Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
What was the most important point that this article made about US foriegn policy in South Central Asia? Why?
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Timothy Myer
As the Obama administration attempts to increase and ensure stability in a fragmented Middle East and South Central Asia, it must balance a number of considerations from countries such as China, Iran, and Pakistan. Perhaps the most pressing challenge is to not alienate any of the players in this process, for example, by taking too hard a line against Iran by insisting that China not use its port for export purposes. Obviously, the US wants to maintain its position as a leader in the world, but if it is unwilling to compromise and work together with the players in this region, the US risks losing influence and becoming marginalized. As the US pursues its interests in this region of the globe, it must make a concerted effort to understand the dynamics and culture of the region, to re-think some of its biases, and to go below the surface of the political buzzwords and characterizations utilized by the previous administration. Why? Because if we are to work towards relative peace in this troubled area, we must demonstrate a genuine interest in the well-being of nations other than just our own, to be a fair and just player willing to sacrifice some personal benefits for the greater good. If we do thus show real concern and willingness to work with other nations to help them achieve their goals, perhaps the tensions of the area will diminish, and both we and our erstwhile "enemies" will find that neither party is the demon we thought it to be.
An interesting perspective on what Fahreed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN has termed Obama's Vietnam. While the terrain in Afghanistan may differ it presents a similiar danger to that of Vietnam. While the Iranian danger is clear and Obama's campaign threats to identify and destroy Al-Quaeda's high value targets in Pakistan cofuses our relationship with them it's China's role I find more intriguing. While their has always been a tension between the democratic USA and the odd mixed governing system in China, trade and investment have quelled our disagreements. What if the U.S. economy continues to spiral downward. Will China turn it's back on us completely? Will they align more strongly with states such as Iran? Will they ultimately help discourage U.S. troop brigades in hilly, treacherous Afghanistan. Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether Obama is willing to back up his campaign promise of two to three more brigades in Afghanistan or wil he turn his back on the situation and hope for the best after the unpopular mess we are still going through in Iraq. SHANE HEATHERS from TRAUTMANS foreign policy course.
I think that the most important part is the U.S's lack of knowldge of what China, Iran, and Pakistan are doing in the region. China has shown a great intrest in that area as well as the other two. The U.S is on somewhat good terms with pakistan but I think that the U.S should be a little weary of what China, and Iran are doing. Since any of them could be supplying terrorists with weapons. I'm not saying that the U.S should do anything at this moment, but what should happen is start paying more attention to their movements. But at the same time, must reamember to try and understand what the dynamics are of that region. By ubdertanding, The U.S will be in a better position. David Brown International realtions
I think the most important point of the article is that we have to be careful with what we do in Afganistan. We need to make sure our troop deployments do not destabilize the borders, we need to lessen Iran's ability to send money and guns to the Taliban, while simultaneously trying to get their support, and we need to make sure China is not supplying them either. It is going to be a hard problem to deal with, especially on the China side of things, so Obama will really have his work cut out for him in that region of the world.
