nothing shames those who doubted the cause like a swift victory. Allied forces breezed through southern Iraq, liberating oppressed people and delivering a message of Iraqi freedom like a 21st century Moses. Facing weak as well as isolated opposition, the Allied forces made quick work of Hussein’s Republican Guard. Constant coverage confirms the forthcoming swift victory as we draw closer to the end of the actual physical conflict.

Nevertheless, we have not realized our primary objective.

In an address to the nation, President Bush set out an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or face military action from the U.S. and its allied forces. After a refusal to destroy these weapons, as well as much debate between Allied forces and United Nations, the U.S. entered Iraq.

But what happened to the alleged weapons over which the U.S. originally instigated war? There have been no reports regarding concealed chemical or biological weapons nor, for that matter, concerning labs to develop such weapons. We have yet to discover any evidence to support our accusation that Iraq currently hoards weapons of mass destruction or that any of these weapons existed: evidence which would justify our invasion, ostensibly propelled by Iraqi failure to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441.

In defense of the effort, time remains in which to expose such weapons. The war is nearly over so, with no Hussein regime to thwart their attempts, Allied forces should recover and destroy any remaining weapons soon. However, to this point the best our government has produced are mobile labs containing paperwork and pesticide chemicals.

However, it is difficult to find coverage of this war which does not describe it as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a misleading tag which would have the public believe that was our initial goal. Quite simply, the liberation of the Iraqi people was a byproduct, albeit a great one, of the main purpose, which was to disarm Iraq. Until Allied forces, particularly the U.S., provide the world with the evidence that justify the means to this end, the liberation of the Iraqi people is a moot point.

With that said, the people of Iraq do not miss the Hussein regime. U.S. intervention, while not requested, has so far remained in the best interest of the majority of the Iraqi people. Many who feared for their lives are now free and will develop their own democratic government under the watchful eye of concerned world powers. While some may consider this a great victory, it must not detract from the greatest concern of this war.

The President and his administration explicitly listed the dismantling of weapons of mass destructions as a primary aim in Iraq. For weeks leading to the launch of the conflict, the administration provided evidence to the United Nations that confirmed the existence of such weapons.

Yet, no physical evidence of these weapons exists.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin recently spoke about the war for the first time since its inception. His chief concern: the Allied forces’ failure to achieve their goal of dismantling these weapons. Perhaps France and Germany were onto something. The war will end in the favor of the Allied forces, but questions concerning our intent have arisen.

These circumstances produce few possible outcomes. In one scenario, the Allied forces find weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi government indeed concealed and planned to employ, thus vindicating their rationale (for some). However, if the U.S. does not find the weapons it claims Iraq possesses, a situation develops in which we have questions to address.

How do we respond to a President and administration that knowingly sends its troops into harm’s way on a premonition? How will the unilateral decision to enter war affect our relations with other nations, particularly those who joined the Allied side only to discover a war based on assumption and not fact? Will there be a means by which the U.S. can repair its reputation with the world at-large?

With suspicions of American imperialism bordering on the line of terrorism circling the globe, the last thing the United States needs is failure in this war. Though the body count remains low and our military mighty, skeptics around the world are not impressed: they want proof.

The American people must choose to either accept a quick victory or demand the proof that our government guaranteed before we entered into combat. A war of this magnitude, with looming financial obligations, must have a foundation to which we can point and say, “Here is why we took this action.”

Our nation is built on honesty, trust and goodwill. Waging a baseless war against a country strains international relations, betrays our position on goodwill and denies the American people the truth and their protected right to choose.

2003-04-11T22:58:00.000-04:00

Patriotism and Politics
by Anna Schwartz

Republicans take note: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of regime is “[a] manner, method, or system of rule or government; a system or institution having widespread influence or prevalence. Now freq. applied disparagingly to a particular government or administration.”

When John Kerry said Wednesday that “what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but a regime change in the United States,” he was advocating for a Democratic victory – for his own victory in the 2004 election. A gaggle of House Republicans, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert, misinterpreted Kerry’s speech and criticized him, implying that he was unpatriotic for challenging the commander in chief at wartime. Kerry’s remark was intended neither to disrespect the president, nor to draw an analogy between Bush and Hussein. What he said – if the rabidly partisan Republican leadership had actually bothered to listen – was actually quite sensible, realistic, and intelligent. His criticism was of Bush’s diplomacy, (or lack thereof), not of the war itself.

For a few weeks, immediately before and after the initial attacks on Iraq, war-related news sidelined coverage as well as action on the part of the Democratic candidates. The war was political at its inception; because it is the only hot issue currently, or perhaps in order to garner more media attention for themselves, the Democratic candidates have jumped into the fray of war debate. Criticism, like Kerry’s, is carefully delineated: Kerry is not anti-war per se, but pro-diplomacy, and regrets Bush’s total incompetence in that arena.

These candidates’ deepest fear is to be called unpatriotic – in a time of crisis, that accusation spells political death. Former Senator Gary Hart observed, “Democrats are perceived to be weak and against national defense.” The 2004 candidates, with the exception of Howard Dean, are trying their damnedest to break away from that stereotype. The Dems riding the pro-war wagon are doing so either for safety, like Edwards, or because they are hawks, like Lieberman; by not voicing dissent, they avoid the risk of their patriotism being questioned.

Is patriotism necessarily equivalent to supporting our president’s potentially bad decisions? What happened to our civil liberties – partially suspended in a time of crisis, will they be fully removed during war time? And is patriotism to be found in words or in actions? Kerry served in Vietnam while our president bravely guarded the great state of Texas. The two esteemed Congressmen leading the attack on Mr. Kerry themselves questioned President Clinton during the Kosovo conflict. As Joshua Marshall argues, the Republicans’ objective is “to set the standard for criticism extraordinarily high and scare any Democrat from criticizing the president at all as long as the war or probably even the reconstruction of Iraq goes on.” This is a savvy political move, but it is disturbingly undemocratic. Criticism of the president’s actions should be fair game for those who wish to run against him next fall; without dissent, there would be no point to competition. The denunciation the Republicans have engaged in is nothing better than elevated (and highly publicized) name-calling, and indicates a dearth of ability to form an intelligent response.

Patriotism is a flimsy criterion by which to judge political candidates – a love of one’s country should be assumed in running for political office. Tallying bumper-sticker flags does not belong in the realm of serious political debate and contestation. Of course Mr. Kerry is a patriot, as is Mr. Dean, as is President Bush. Each advocates what he believes is best for the nation and its citizens; whether this accords with ideals of unilateral aggression and monstrous military force is not a measure of patriotism, but of ideology.

