In class on Friday we talked a lot about economic security of individuals and the country, what makes us feel economically secure, as well as how economic security fits in with national security. There was one point that someone (I don't remember who) made during class that I'd like to discuss. They said that a person who was just making enough to make ends meet but pretty much has no chance to of losing their job or something would be and feel more financially secure than someone who is making a lot of money but has a higher chance of losing it. To some degree, that makes sense, but I don't think it's true. First of all, a person making a lot of money, even if that money was not stable, would at least be able to do pretty well while they had that money, and also have the ability to save up money in case something does go wrong. On the other hand, someone who is making just enough to make ends meet would not be able to save, and because of that probably feel much less financially secure than someone in the other category. Even though logically, the person who reliably makes just enough is more financially secure, it doesn't mean that they feel that way. In my experience, the more money you have to spare, the more financially secure you feel, even if your situation could easily change.
I really don't like thinking about money. Unless I'm getting my paycheck, in which case thinking about it makes me happy. But I hate how much it affects everything we do and everything we are. And I really hate when people take it for granted that they'll always be wealthy, or if not wealthy, at least never have financial problems. Here on the northwest side of DC, you don't see how much of a difference there is in the distribution of wealth. You don't see the homeless here, you don't see the people who struggle to get by on minimum wage. You don't see the families of 8 crammed into tiny 2-bedroom apartments. And while in some ways, it's more pleasant to not see these things, I kind of wish that I still did see them on a regular basis. Here I feel so far removed from the real world. Back at home, I would be constantly reminded that there were people worse off than me, but here I start feeling like I'm at the bottom of the economic ladder because I have to work 2 jobs just to buy enough clothes and to pay my mom back for the little bit of tuition she could afford. It's hard here to see that I'm actually doing better than a lot of people in this country. I wish I could see it more often. I don't like forgetting about reality.
Also, Erin shared this on Facebook, but I'm reposting it here because I thought it was kind of relevant to my post.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Do I Feel Secure?
I don’t’ think that the troops in Afghanistan make me more secure. The troops in Afghanistan are there in order to do what? In the words of Kat Williams, “Terror can’t keep a home address.” There is no way of completely knowing who, what, when, where, and how in relation to the institution of terrorism. We discussed in class that terror organizations don’t have front offices; they are covert organizations that span multiple countries. Troops being in Afghanistan are not changing the fact that these terrorists can just go somewhere else and are in many other places. But for some reason, even though I know that nothing can be fully accounted for, I still feel secure. I feel that my security doesn't mean that I don’t fear what might happen; it’s just that my fears are not presented in reality everyday. People are not getting blown up everyday in America. I don’t think I can just chalk it up to the troops being in Afghanistan. It’s more of I know something “could” happen vs. what “will” happen. I know there could be an attack tomorrow, but I also know that it’s not likely that that will happen. This comes more from my day-to-day experiences and American History in general.
Speaking of fear, people in class just looked at it in this negative way. They neglected to realize that some degree of fear could save your life. That’s on of the reasons we were given this emotion. When one has a reasonable amount of fear, it allows them to take precaution. It allows you to be ready, just in case you need to fight or run. There are some things that people should fear, if not the absence of fear could be detrimental. To not fear a lion you come across on a path could mean the potential of thinking it will do you no harm, you won’t be ready to do what you can to survive. Further more I don’t think fear means a feeling of less security. It means accepting reality when you have a rational need for fear. If we did not fear terror our security would not be adequate and more attacks would happen.
The situation in Afghanistan doesn't erase my fear. It does not make me feel safer than I was before. I just recognize that it is irrational to disrupt my life for something that only “could” happen. I fear the unknown like most, but I won’t let that keep me in for the rest of my life. Security is reality staying in the could happens and not the will happens.
Afghanistan
Does the fact that the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan at the present time make you more or less secure?
I don't know a lot about the subject. But if you define security broadly, as, for example, in the 2010 National Security Strategy, then I would say that having troops in Afghanistan makes us less secure than otherwise - for one main reason. If the definition of national security includes having a prosperous (or at least reasonable) economy, then the war in Afghanistan is hurting us rather than helping to keep our country secure. Our maintained presence there is pouring a lot of money into defense, when that money could be better spent improving the economy. I understand the reasons we are at war, but I think that we've been there too long. Are we really still protecting ourselves by being there? (I guess that's the question I'm supposed to be answering...) I don't really think so. In the narrow sense of national security, I do actually feel safer knowing that there are troops there. Maybe it's because of the fear that spread post-9/11, but knowing that there are soldiers there, and that our presence could be, in some way, scaring terrorists from attacking again, makes me feel safer.