I think the biggest point here was that the United States can't afford its regular attitude of omnipotence. That is, the idea that America pulls all the strings and if we succeed, it was our brilliant plan, and if we fail, it must have been our failing, and we could have prevented it. In the form of the Saudis we have one player in Afghanistan definitely playing against our interests, trying to retain the Taliban as a viable political entity. In order to hold a peace there, the plan definitely needs to be regional, allowing troops to cross borders. If enforcement can chase insurgents all the way to the border, but then have to stop because the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or even the Chinese won't let allied forces pursue them into their territory. Then Afghanistan really DOES become a Vietnam. China, Iran, and Pakistan have already invested a great deal of money in the infrastructure in Afghanistan, and thus have a vested interest in keeping the country safe. But the entire region needs to involved in such a measure, not just the people holding live ammunition. Even the ones on the sidelines, at the moment, need to be involved in the decision-making process. -Chris Judd, IR class
Wait a minute, am I the the only one who sees the hypocrisies of the obama administration? I mean come on the guy basically won the election by obsessively bashing the repubs and everything "bush". Already we've seen a number of scandals under obama, from trying to appoint cabinet members with hundreds of thousands of $s in tax debt to pardoning the terrorist who bombed the USS Cole and killed american troops and now this; If I remember correctly one of his promises to the american people was to "bring our boys back within 18 months" and here he is deploying 30,000 additional troops after just a few short weeks in office. This guy is a just another washington politician who will say anything to get elected and expand government. And is it just me or does it seem like China is playing both sides of the isle in a sense?...I mean on one hand they indirectly fund much of our military activity in the middle east and surrounding regions by buying up US debt, yet they have been supplying hostile fringe militias in afghanistan with AK-47s? I mean call me crazy but I say pull out entirely and let the world see what follows, most of it (the world) wants us to stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong anyway. I can't say I disagree. Maybe I'm a little off topic here and I realize our troop deployment was a small aspect of this article but I'm thoroughly fed up with washington, I think by far the most relevant issue at the table here is creating jobs and economic growth within our own borders, not playing mediator to a region of the world that has been fighting for thousands of years. We literally can't afford this any longer, lets cut the "peace and love" mumbo jumbo and get the heck out of there already. -Cam McIntosh, International Relations
I have to say I agree with most everyone, let me rephrase that, I agree with parts of what some have said. I am getting sickj of trying to figure out what other coutries are trying to do such as see what China's game plan is and why they are putting soo much money into a country? We do it for the purpose, supposedly to help the country, I think we try to help ourselves, but what is China's goal? should we care? I think we should in a way, but is it necessary to deploy more troops to help stabilize and find more intel about why another country is lending munitions to others? I have no problem with war, that sounds horrible but war does create jobs and in a way helps the economic cycle move forward, many probably do not agree but to each his own. I do not have a problem sending troops out, what I do have a problem is where they are sending the troops now and I have to agree with Cam here, I have a problem with the fact that Obama made this huge to-do about bringing our men/women home and now he is sending more over. I think we just need to pick one course of action and stick with it. The more we change ideas and plans the worse mess and more money we end up spending that we can't afford to right now. Jess Jacobs IR class
7 comments:
Timothy Myer
As the Obama administration attempts to increase and ensure stability in a fragmented Middle East and South Central Asia, it must balance a number of considerations from countries such as China, Iran, and Pakistan. Perhaps the most pressing challenge is to not alienate any of the players in this process, for example, by taking too hard a line against Iran by insisting that China not use its port for export purposes. Obviously, the US wants to maintain its position as a leader in the world, but if it is unwilling to compromise and work together with the players in this region, the US risks losing influence and becoming marginalized.
As the US pursues its interests in this region of the globe, it must make a concerted effort to understand the dynamics and culture of the region, to re-think some of its biases, and to go below the surface of the political buzzwords and characterizations utilized by the previous administration. Why? Because if we are to work towards relative peace in this troubled area, we must demonstrate a genuine interest in the well-being of nations other than just our own, to be a fair and just player willing to sacrifice some personal benefits for the greater good. If we do thus show real concern and willingness to work with other nations to help them achieve their goals, perhaps the tensions of the area will diminish, and both we and our erstwhile "enemies" will find that neither party is the demon we thought it to be.
An interesting perspective on what Fahreed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN has termed Obama's Vietnam. While the terrain in Afghanistan may differ it presents a similiar danger to that of Vietnam. While the Iranian danger is clear and Obama's campaign threats to identify and destroy Al-Quaeda's high value targets in Pakistan cofuses our relationship with them it's China's role I find more intriguing. While their has always been a tension between the democratic USA and the odd mixed governing system in China, trade and investment have quelled our disagreements. What if the U.S. economy continues to spiral downward. Will China turn it's back on us completely? Will they align more strongly with states such as Iran? Will they ultimately help discourage U.S. troop brigades in hilly, treacherous Afghanistan. Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether Obama is willing to back up his campaign promise of two to three more brigades in Afghanistan or wil he turn his back on the situation and hope for the best after the unpopular mess we are still going through in Iraq. SHANE HEATHERS from TRAUTMANS foreign policy course.
