RSS

Sat, Nov 8th 2008, 05:27

henelito a. sevilla, jr

managing the global world after the election of President obama is complicated yet new opportunities are open for this. The possible turn over of leadership to the Iraqi government could be a good one but it will be naive not to oversee the future of Iraq as more or less miss up that what democrats or political leadership in iraq are expecting to see. What is there is a question of supervision and effective governance in bringing unity of the existing political and cultural groups in Iraq. In afghanistan, it will be impossible for obama to unify the people without the effective and constructive cooperation of the waring parties in afghanistan. History has though us that Afghanistan is failure state and it will continue to experience failure unless internal adjustment and concession will be met. US forces in Afghanistan could not be enough but to some extend at least manage to supervise the transition to a more stable by bringing all parties together to bargaining table. This however again would not be enough as Al-Qaeda has continue to challege the presence of the U ited Stated states in the region. Unless the US can pressure the Pakistani government and other non-state actors to stop supporting the al-queda then the possible minimal result is anticipated. BArak obama has to weight it properly so that his dawnfall will not be Iraq.

on the issue of opening political talks with Iran, is one of the most achievements in history if ever it will happen. Hence, all factors have to be evaluated so that the possibility of achieving peace and prosperity will be plenty.

Sat, Nov 8th 2008, 10:23

John Hadjisky, Blogging Nerd, formerly John in Michigan, USA, Gold Contributor (82)

I certainly recall promises from Obama to withdraw from Iraq, and to negotiate with Iran. I recall no such promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. Obama (and Bush, and McCain) of course want to withdraw from Afghanistan eventually, but meanwhile, Obama specifically promised to redouble efforts in Afghanistan to find bin Laden. Indeed, given Obama's promise of hot pursuit into Pakistan without necessarily getting permission from the Pakistanis, it might be fair to say Obama wants to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan.

Regardless of what one thinks of these policies, it continues to be remarkable how even a seasoned pundit at the Guardian continue to sees what he wants to see. Are we about to replace the informal title "Leader of the Free World" with "He Who Is All Things to Everyone"?

Meanwhile, anyone who has worked with US forces knows that we aren't blood thirsty monsters who thoughtlessly bomb women and children, and that the human shield tactics of the Taliban and al Qaeda are well documented. Also well documented is the ability of Arab media to manufacture reports and plant evidence of casualties where none, or very few, occurred. For details, Google "pallywood". Are we surprised that those tactics now appear to have been adopted in Afghanistan?

Fri, Nov 21st 2008, 07:55

Kevinington Lewis

The war on terrorism should not be viewed like the many wars that have take place in history where arm forces from one country go against or attach another. We are now in the twenty first century where war, like technology, and unlike American foreign policies, has evolved. A terrorist can be anyone and no one. when an American by birth gets up one day and decides to murder 5 or more people because of his ideological beliefs which goes against American political policies, surely he does not have to have an affiliation to Bin Laden or Al Quaeda? We try to put a face and even an ethniticity to terrorism sometimes even a religion and an identity, without realizing that we are working with the limitations of the human mind. While war has evolve over the ages our thinking and policies on how to deal with it in a global dimension has fail to evolve likewise. As human beings we believe that labelling something would make it easier to define and categorize and therefore to stop. America label the term terrorism by calling it Bin Laden and or Al Quaeda yet destroys two states in an effort to eradicate Bin Laden and while they were busy flexing their military might in Afghanistan and Iraq for that reason terrorist acts were being carried out in the UK for example and many other countries where American Embassies were bombed and innocent people killed. This is a demonstration of the limitation of America's conceptualisation and understanding of modern warfare. Terrorism is not like the wars of the past and therefore I believe that any policy objective which simplify and reduce terrorism to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda as the only target needs serious revision. Strangely enough, American policy makers including president-to-be Barack Obama are failing to realize that eliminating terrorism is not only about finding Bin Laden and finding Bin Laden is not about exercising military muscle and destroying a whole state. Rather, America needs to understand that the ingredients which created a Bin Laden in the first place is the very ingredient that creates what they term terrorism.

American foreign policies and especially under the Bush administration angers many peoples worldwide including people in Europe. Bin Laden and his confederates strongly believe that they are fighting for a cause, they are convince that they are defending their freedom against a state they equally consider to be a terrorist (the United State of America). We are now living in a world where your next door neighbour whom you have known since you were a child can suddenly be arrested and charged for terrorism; this sort of put things in perspective for any policy against terrorism, because one cannot fight against what they cannot see or what they are not aware of. Many wars of the past were like that, France against Germany for example makes the target well defined and straight forward. America against Bin laden or Al Quaeda seems quite define and straight forward, but Bin Laden and Al Quaeda is just a side effect of terrorism the real deal is in the cause of this effect and not the effect itself. Finding and killing Bin Laden will not cure the terrorism disease, rather America needs to start building partnership with the rest of the world, as well as exercise a bit more soft power instead of flexing military might and exacerbating the problem of terrorism even more.

Barack Obama promises to repair the image of America and rebuild alliances, yet vows to strengthen military presence in Afghanistan in an effort to find Bin Laden. What would have been more convincing and praise worthy of Mr. Barack Obama president to be, would be to vow to strengthen aid and development efforts in these countries, hence taking on a new and different direction from the previous administration under Bush. I believe that the world is waiting for America to lead in a spirit of diplomacy, alliances and recognition of the fact that terrorism is part and parcel of its own doing. Surely Bin Laden is a criminal and should be found and punished for the many lives he has taken, but likewise, America should seek out a new direction in its foreign policies and how it deals with the rest of the world. Finding Bin Laden might not depend on America’s military effort but rather on their alliances with other countries as well as cleaning up their own double standards where human rights are concern. This then will be an effort on the part of America to start the long and arduous journey of dealing with the cause of terrorism and not only the effect.