That being said, I think we need to get out of there. Until we leave, we can't be certain that it's helping us in terms of physical security. In terms of economic security, it is definitely not helping us. I would feel much more financially secure if I knew that there wasn't a good percent of the budget being poured into defense. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, and then we get attacked again, then maybe I'll believe it was a good thing to be there. But as it is, I would prefer if this war would end.
I don't know a lot about the subject. But if you define security broadly, as, for example, in the 2010 National Security Strategy, then I would say that having troops in Afghanistan makes us less secure than otherwise - for one main reason. If the definition of national security includes having a prosperous (or at least reasonable) economy, then the war in Afghanistan is hurting us rather than helping to keep our country secure. Our maintained presence there is pouring a lot of money into defense, when that money could be better spent improving the economy. I understand the reasons we are at war, but I think that we've been there too long. Are we really still protecting ourselves by being there? (I guess that's the question I'm supposed to be answering...) I don't really think so. In the narrow sense of national security, I do actually feel safer knowing that there are troops there. Maybe it's because of the fear that spread post-9/11, but knowing that there are soldiers there, and that our presence could be, in some way, scaring terrorists from attacking again, makes me feel safer.
That being said, I think we need to get out of there. Until we leave, we can't be certain that it's helping us in terms of physical security. In terms of economic security, it is definitely not helping us. I would feel much more financially secure if I knew that there wasn't a good percent of the budget being poured into defense. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, and then we get attacked again, then maybe I'll believe it was a good thing to be there. But as it is, I would prefer if this war would end.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Is Afghanistan as Important as MJ?
On a surface level, the War in Afghanistan makes me feel more secure. If national security can be considered actions that protect a country's best interests, values, and being, then having troops that defend America's (and the world's) freedom is naturally a good thing.
However, what is interesting to consider about the war effort is its time frame. The Council on Foreign Relations pegs the "War in Afghanistan" all the way back to 1999. One would think that news on Afghanistan would be exhausted by now, but in reality, it is finally increasing. NPR reported that in January-August 2009, Afghanistan received 2% of media coverage, about as much as the death of Michael Jackson.
The media blames clandestine information, potential danger, and cost as limits on why the story was not covered (note: these are the thrills and risks of journalism!). The real reason for the surged interest in Afghanistan (no pun intended), is Obama's emphasis on the matter. It is his war (Liz Spayd, Washington Post managing editor, qtd. on NPR). This makes me question the subjectivity of security. Krebs and Lobasz certaintly believed that "rhetorical coercion" could limit dialogue: "While the attacks were real, the insecurity was a cultural production" (6).
So then, the morphing of security makes me feel insecure. There is a famous cartoon* that depicts a president choosing the color threat via M&Ms. Obviously, he has a preference. In the same way, Al-Qaeda is directly related to U.S. foreign policy/the War on Terror because of the 9/11, so it makes sense that Afghanistan is a target.
Still, as discussed in class, terrorism is terrorous because of its unpredictability. The War in Afghanistan will not stop the other 46 Foregin Terrorist Organizations on the State Department's watch list. The War may not even deter attacks from al-Qaeda; it may encourage them.
Maybe this substantive question should be analyzed Devil's Advocate style: "If the the United States did not have troops deployed in Afghanistan at the present time, would that make you more or less secure?" On the whole, I might feel more secure if the U.S. allocated its resources more evenly towards various threats.
References:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20018/us_war_in_afghanistan.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112030088
Krebs, Lobasz on Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
May 2010 National Security Strategy for the United States of America
However, what is interesting to consider about the war effort is its time frame. The Council on Foreign Relations pegs the "War in Afghanistan" all the way back to 1999. One would think that news on Afghanistan would be exhausted by now, but in reality, it is finally increasing. NPR reported that in January-August 2009, Afghanistan received 2% of media coverage, about as much as the death of Michael Jackson.
The media blames clandestine information, potential danger, and cost as limits on why the story was not covered (note: these are the thrills and risks of journalism!). The real reason for the surged interest in Afghanistan (no pun intended), is Obama's emphasis on the matter. It is his war (Liz Spayd, Washington Post managing editor, qtd. on NPR). This makes me question the subjectivity of security. Krebs and Lobasz certaintly believed that "rhetorical coercion" could limit dialogue: "While the attacks were real, the insecurity was a cultural production" (6).
So then, the morphing of security makes me feel insecure. There is a famous cartoon* that depicts a president choosing the color threat via M&Ms. Obviously, he has a preference. In the same way, Al-Qaeda is directly related to U.S. foreign policy/the War on Terror because of the 9/11, so it makes sense that Afghanistan is a target.