I think that the most important part is the U.S's lack of knowldge of what China, Iran, and Pakistan are doing in the region. China has shown a great intrest in that area as well as the other two. The U.S is on somewhat good terms with pakistan but I think that the U.S should be a little weary of what China, and Iran are doing. Since any of them could be supplying terrorists with weapons. I'm not saying that the U.S should do anything at this moment, but what should happen is start paying more attention to their movements. But at the same time, must reamember to try and understand what the dynamics are of that region. By ubdertanding, The U.S will be in a better position. David Brown International realtions
I think the most important point of the article is that we have to be careful with what we do in Afganistan. We need to make sure our troop deployments do not destabilize the borders, we need to lessen Iran's ability to send money and guns to the Taliban, while simultaneously trying to get their support, and we need to make sure China is not supplying them either.
It is going to be a hard problem to deal with, especially on the China side of things, so Obama will really have his work cut out for him in that region of the world.
Benjamin Pierce, International Relations
I think the biggest point here was that the United States can't afford its regular attitude of omnipotence. That is, the idea that America pulls all the strings and if we succeed, it was our brilliant plan, and if we fail, it must have been our failing, and we could have prevented it. In the form of the Saudis we have one player in Afghanistan definitely playing against our interests, trying to retain the Taliban as a viable political entity. In order to hold a peace there, the plan definitely needs to be regional, allowing troops to cross borders. If enforcement can chase insurgents all the way to the border, but then have to stop because the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or even the Chinese won't let allied forces pursue them into their territory. Then Afghanistan really DOES become a Vietnam. China, Iran, and Pakistan have already invested a great deal of money in the infrastructure in Afghanistan, and thus have a vested interest in keeping the country safe. But the entire region needs to involved in such a measure, not just the people holding live ammunition. Even the ones on the sidelines, at the moment, need to be involved in the decision-making process.
-Chris Judd, IR class
Wait a minute, am I the the only one who sees the hypocrisies of the obama administration? I mean come on the guy basically won the election by obsessively bashing the repubs and everything "bush". Already we've seen a number of scandals under obama, from trying to appoint cabinet members with hundreds of thousands of $s in tax debt to pardoning the terrorist who bombed the USS Cole and killed american troops and now this; If I remember correctly one of his promises to the american people was to "bring our boys back within 18 months" and here he is deploying 30,000 additional troops after just a few short weeks in office. This guy is a just another washington politician who will say anything to get elected and expand government. And is it just me or does it seem like China is playing both sides of the isle in a sense?...I mean on one hand they indirectly fund much of our military activity in the middle east and surrounding regions by buying up US debt, yet they have been supplying hostile fringe militias in afghanistan with AK-47s? I mean call me crazy but I say pull out entirely and let the world see what follows, most of it (the world) wants us to stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong anyway. I can't say I disagree. Maybe I'm a little off topic here and I realize our troop deployment was a small aspect of this article but I'm thoroughly fed up with washington, I think by far the most relevant issue at the table here is creating jobs and economic growth within our own borders, not playing mediator to a region of the world that has been fighting for thousands of years. We literally can't afford this any longer, lets cut the "peace and love" mumbo jumbo and get the heck out of there already. -Cam McIntosh, International Relations
I have to say I agree with most everyone, let me rephrase that, I agree with parts of what some have said. I am getting sickj of trying to figure out what other coutries are trying to do such as see what China's game plan is and why they are putting soo much money into a country? We do it for the purpose, supposedly to help the country, I think we try to help ourselves, but what is China's goal? should we care? I think we should in a way, but is it necessary to deploy more troops to help stabilize and find more intel about why another country is lending munitions to others? I have no problem with war, that sounds horrible but war does create jobs and in a way helps the economic cycle move forward, many probably do not agree but to each his own. I do not have a problem sending troops out, what I do have a problem is where they are sending the troops now and I have to agree with Cam here, I have a problem with the fact that Obama made this huge to-do about bringing our men/women home and now he is sending more over. I think we just need to pick one course of action and stick with it. The more we change ideas and plans the worse mess and more money we end up spending that we can't afford to right now.
Jess Jacobs IR class
Post a Comment