2003-04-02T02:01:00.000-05:00

Quiet on the Set
by Jermaine Smith

Here in the land of the free, sometimes it is hard to restrain ourselves: Americans have the right to protest, to question the administration and to essentially cause a ruckus whenever things don't go our way. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with dissent -- it's the American way -- but sometimes the voice of the alternative opinion emanates from the wrong mouth.

As Allied forces proceed further into Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom is well underway. Throughout the nation, many still find it worthwhile to protest the war, citing civilian deaths and wrongful motivation . Ostensibly, one of our motives for this war is to preserve our way of life, which protects our right to voice these opinions. But these voices have minimal effect as we will not withdraw troops based on the hang-ups of the nation's minority opinion.

We seem to have forgotten that our elected officials, though we often disagree with them, are better suited to make decisions of this nature than the average citizen: too many people in the public eye are sticking their noses where they do not belong.

At the Oscars, the Academy honored director Michael Moore for his documentary entitled "Bowling for Columbine," an anti-gun piece about the Columbine High School tragedy. Mr. Moore then chose to use his time receiving the award by taking personal jabs at the President and his administration. While many of us may agree with his sentiment (that the President was perhaps not rightfully elected, that we shouldn't be at war), it is inappropriate to voice this opinion at an inopportune time: for example, an awards show which is not intended to be a personal forum for political antics.

However, Mr. Moore is not the only celebrity opposing the war in Iraq. George Clooney, Martin Sheen and others, including celebrities in other nations, have all joined in the chorus of "no war." While these opinions are perfectly valid, as each American is entitled to believe whatever he wants, it is not appropriate for celebrities to take every opportunity afforded them to bash the Bush administration and certainly not to "inform" the American public regarding a topic of which they have modest knowledge.

Actor Sean Penn recently made a visit to Iraq, where he was greeted by the nation’s deputy prime minister. Mr. Penn believed it was his "duty" to see for himself what America would be fighting against. What logic is Mr. Penn employing? It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government would allow a foreign entertainer into their military facilities to inspect weapons of mass destruction when they do not allow UN inspectors that privilege. It is logical that all the government allowed Mr. Penn to see was what it wanted him to see, thereby using him as a propaganda tool to support their cause.

Another Hollywood A-list performer, Susan Sarandon, is against the war. On a morning show in mid-February, she pleaded with the Bush administration to "get real" about its plans in Iraq. She cited the lack of planning and motives to pursue such a war. Echoing the voices of a few generals, congressmen and a select portion of our population, Ms. Sarandon presented herself as a representative of American opinion.

Well, perhaps Mr. Moore, Mr. Penn, Ms. Sarandon and their peers are correct. Perhaps our current administration should forget what their intelligence agents report to them. Perhaps the administration should ignore the information it has access to (which surely our general public does not) and cease this war. Moreover, perhaps we should rely on the opinions of a few actors and actresses who were prepared to deliver lines as opposed to our president and his cabinet members who were prepared to make foreign affairs decisions.

Or perhaps not.

Perhaps it is time we remind our entertainers that they are, and remain, in the limelight for one reason: they entertain us. They make films, music and provide us with a relief from everyday life. We do not entrust them with our safety. We do not grant them access to confidential information. We do not elect them (save for a few) to positions of power in our government.

Some celebrities make the case that the media seeks to ridicule them based on their anti-war stance. This may very well be true.

The fact is, it is hard for the public to take performers seriously in the light of world affairs. But are we wrong to feel this way? Would Martin Sheen dominate a war debate with President Bush? Could Bianca Jagger outwit Prime Minister Blair? Furthermore, do these actors and actresses have the background in academia or any of these fields which merit our conscious ears?

In the affairs of the world, Sean Penn is as poorly suited to make decisions and dole out advice as Colin Powell is to play the title role of MacBeth. We will keep our government officials in Washington. Celebrities should do what they do best -- entertain -- and leave world affairs to the professionals.

2003-04-02T01:07:00.000-05:00

When Massacres Are No Longer Cause for Concern
by Anna Schwartz

Sounds familiar: failed diplomacy, attacks on civilians, fringe politics, nuclear weapons, military occupation. Yet this is not another story about Iraq – it’s a story with deeper historical roots and equally important implications: the ongoing conflict in the disputed, Indian-controlled state of Kashmir, a conflict that could easily turn into a nuclear war.

Thirty five thousand people have died thus far in the two wars and countless disputes over the territory since the independence and partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Before independence, India contained numerous smaller kingdoms not incorporated into the colonial government’s territory. Kashmir was one of these kingdoms – under the rule of the Maharaja, a Hindu, it had a majority Muslim population. The Maharaja chose in 1947 to be incorporated into India instead of Pakistan, however, and the result has been over fifty years of hot dispute between the nations, most recently last autumn, when there was a buildup of troops along the “line of control” due to the threat of war.

Last Sunday, in a small village called Nadimarg (just south of Srinagar), Islamic militants dressed in Indian army uniforms ordered Hindu families out of their homes in the middle of the night. Those who did not comply were shot with automatic weapons. The massacre claimed the lives of twenty-four Hindus. Although at any other time this slaughter would have received substantial coverage, the war in Iraq has reduced it to less than a blip on the news radar. But we must not ignore this incident. If the Islamic militants are connected with the Pakistani government, or if the Pakistani government fails to punish them severely enough to satisfy the Hindu nationalist BJP, (currently the head of the ruling coalition in India), it will be grounds for war. Unlike previous disputes, this time the stakes will be much higher – both countries have nuclear weapons, and both have threatened to use them.

In another district, the day after the massacre, six Hindus were mutilated, their noses cut off. But the violence has been reciprocal: the massacre may have been retaliation for the assassination of a Muslim Kashmiri separatist, Abdul Majid Dar, a former leader of an Islamic guerilla group. Dar was a proponent of dialogue between India and Pakistan over the region, so his assassins may have been fellow Muslims who believed in more violent solutions. No group has claimed responsibility for the massacre, the mutilations, or the assassination.

President Bush has stressed that the United States’ interests are in keeping the peace between the two nations and preventing a nuclear war. If a war were to erupt, however, the United States has close ties to Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s dubiously undemocratic, non-secular Pakistan because of the post-9/11 witch hunt for terrorists. However, we have strained ties with fully democratic, secular (or at least formerly secular) India due to the nation’s Nehru-era socialist tendencies. The United States is indebted to Pakistan in a way reminiscent of the Kennan Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, which supported authoritarian leaders in Latin America as long as they were anti-communist.