Still, as discussed in class, terrorism is terrorous because of its unpredictability. The War in Afghanistan will not stop the other 46 Foregin Terrorist Organizations on the State Department's watch list. The War may not even deter attacks from al-Qaeda; it may encourage them.
Maybe this substantive question should be analyzed Devil's Advocate style: "If the the United States did not have troops deployed in Afghanistan at the present time, would that make you more or less secure?" On the whole, I might feel more secure if the U.S. allocated its resources more evenly towards various threats.
 |
| *or maybe not so famous because I couldn't find it on Google for the life of me... Try this instead (yes, I realize the last few colors are out of order). |
References:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20018/us_war_in_afghanistan.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112030088
Krebs, Lobasz on Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
May 2010 National Security Strategy for the United States of America
Security and Afghanistan
As the war in Afghanistan continues to prove to be a great challenge, questions over its productivity have increased. Even if a person excludes all the questions about its legitimacy they still have to decide whether it is making them more or less secure. I believe that, in the long run, the war has made me less secure.
The war is Afghanistan acts as a recruitment tool for all terrorist cells. They are able to point to it as proof of the US’s imperialistic desires. Furthermore, anytime we destroy someone’s home, spoil someone’s harvest, or kill someone’s family member we foster the growth of anger; both anger of the individual effected and general societal anger. The societal anger lays a foundation upon which presupposes individuals to turn anger into action when directly effected by the US negatively. The number of terrorist cells has grown exponentially since our “War on Terror.” I suppose that when Bush declared it he forgot that in war both side increase recruitment.
By failing to effectively establish a functioning state in Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban the war has highlighted the weaknesses in the US military. Before the two wars began after 9/11, the US military was held in awe by the world. The war Bosnia and the First Gulf War demonstrated the ability of the US to project power made any attack upon it seem like a daunting proposition. However, the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan have proved to be challenges beyond the reckoning of most people in the early 2000’s. As a result, the world is now intimately aware of the US military’s limitations.
Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has made us less able to react to additional security threats. If the Bush administrations only goal in Afghanistan was to protect the American people, we would have been much better off with a much more limited approach. Special Forces operations and Predator strikes would have been sufficient resources to limit Al Qaeda’s capabilities to acceptable levels.
Above all, we must realize that fighting the Taliban does not make us more secure. The Taliban’s immediate goals do not extend beyond the Afghan borders. In the Frontline documentary called, “Behind Taliban Lines” they talk to many Taliban fighters about what their motivation is for joining. Across the board they say that the only reason they are fighting is to get foreigners to leave their land. They see the American occupation their as an assault to their dignity. Therefore, while those who truly wish to bring harm to the US homeland have left the country for safer territory, we continue to fight those who want sovereignty. As counterevidence to this point some may point to the more extreme braches of the Taliban in Pakistan who do wish to attack us within our borders. However, these people have been radicalized because of the war and even if the existed before it, they would have been contained without a full-scale invasion.
In Afghanistan, we snatching at flies but the real security threat are the far smaller number of yellow jackets. And while there are several yellow jackets in the meadow were in, the most dangerous ones have moved to safer territory. Meanwhile, these flies keep on biting us and yellow jackets in other places can plan their attacks in leisure. The war in Afghanistan has not made us more secure¬ ⎯ in fact it has created a far larger number of enemies and has hampered our ability to fight the original enemies. If someone wants to justify the war for other reasons (human rights, democracy promotion, etc.) that is up to them, but rationalizing the invasion in terms of security simply does not work.
The war is Afghanistan acts as a recruitment tool for all terrorist cells. They are able to point to it as proof of the US’s imperialistic desires. Furthermore, anytime we destroy someone’s home, spoil someone’s harvest, or kill someone’s family member we foster the growth of anger; both anger of the individual effected and general societal anger. The societal anger lays a foundation upon which presupposes individuals to turn anger into action when directly effected by the US negatively. The number of terrorist cells has grown exponentially since our “War on Terror.” I suppose that when Bush declared it he forgot that in war both side increase recruitment.
By failing to effectively establish a functioning state in Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban the war has highlighted the weaknesses in the US military. Before the two wars began after 9/11, the US military was held in awe by the world. The war Bosnia and the First Gulf War demonstrated the ability of the US to project power made any attack upon it seem like a daunting proposition. However, the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan have proved to be challenges beyond the reckoning of most people in the early 2000’s. As a result, the world is now intimately aware of the US military’s limitations.
Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has made us less able to react to additional security threats. If the Bush administrations only goal in Afghanistan was to protect the American people, we would have been much better off with a much more limited approach. Special Forces operations and Predator strikes would have been sufficient resources to limit Al Qaeda’s capabilities to acceptable levels.
Above all, we must realize that fighting the Taliban does not make us more secure. The Taliban’s immediate goals do not extend beyond the Afghan borders. In the Frontline documentary called, “Behind Taliban Lines” they talk to many Taliban fighters about what their motivation is for joining. Across the board they say that the only reason they are fighting is to get foreigners to leave their land. They see the American occupation their as an assault to their dignity. Therefore, while those who truly wish to bring harm to the US homeland have left the country for safer territory, we continue to fight those who want sovereignty. As counterevidence to this point some may point to the more extreme braches of the Taliban in Pakistan who do wish to attack us within our borders. However, these people have been radicalized because of the war and even if the existed before it, they would have been contained without a full-scale invasion.
In Afghanistan, we snatching at flies but the real security threat are the far smaller number of yellow jackets. And while there are several yellow jackets in the meadow were in, the most dangerous ones have moved to safer territory. Meanwhile, these flies keep on biting us and yellow jackets in other places can plan their attacks in leisure. The war in Afghanistan has not made us more secure¬ ⎯ in fact it has created a far larger number of enemies and has hampered our ability to fight the original enemies. If someone wants to justify the war for other reasons (human rights, democracy promotion, etc.) that is up to them, but rationalizing the invasion in terms of security simply does not work.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Mashallah...I was pleasantly surprised to find kindess
My Halloween night was anything but pleasant. That is until I got into the cab to come back to the dorm from U street. The only thing that turned my night around was the amazingly, genuinely kind cab driver Omar. Now that I think about it, I think it was fate that I went out, missed the metro, froze my but off waiting as all the other cabs were full, realized that my group of friends only had $15 between us and the ride would cost us at least $20, and somehow ended up in Omar cab. When we told him all we had was $15 dollars he looked at us and said, " If that is all you have, then that is what I will take." I was amazed, I was ready to take off my shoes and begin walking back to campus, or calling public safety for a safe ride home, but that was not necessary. Most of the ride was silent, except for Omar's conversation in Arabic.
During the ride I found out that Omar actually had a degree in Arabic and Islamic studies. When i found this out I was even more shocked. "Why was he driving a cab when he had a degree?" This made me start to think. This is not the first situation in which I've heard of people from other countries coming to America, and being subjected to working in jobs beneath their education level. My old AP US history teacher told me that the woman who bagged his groceries studied medicine. Why does this happen to highly intelligent, and qualified people. More importantly, how are these people able to be positive and even kind when in their own lives, people have not treated them the same way. I know, what does this have to do with world politics? Well, it is helping me construct my views of society today. This experience has helped my position, that there is hope, kindness, fairness still out there. That I don't have to suspect horrible things will happen all the time. But if they do, there is still those things that remind me of the goodness in humanity. If your still wondering, look at the constant state of cynicism, and the lack of optimism in many people's view of the world and how things work. Further, why are people surprised by kindness nowadays?
Halloween in DC
Nothing much to say for this week. The rally was awesome. Yousef and Ozzy on the same stage, who would have imagined. I almost screamed my head off.
Something I did notice however: the Korean cultural center went all out. They were trying to get some free trade bill to get passed. They had a huge amount of Korean candy and there was a massive line to get some. The line went right by this little kiosk where some representative gave us pamphlets about the bill. There was also some movie playing in the other room about Korean-US partnerships.
I wondered why they were doing this. Did they really think that some people would get inspired by the panphlets and write to their congressmen? Then I realized that we’re in DC; the congressmen may be the ones getting the pamphlets. I can just imagine it. The fiscally responsible representative from Iowa’s 2nd district walks in with his kid. He’s giving the information and a seed is planted. Two months later when deciding what to do on the issue that seed may just tip the scale.
Reason’s why I love DC.
Something I did notice however: the Korean cultural center went all out. They were trying to get some free trade bill to get passed. They had a huge amount of Korean candy and there was a massive line to get some. The line went right by this little kiosk where some representative gave us pamphlets about the bill. There was also some movie playing in the other room about Korean-US partnerships.
I wondered why they were doing this. Did they really think that some people would get inspired by the panphlets and write to their congressmen? Then I realized that we’re in DC; the congressmen may be the ones getting the pamphlets. I can just imagine it. The fiscally responsible representative from Iowa’s 2nd district walks in with his kid. He’s giving the information and a seed is planted. Two months later when deciding what to do on the issue that seed may just tip the scale.
Reason’s why I love DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)