Other nations perceived as a threat before the war, such as North Korea, have also been phased out of the news cycle. But the inflammatory nature of this conflict, and the fact that both of the countries have the nuclear muscle to back up their threats is cause enough for alarm. Whether the government gets its cues from the news or vice versa, the State Department and the U.N. should take note: this conflict will not remain minor for long.

India’s deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, has gone to the region to investigate the conflict and to reassure the Hindus who remain. India is no stranger to religious conflict – last spring, thousands died in the Hindu/Muslim riots in Gujarat, to which the BJP government allegedly contributed through the ordered inaction of the police. In fact, the leader of the opposition Indian Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, has accused the BJP leaders of inciting violence in Kashmir (and other regions) rather than attempting to quell it.

India and Pakistan will not hesitate to go to war. The danger of this is not only the conflict itself, but also the potential outcome. Although the majority of Kashmir is Muslim, the Hindus who live there will no longer be protected should Pakistan win the territory, as Pakistan has no qualms proclaiming that it is a Muslim state, and civil liberties (for both Muslims and non-Muslims) are enforced unevenly at best. The displaced Hindus will either flee to refugee camps and become a drain on government resources, or suffer a potentially worse fate under the control of Pakistan. The results will be horrific – mass rioting will occur – as it will be partition revisited, accompanied by all the violence that occurred both in 1947 and in 1970-71 during the war of independence for Bangladesh.

We must not allow this war to happen – peace must be enforced, if not by the United States (as U.S. forces are currently occupied in Iraq, and those pesky dissenters might argue over the further imposition of U.S. imperialism), then by the United Nations. There may be no permanent solution to the conflict over Kashmir, but we must not allow nuclear war to materialize. The first step to ensuring peace is recognizing that there is a problem.

2003-03-26T00:03:00.000-05:00

Where Do We Draw the Line?
by Jermaine Smith

Americans are taken with staying informed. We treasure our “right to know,” and our country often encourages and rewards our curiosity and persistence. However, it seems that our thirst for knowledge has caused our cups to overflow with information. Over the past 200 years, the United States has participated in many wars and conflicts. It is arguable that none have received the amount of coverage as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

America often straddles the line between the sensational and the absurd, sometimes overstepping it and clawing its way back to normalcy. This recurrent faux pas often undermines our serious actions. Now we face an unusual beast in our war coverage.

What is within the boundaries of taste? What does the American public really need to know? Furthermore, how far can we go before we compromise the safety of the brave men and women risking their lives in Iraq?

It is unrealistic to entirely oppose and dismiss war coverage. Even the U.S. government advocates the presence of journalists overseas. Many Americans find the constant briefings informative, however situations in which the information is too volatile are not uncommon.

Recently, the U.S. military confirmed that Spc. Joseph Hudson is a POW. Or rather, Filipino television ran the story and then our government acknowledged it publicly.

Unfortunately, the mother of the POW also learned of her son’s plight over satellite television, instead of from the U.S. government directly. Subsequently, nearly every major network interviewed Hudson’s mother repeatedly and at length concerning her son’s imprisonment. This is unquestionably excessive. It is absurd that anyone, especially during a period of severe stress and vulnerability, should suffer that handling by the media.

While it is unfortunate and disturbing when the news of war casualties hit home, it may still be considered valuable to obtain said information. But how much does America need to know? For that matter, how much does America really know?

We must recognize that, while the news media indulges us with minute-by-minute analysis and updates, America and other nations receive filtered war coverage. At some point, the administration must regard this right to know as a safety hazard for the military. CNN, for example, is broadcast worldwide- there is no block on Iraqi television. Each time a reporter gives the details on Allied movement, targets or insights to morale, the Hussein regime has access to the same knowledge. While this will always not prove to be useful, it does no good for the Allied soldiers.

Moreover, how far do we allow journalists to reach for newscasts? Some journalists are already missing; some lose their lives in pursuit of information. It is not reasonable to demand our soldiers protect embedded journalists when their own lives are in peril. In some cases, journalists have proved themselves liabilities. Journalism during a time of war is not equivalent to reporting on the Academy Awards -- there are serious potential consequences of these endeavors, including death. Must we send our investigative intellects into the lion’s den as well?

Perhaps our country upholds the Geneva Convention standards in a time of war, but our coverage of the war creates obstacles at home. Our own people suffer humiliating interviews, receive harrowing news from foreign television before our own government and most importantly, endanger the lives of our troops and civilians. While valuable in some respects, the war coverage has the potential to be detrimental to our goals.

If ratings continue to dictate our coverage, we may soon find that the world’s most fickle audience forgets the importance of that for which we fight.

2003-03-25T23:49:00.000-05:00

Another Vietnam?
by Anna Schwartz

No anti-war protest has yet resulted in an incident like that of Kent State University in 1970, where four students were killed and nine wounded by the National Guard in an attempt to quell a demonstration against the Vietnam War. Internationally, riot police chase protesters and douse them with hoses, but in the United States, only minor skirmishes with police have occurred.

Seventy two percent of America is in favor of the war, and President Bush’s approval rating is sky-high at seventy one percent. These figures are impressive, but the percentage in favor of the war is significantly lower than the same figures for the first Persian Gulf War. A sizeable minority conscientiously objects to the war: this minority is mostly composed of younger urban elites already predisposed to leftist political leanings. The threat of war creates an opportunity for leftists, comprised of ideologically diverse groups, to form a coalition with which to fight against a common cause. Historically, a divided nation has produced draft dodging, violent protest, and partisanship, but Operation Iraqi Freedom will not be long enough or dirty enough for any of these to occur.

Now that troops are engaged in battle in Iraq, it is fruitless to contest the legitimacy of this action. Hundreds of thousands of protesters screaming “No Blood For Oil” will not save lives, and will have no effect on the outcome of battles or on the administration’s decision-making. Those who protest are exercising their rights of free speech – the same rights that Bush claims our troops are fighting for on behalf of the tyrannized Iraqi people – but they are ineffectual. Continuing to protest undermines both the morale of the soldiers in combat and the concept of national unity. It is our nation as a whole that is at war with Iraq, and our nation that suffers the casualties and celebrates the victories of battle.

Rather than questioning the decision to go to war, we should question our motives and what we expect of the outcome. President Bush made clear in his ultimatum last Monday that we would go to war because he believed we had no other choice – Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction were a threat to Americans and the American way of life. Is this a war of ideology? In order to garner support, Bush, with the full cooperation of the news media, has painted the war in the colors of platitudes – it is a war of “liberation,” and its aims are democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people. We are to believe that the marines fighting to secure Nasiriya are making the world safe for democracy. But Bush’s original goal – to divest Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction – was clearly more pragmatic than ideological.

The type of ideological justification employed by Bush is analogous to that presented during both the Vietnam and Cold Wars. Just as we (supposedly) fought to prevent the spread of communism and to defend ideals of democracy in these earlier wars, Bush has mobilized the nation to fight against the tyranny of Hussein’s dictatorship and the threat his regime poses to a peaceful, democratic Middle East. The opposing view, that Vietnam was really a manifestation of United States imperialism and hegemony, could also be applied to describe Operation Iraqi Freedom – using the need to destroy weapons of mass destruction as a façade, the Bush administration has pushed us into war to protect our economic and political interests and impose a regime more favorable to those interests. This explanation smacks of conspiracy theory and is far too simplistic to entertain seriously. As menacing as Mr. Bush may be, he is neither conniving nor evil, although stupidity may be legitimately counted among his flaws.

Operation Iraqi Freedom will not become another Vietnam if we do not allow it. The conflict will not end in stalemate and will not be subject to domestic political pressures. Democratic leaders who have offered support for the American forces without any tinge of partisan criticism deserve kudos. If and when Mr. Bush’s tactics become objectionable, opposition will be necessary; however, the war thus far has been fair and humane from the Allied side. Civilian casualties have been announced with regret. And we must not forget that seventy two percent of Americans support this war.

2003-03-18T02:13:00.000-05:00

Follow the Leader?
by Jermaine Smith

The United States prides itself on being an international power and leading the world in its pursuit of justice and democracy for all. However, we often carry out injustices and employ a flawed democratic system here in our own country.

The Supreme Court recently postponed the execution of a death row inmate in the state of Texas. The prisoner was to become the 300th execution in the state since 1976, the year the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment. In Texas and many other U.S. states, particularly in the southeastern region, a murder conviction often carries with it a sentence of death.

Capital punishment has an extensive history in the United States. From firing squads and hanging to gas chambers and lethal injections, the nation has spent the larger portion of its history ensuring severe criminals meet their demise. The majority of the nation utilizes the death penalty, citing “an eye for an eye.” Since 1976, over 700 people have met death in the 38 states that use capital punishment. However, U.S. policy regarding capital punishment is atypical compared to many of its international peers.

Many major world powers do not utilize capital punishment in their justice systems. The reasoning behind this is simple: the death of one does not justify the death of another, or simply the basic principle that two wrongs do not make a right. Some abroad and in the U.S. make the case that the death penalty is barbaric and a better alternative is life imprisonment. More still point out the importance of a costly mistake, such as a false conviction leading to an unmerited death.

For those whom this argument does not sway, there are deficiencies in the system the U.S. employs. Opponents of capital punishment often stress scores of wrongly accused exonerated individuals as well as the defective system that convicts them. The justice systems in some states offer flawed evidence, assuming the courts provide evidence at all. We cannot justify even 100 warranted deaths if just one groundless murder comes at the order of our government.

Race is an issue when concerning the death penalty. While a larger number of death row inmates are white, these inmates present a much smaller percentage of their population than do African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities. Murder convictions, the primary conviction of most death row inmates, involving mixed races as the perpetrator and victims (black perpetrator and white victim, for example) are most likely to result in a death conviction.

Another concern is the availability of good representation for defendants with little or no money. Often times a wealthier defendant (read: O.J. Simpson, Ray Lewis, Jayson Williams) can buy their way out of a potential conviction by the use of monetary might. This imbalance reveals yet another startling discovery: the majority of inmates on death row are poor. Currently, there are over 3,000 prisoners awaiting execution.

The staggering costs of supporting inmates serving life imprisonment serves as the driving force behind the reinstatement of capital punishment, though it’s often more expensive to conduct a death penalty trial than to fund life in prison. Many governors, including former governor and current president George Bush, believe we can most effectively lower these costs by reducing the number of prisoners we support. Obviously less prisoners on death row mean a lower cost.

However, perhaps we should begin with streamlining the costs for luxuries provided to inmates. Some penitentiaries’ excessive budgets are due to unnecessary amenities rather than the sheer number of inmates. A cut back on libraries, gym equipment, television and other items not critical to incarceration would go far in stretching the bankbook. Furthermore, fewer death penalty trials will prevent states from spending beyond their means.

In addition, numerous inmates on death row around the country are not U.S. citizens. Several nations charge that the United States is violating an international agreement which allows a prisoner in a foreign country to request assistance from their home countries. It is in our interest to comply with such an agreement, considering the average expense of each prisoner is $50,000 or more. Placing these costs on a prisoner’s home country is reasonable and preferred over requiring U.S. citizens to foot the bill.

Our criminal justice system costs the country money and lives. The world is slowly phasing out the death penalty, and this time the U.S. must follow instead of attempting to lead. Capital punishment does not belong in an advanced society that boasts of its status as a world authority. An eye for eye may appear to equalize, but in the end, it does nothing but leave the whole world blind.

2003-03-18T01:47:00.000-05:00

It’s All About The Benjamins
by Anna Schwartz

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife is a ketchup billionaire. Candidate John Edwards made his fortune exploiting our great nation’s court system. Joe Lieberman has built up a substantial war chest in the Senate, and maintains support from the 2000 Gore constituency. Dick Gephardt believes he can cull money from organized labor. Al Sharpton (though he shouldn’t last through Iowa) has decades of non-public service fundraising under his belt.

Each of these candidates boasts the funds to run imposing primary campaigns, and once one of them (read: Kerry) has won the nomination, Democrats will rally with their wallets for the noble cause of toppling Bush.

The question is, why should money matter?

What happened to letting the best candidate win?

The McCain-Feingold bill may have been a respectable, if insufficient, effort at reform. Nevertheless it has not had a significant impact on campaign finance, because of its countless loopholes. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) declared some elements of the 1974 Federal Election Commission Act Amendments unconstitutional, and the McCain-Feingold bill, (ironically signed into law by President Bush), avoided the realm of constitutionality entirely. The concern that Buckley v. Valeo addressed was whether these amendments, which limited spending in several areas in addition to total contributions, were a violation of Americans’ rights to free speech.

The Federal fund matching program, begun in 1974, has proven ineffective because candidates can opt out - like Herr Bush in 2000, who had enough money from his various business dealings to easily spend in excess of the limit for matching.

Further limits to campaign contributions will wreak havoc on the current American political system. What would Congressmen do without special interests to represent? Politicians want to keep their institutions in tact-they are self-interested (not in a pejorative sense) and will not pass a law to undermine a system from which they benefit.

A different approach is necessary - one that has a chance of gaining Congressional support. This policy is the limitation of campaigning costs, specifically the costs for television advertisements. Instead of guaranteeing equal cost for advertisements but not specifying at what price (as the current system does), advertising should charge a fixed minimum for all candidates. This type of law would discourage bad candidates whose only chance of winning comes from deep pockets, and would encourage fair competition. Isn’t that what democracy is all about?

Obviously this plan has its flaws: primarily that television networks would be loath to agree to lose the revenue, and lobbies that represent them would push against the bill in Congress. With the precedent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which gave media conglomerates free reign to establish near-monopolies, a bill proposing that the media lose revenue will not fare well. Nevertheless, the airwaves belong to the people - not to the corporations - and the dearth of Public Service Announcements in recent years is indicative of how little public service media conglomerates actually do these days. This plan would foil the tyranny of the corporation.

This arrangement allows PACs, corporations and special interests groups to exercise their rights of free speech and donate money to the candidates, but the fixed cost of advertising would reduce total campaign costs, encouraging candidates to opt for federal fund matching rather than draining the federal budget. Congressmen and Senators would spend less time building war chests and more time performing their duties. Elected office would be more accessible to those who were not in the top tax brackets. Best of all, the current system would not have to be dismantled - fundraising would still occur, but there would be less zeros on the cheques.

The time to implement substantial reforms is not now, as it will be without support in the Republican-majority Congress, but in 2004 when the likelihood of a liberal backlash is high. Other G8 countries, such as Japan, limit the amount of time that candidates can campaign - but Americans love the horse race too much for that proposal to bode well.

Politics and money have always and will always be intertwined in America. But they don’t necessarily have to be sullied by the relationship.

2003-03-10T23:41:00.000-05:00

Food Nor Bombs
by Anna Schwartz

North Korea has poor timing.

With the U.S. on the brink of war with Iraq – with or without U.N. Security Council support – North Korea’s clamoring for direct talks with Washington could not come at a worse time. Dubya is not an ideal President for a small, comparatively powerless, starving Communist country to attempt to manhandle. Especially if they boast nuclear weapons.

A North Korean state-run newspaper has rejected the multilateral negotiations proposed by the U.S., which were to include Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. Instead, it is demanding direct negotiations with Washington and attempting to secure these talks by intercepting a U.S. spy plane, firing test missiles, and brazenly threatening nuclear war. This is not a good strategy.

For the sake of argument, let us disregard questions of why the Bush Administration has chosen to handle the situation in North Korea diplomatically and the situation in Iraq with force. The Associated Press ran a story today which outlined the theory that the North Korean dictator’s aggression towards the U.S. may also be intended to stir “patriotic fervor” at home in order to draw attention away from his domestic incompetence. In a country which has received substantial food aid since 1995, and in which half the population is malnourished (read: starving), the necessity to draw attention away from domestic problems is high. In fact, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kim seem to be using similar distraction tactics to deal with their respective domestic woes. Perhaps the two should become golf buddies.

With the U.S. considering realigning some of the 30,000 troops stationed at the North / South Korean border, the North’s brash actions could constitute a substantial threat. We do not want to fight a war on two fronts, against two non-allied crazed dictators, neither of whom have much to lose. But Kim Jong Il does not really want to start a war with the U.S. – even with the loss of support from our typical allies over the Iraq conflict, North Korean aggression would be met with international disapproval. The U.S. has superior weaponry, greater funding, a better army, and a great deal more support. Despite all his posturing, Mr. Kim knows that it is in his best interests not to launch a war.

North Korea wants an increase in both food and international monetary aid, in addition to better diplomatic relations with China and South Korea. But the window of opportunity for a favorable outcome has passed, along with the Clinton administration and the era of good governance. Democrats, including Senate minority leader Tom Daschle and Madeline Albright, the former Secretary of State, criticized Bush’s North Korea policy this week, claiming that it would lead to a “nuclear arms race in Asia.” But these Democrats need not fear: if and when push comes to shove, Bush and company will be sure to adopt a hard line. The Bush administration will not kowtow to a dictatorial regime just because it appears menacing.

For now, North Korea is doing all it can to attract attention from the folks in Washington and failing miserably. Mr. Kim is acting the part of youngest sibling to Mr. Hussein, crying “me too!” in a desperate attempt to command world attention. Despite the press generated, he seems to have fallen short in his efforts to reign in the Bush administration. Even Bill Richardson seems to have stopped taking notice.

Nuclear weapons are not a bargaining chip, a lesson that Mr. Kim and his cronies will learn the hard way. Pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty was the worst decision possible for the North Koreans, and will leave them even more starving and friendless than before. This is sure to sway public opinion against Mr. Kim. Fortunately, his position as evil repressive dictator will prevent the umbrage from having any effect.

2003-03-10T23:01:00.000-05:00

Separated At Birth
by Jermaine Smith

Our ancestors really should have been clearer. In the past two centuries, the United States government and its citizens have reinterpreted, reshaped and rewritten much of the original framework of the Constitution. This is an inevitable process, but when will we resolve the basic issues?

As our country barrels down the path towards war, as we remember those lost in a savage attack on Sept. 11 2001 and as we press on to solidify our position in world politics, many turn to a higher power for answers. Spirituality and religion play a part in many Americans’ daily lives, especially now, when our country appears lost. But at what point do our own spiritual or religious beliefs encroach upon our rights as citizens of a secular government?

Throughout the United States government and public institutions, there is a gradual spillover of religious endorsement . These incidences oppose the basic principle of the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is a hot issue around the country, especially during a time where many countries around the world accuse the U.S. of anti-Islamic sentiment. Can a little religion be such a bad thing?

Beginning as early as the 1800s, inconsistencies began to appear. While the official position of the government is no religious affiliation, we utilize our national motto “In God We Trust” on coins and bills in our currency. The country adopted the motto following the Civil War at a time when Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase believed that a small reminder of a higher power might unite a divided country. This situation was in many ways analagous to the current situation in Bush-era America; the country remains divided on a number of issues from abortion to war in Iraq. Prayer is a natural response to an unstable and perilous period. Citizens will seek guidance wherever they can.

However, there is no place for religion in our government.

Many of the most basic daily activities incorporate religion in our country. Even the life of an average 15 year-old in America is affected. Imagine waking up in the morning and attending a public, government-funded high school where the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the line “one nation under God,” is recited each morning; handing over your American currency with “In God We Trust” printed or stamped across it for lunch and later that evening, praying before kickoff of the school's football game. This is a daily routine for millions of American youth who are rarely offered a conscious choice.

This mentality is threatening our justice system where it has not already successfully invaded it. For years, the Supreme Court has ruled on cases concerning the posting of religious documents in government buildings. Several judges across the country have attempted to post such documents, like the Ten Commandments, in courtrooms throughout the nation. Even witnesses in court are required to tell the truth “so help me God” unless they request not to swear on the Bible. Yes, the majority of the nation is Christian, but that does not warrant a government-supported religious movement in our justice system.

President Bush has made it public knowledge he is born-again, and is no stranger to incorporating religious language into speeches or when addressing the nation. In fact, the president has effectively backed government religious development by proposing the Faith-Based Initiative. This provides assistance, specifically government funding, to faith-based community groups who provide social services. The terms include that these institutions cannot refuse a service to a person in need based on religious preference. However, these organizations still exercise autonomy, as the government may not attempt to control a private institution. Nevertheless, who decides if the Peachtree Baptist Church Women’s Shelter gets more or less funding than the Sacred Heart Soup Kitchen? The opportunities for bias are endless.

The government has also approved the use of government-funded vouchers for private (including parochial and religious) education in some cities. While this is an excellent step towards improving the education of America’s youth, would it not be wiser to simply improve public education rather than attempt to subsidize its alternative? Furthermore, the average American child does not attend private school; is it fair that her parents should pay the cost of another child to attend, especially if this school is religiously affiliated, as several private schools are? Of course, that may not differ much from some public schools in which religious association is advocated.

As tensions soar throughout the nation, citizens place greater priority on religion and faith. Nevertheless, which is more important: our faith, or our civil rights and liberties, including equal protection under the law? Perhaps our government should concentrate their efforts on improving our education, social welfare programs and public morale instead of outsourcing them.

Though the First Amendment does not explicitly use the words “separation,” church” or “state,” the principle does remain the same: our government must not allow a spillover of religious or spiritual belief systems into classrooms, courtrooms or any other government-funded institution.

The only higher power the citizens of America should answer to is the Constitution.

2003-03-04T00:40:00.000-05:00

Checks and Balances
by Jermaine Smith

It seems like déjà vu: the Germans will not enter a war they do not initiate, the French would be German were it not for the U.S., and so on. For decades, France and Germany have been the butt of American jokes, though each has become an invaluable and influential American ally and possesses a respected voice in international affairs.

Recently, however, some United States citizens have proved that these voices are not respected this side of the Atlantic Ocean. As Iraq scrambles to adhere to United Nations resolutions and avoid a possible run-in with U.S. armed forces, France and Germany remain fixed to their original stance of allocating more time for UN inspections in Iraq.

Updates pour in daily concerning Iraq’s weapons and the pending world response. The United States put forth a hard-line position early: nothing less than the immediate elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the complete cessation of development of such weapons and the expulsion of the Hussein regime will do. Failure to comply with these demands, as President Bush has indicated so diplomatically, will mean that we have no alternative than the use of force.

Not all nations favor this cavalier attitude, particularly France and Germany. Because the issue revolves around a UN resolution, it requires cooperation of numerous nations to act. The governments of France and Germany have made clear their lack of interest in entering a war and their opposition against the use of force.

Why is this deemed unreasonable?

The French and German people do not wish to go to war. There is nothing outrageous about this position. Neither suggests leaving Iraq to its own devices nor supports the use of force to gain compliance. Yes, perhaps it relates to the investment by both countries into Iraqi oil, or the French involvement in Iraqi arms. Should they not protect their investments? Would the U.S. not do the same?

We pride ourselves on our basic civil liberties in this country, including the freedom to protest, which we often exercise. This is because we can choose for ourselves what to think or believe. It is as fundamental as our right to vote and freedom of speech. However, the suggestion of boycotting French and German products in response to their refusal to invade Iraq is an effort to deny those countries those same civil liberties we claim to be universal.

Granted, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq began destroying weapons this past weekend, though none of mass destruction. Does Iraq’s prior defiance of international regulations still warrant the use force? Perhaps it does. Does their defiance in any way relate to the opinion of two sovereign nations? Absolutely not.

A boycott of either country’s products is unreasonable and ineffectual. There will not be sufficient support for such a boycott to begin with because France and Germany largely provide luxury items to the U.S. How many of us own luxury vehicles or enjoy wine with each meal? I certainly do not. However, if you have the economic means to purchase French wine rather than California wine or a German-designed BMW rather than a Dodge (no disrespect to either), chances are, you will.

Let us further investigate the benefits of protesting French and German products beyond “sending a message.” Major French exports are intermediate goods or raw goods, such as steel. Major German exports are predominantly automobiles. In fact, we have luxury vehicle plants here in the U.S, such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz. In protesting France we will not demonstrate much as their trade exports rely neither on wine nor cheese. This is not evidence of a major economic power whose future is affected by a loss of a few wine purchases. However, we should keep in mind the consequences of a potential German product boycott.

As mentioned, there are several German automobile companies. BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes are familiar to U.S. consumers and dealerships for each exist in practically every major city. There is also the matter of German vehicle manufacturing plants on U.S. soil. Assuming that a boycott were supported by enough consumers (and I doubt it would be), we would be denying ourselves quality products (which opposes basic free trade principles) and weakening the job security of the people who work in these plants: Americans. This rejection of goods can cause a destabilization of the labor force thereby affecting members of all socioeconomic strata.

A decision to boycott is neither a fair nor intelligent response to our allies. The opinions of both France and Germany carry as much weight as our own, as evidenced by the roadblock they present. Does U.S. will transcend the cooperative United Nations in world affairs? These allies were by our side after the 9/11 attacks, including France as a member of NATO. Those who would reject their products based on their attempt to seek peaceful resolution should reflect on their own limited position.

Now that irrational verbal jabs bounce harmlessly off these respective world powers, some United States citizens aim to threaten with checkbook diplomacy by way of economic sabotage. This will be no more effective and, indeed, may prove to do little more than burn our proverbial bridges. By employing economic penalties in response to political dissention, we can say au revoir to our position as a diplomatic superpower.

2003-03-04T00:05:00.000-05:00

Reflections on the Democratic Primary:
Why Dick Gephardt’s Nomination Would Mean Four More Years of Republican Hegemony
by Anna Schwartz

The last time Dick Gephardt ran for the Democratic nomination, I was six years old. My concerns were focused around graham crackers and apple juice, rather than political strategy and the outcome of elections. These days, my attention has switched: I would rather debate politics than debate my next meal. As a twenty-year-old college student in a Republican-dominated universe, in the past few years I have felt that I exercise little to no influence in politics. Come the 2004 election, hopefully that will change.

In a field crowded with qualified (and unqualified) candidates, Dick Gephardt is the one serious candidate who is least likely to be a strong contender in the race against Bush next fall. Gephardt not only lost the Democratic nomination in ’88 to Dukakis (who was summarily trounced by Bush The First), but resigned from his position as House Majority leader when the Democrats were routed by the Republicans last midterm election. As Majority Leader, he was in a position to ensure that the political climate did not manifest itself in a way that allowed Bush and the Republicans to establish a majority influence in Congress. The Democrats failed beyond all expectations this midterm election, and Gephardt was a major cause of that failure.

Gephardt has historically had strong support from unions, partially because his father was a Teamster. But last week, when five of the Democratic contenders went to an AFL-CIO executive meeting in Florida to try to attract union support, Gephardt was not automatically the front-runner. Why? Gephardt has twenty-six years experience in the House, and has supported labor his entire career. Nevertheless, even labor leaders acknowledge that he’s just not tough enough, not well-rounded enough, not Presidential material -- by denying him their full endorsement, they admit his inadequacy implicitly. In his speech at the meeting, he reminded these same leaders that he’s the only one who has been through the process of fundraising and creating a campaign war chest.

What he forgot to mention is that he lost last time.

To be fair, we must examine Gephardt’s stance on the issues before totally dismissing him as a viable candidate. He has positioned himself as the anti-Bush: a populist concerned with the economic well-being of the people that Bush marginalizes. He supports universal Health Care through employer tax credits and an expansion of Medicare. He is against the privatization of Social Security and wants to implement universal pensions. He favors the working-class over the rich because giving working class Americans a boost will give the entire economy a boost.

Some of his positions are merely platitudes, some are unrealistic, and some are absolutely unfeasible, such as implementing an international minimum wage to protect American jobs. Exactly how he presumes that he’ll be able to convince developing nations whose only comparative advantage is the low wages paid to their workers that they should suffer the risk of devastating their economies through immense hyperinflation and low growth is totally unclear to me (and pretty much everyone else who has ever taken Introduction to Macroeconomics).

The cornerstone of the Gephardt campaign will be the health care issue, which is much more realistic than an international minimum wage but no less controversial. Gephardt has purposely placed himself as the exact opposite of Bush on this issue. But how will he mobilize voters’ support? The other three major competitors (of those who have announced this early), Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, and Senator John Edwards from North Carolina, appeal largely to the non-working class Democratic constituency; the educated urban elites who are much more likely to vote in both the primaries and the November 2004 election. And while Gephardt may have the support of the white working class, he won’t necessarily have the same support in the African-American working class: the good Reverend Al Sharpton (a major figure in the black community in New York – think Jesse Jackson with bigger hair) and the totally unqualified and highly incompetent Carol Mosely-Braun will ensure an erosion of support in that demographic.

Gephardt seems to pride himself on his partisanship, a trait that might help him in the primaries but will harm him immeasurably next fall. Kerry, the frontrunner, is a straight-laced Massachusetts liberal, Edwards is a centrist a la Clinton, and Lieberman should really be a Republican. But Gephardt has framed all Republicans as the enemy in his campaign thus far, in a way that none of his competitors have or will attempt in today’s political climate. This indicates that his competitors have much more political savvy than he, rather than demonstrating any weakness on their parts. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean effectively dismissed himself as a competitor by giving an anti-war speech last week; Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman will not make the same mistake.

Gephardt lacks the funding, the expertise, and the support to be this nation’s next President. A viable candidate who possesses all of these qualities is exactly what the Democrats need to win next year’s election. Gephardt is and will remain an unrealistic idealist and a weak leader who proved himself unable to rally the country’s Democrats twice before – let’s not give him a third chance.

2003-02-24T13:52:00.000-05:00

Liberal Agenda
by Anna Schwartz

Peace is the antithesis of war. Peace is what we liberals claim to want at our anti-war rallies, in our op-ed pieces and in heated discussions conducted over low fat, no foam cappuccinos. But will peace be the result of not going to war? If our reasoning is humanitarian, we should consider that the Iraqi people will be left with a brutal dictator and our own people will remain in danger of those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam is so craftily hiding.

We must question what it is we want out of our protest against the war. Are we making our voices heard? Exercising our rights of free speech? Demonstrating our dissent? Is our objection moral or political? What is the liberal agenda?

Anarchists, environmentalists, Naderites, socialists, and good ol’ hard-line democrats all converged in New York (and other major cities) last weekend in hordes to protest the war. Most of these interest groups seem to oppose the war in principle and the Bush administration’s tactics in practice. Almost every protester held a sign depicting Bush, Powell and Cheney as the “Asses of Evil,” or other slurs toward the administration. These different interest groups agree on little else than a common contempt for Bush and the Republicans. This divergence of interests, even amongst the Democrats, who are the institutional manifestation of anti-war sentiment (I mean real Democrats, not Joe Lieberman), causes deficiency in the anti-war agenda.

The liberals offer no alternative to war aside from waiting around with the French for Saddam to terrorize his people and potentially the rest of the world. This is not a viable alternative.

Bush’s State of the Union address was sickening in its unfounded polemics, but the president did speak one iota of truth: “trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.” The problem with this non-plan is that Saddam’s weapons (if he has them, which he does) are not pointing at France, Germany, or any of the other voices of dissent in the UN. They are pointing straight at us.

Additionally, Bush and his cronies have invested far too much into this war to call it quits; a peaceful resolution is highly unlikely. Other than exercising our right of free speech, what is the point of dissent? No one in Congress will dare to challenge Bush once we’ve declared war, at risk of being called unpatriotic and losing the next election. The latest Gallup poll shows that 63% of Americans are in favor of invading Iraq.

However, this does not mean that we liberals should roll over and play dead – this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that there is and should be a strong opposition to administration policy. Instead, we must decide what it is we want, and how we will achieve our aims. To do anything else, especially playing the waiting game, is dangerous and cowardly. Why not push for diplomacy, Clinton-izing our approach to Iraq in the same way the administration is opting to deal with North Korea? Desmond Tutu can howl all he wants about the immorality of this war, but liberal inaction may have adverse consequences – it will either allow Bush to steamroll the country into wreaking death and destruction, or it will allow a brutal dictator to remain unchallenged and unpunished.

In the end, we are all fighting the same battle, and we should not allow partisan politics to affect our conceptions of morality. If we truly believe that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he is a brutal dictator who terrorizes his people, is it morally correct to oppose intervention? We must also ask these same questions of ourselves and our nation’s history as a superpower: while we have intervened against dictators countless times before, we have also financially and militarily supported brutal authoritarian regimes. We discourage wars over the race to arms, yet we ourselves have a sizeable collection of nasty weapons. Might never has and never will make right.

These questions run deeper than two hour’s worth of televised propaganda (see: State of the Union address), and they also run deeper than 500,000 urban elites screaming “Drop Bush, Not Bombs!” Do we fancy-coffee-toting liberals really believe that the Iraqi people should continue to suffer? How deep is our faith in democracy? The fact that some people in the world (namely Iraqis, amongst others) live without all of the same freedoms that we enjoy is a form of inequality – not a form of inequality that directly impacts us, like seeing homeless people on the street while returning to a warm, comfortable apartment – but inequality nonetheless. Iraq is not under the United States’ jurisdiction, and this is one of the strongest anti-war arguments. But it is a nation of the same world we inhabit, whose people should be afforded the same civil and political rights as ours. Many other nations, historically and currently, have suffered the same fate as the Iraqis; what is left up for consideration is whether this is a necessary and sufficient cause for war.

Peace is the antithesis of war, but peace is not the result of inaction. Liberals (and conservatives) must rally to find a way to depose Saddam, with carrots or sticks, or face the fact that war is the only real option on the table right now.

2003-02-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

Moral War?
by Jermaine Smith

As our country and its choice few allies inch ever closer to what seems an inevitable showdown in Iraq, the voices of millions around the world have risen above the deafening drums of war to signify, arguably, the first mass world effort against war.

However, the question remains: what is the purpose of this conflict? What element pits some, myself included, against the popular vote to enter into war? Evidence is presented almost daily to support a use of force and yet, even with this, a substantial minority are not keen on the idea. Others find the verification overwhelming and eagerly anticipate the confrontation, cursing the delay.

Perhaps it is time to sit down and review the facts.

The first Bush administration initiated this confrontation over a decade ago, sending inspectors into Iraq to uncover weapons of mass destruction. The inspections never took place without Iraqi interference and, thus, the results were inconclusive and the entire process a complete waste of time. Curiously, there was never a follow up on this failed attempt to relieve Iraq of its weapons, which, as our government reminds us everyday, pose “an immediate threat to our country, our freedom and our way of life.”

That is, no one followed up until now.

Enter 2001, and nearly the first full year in office for current President George W. Bush. Terrifying images from the September 11th attacks linger fresh in the mind of all Americans, and much support and empathy pours from around the world. President Bush has vowed to apprehend and bring to justice all who aided in the most tragic day in recent American history. The United States subsequently attacks and raids Afghanistan in a (still) fruitless attempt to bring to justice the chief culprit, a one Osama Bin Laden.

President Bush, in his honorable attempt to bring stability and a sense of security back to our country, has now set out on a mission to, essentially, rid the world of “evil” and those who would collaborate and bring to fulfillment an attack on democracy (read: the United States). This evil includes, specifically, Saddam Hussein.

Yes, this point is worth repeating as it is often lost on many: the U.S. has stated repeatedly, officially, that the conflict is NOT with the citizens of Iraq, but their dictatorial leader, Hussein.

Hussein has developed (reportedly), housed (allegedly) and has no qualms with using (supposedly) weapons of mass destruction, which, as we all know, is in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441. Hussein has repeatedly interfered with the inspections, enforced by the United Nations, which would clear the nation of any wrongdoings.

In addition, it is a well-known and documented fact that Hussein has ordered the torture, blackmail and, ultimately, murder of many of his own citizens. These crimes against humanity, unquestionably, must cease immediately. That point, it seems, the world receives well.

However, that is not the reason our President gives for going to war.

As it stands, the official position of the Bush administration seems to deal predominantly with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of the Iraqi government and, more specifically, the ability of these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists.

While this certainly could be a viable threat, has it not been a threat for at least the past decade? It is undeniable that this sudden interest in security arose from the 9/11 attacks, but is that justification for immediate and forceful action on a seemingly dead issue?

Would it not seem more appropriate to point to a more universally accepted approach, such as humanitarian aid? There are more supporters of humanitarian aid than of an imperialistic, trigger-happy super power.

With these few facts in mind, how should we approach this impending war? It is arguable that the success of this war, regardless of its outcome, rests largely on the acceptance of participating nations’ citizens back home. Let us not forget the invaluable lesson taught by Vietnam: war is not won solely with heavy artillery and explosions, but with a combination of might and will, something that an unsupported war will surely lack.

This has become less about the issues, weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity, as it has about the moral implications of such an undertaking. Given the United States’ official stance, its lack of support from not only its own citizens (though granted, the majority seems in favor) but also purported allies and the suspicion by many of ulterior motives, the question arises: is it just to press on with this war?

On the one hand, it would be a great victory for not only the U.S. and its allies, but also for diplomatic intervention itself, were the conflict settled by a peaceful resolution. However, on the other hand, one must accept the nature of the world and man, and realize that, likely, this war will and must happen. It must because President Bush has already committed himself and the country, verbally and by use of military strategy, to do something, anything. At this point, withdrawal would be the political equivalent of running away with our tails between our legs.

With that, it seems we have hit our mark. The use of force or, for that matter, the promise of an expelled Saddam Hussein as a byproduct of this venture is not what unsettles the masses. We have entered this affair under dubious pretenses and our current goals betray the potentially noble cause of such an intervention.

Few disagree that Hussein is an unfit leader. Few disagree Iraq probably has or has had weapons of mass destruction. Few disagree that Hussein is guilty of atrocities committed against humanity. Few disagree that action should be taken against him. Many disagree how to accomplish this goal.

There is no wiggle-room to back out of the proceedings, and yet, the wills of the participants do not appear to be with the cause. With a situation such as this, we will soon find ourselves fighting two wars: one in the crowded streets of Baghdad and the other in our conscience

2003-02-24T13:22:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the first edition of Exposit. Exposit is a new magazine intended to publicize the social and political views of the underrepresented generation -- ours. Each week we'll publish our reactions to current issues, themes, and trends in the news. We hope to challenge the status quo, and to offer a voice of dissent. Read on; we invite your feedback.

Jermaine Smith and Anna Schwartz
Co-Editors-in-Chief