The Next Great Political Revolution in the West

'Revolution' is a funny word. For all intents and purposes, it fulfills one request only: as a measure of significance for a country's historicity. 'Historicity' is another funny word: in the pragmatic sense, it deals solely with the facts of history and whether or not they are nonpartisan, objective, verifiable, etc. Essentially, historicity deals with what can be deemed as 'true.'

But then, what's true? Is a revolution just a government's insurrection, or is it a terrorist's ideal? The term 'revolution' is one that should always be taken with two grains of salt, because we must always ask ourselves, whose revolution was it anyway? Did the terrorist become a saint, or did the beneficent leader become a tyrant?

Some believe that we, in this 21st century full of instant communication from anywhere around the world, will have a revolution soon to come in our insulated western world: whether it's working-class over rich, a revolution in democracy, an Islamic revolution, etc. etc. etc. A revolution is only as good as the (inevitably) minority movement that follows through with it and the leaders who give it direction; without one or the other, there is only a small sect of disgruntled citizens, or anarchy.

How can we test where the seeds of 'revolution' might sprout? The most recent revolutions occurred in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where leader after leader either resigned or was deposed from their position of power, demonstrating the power of the people and the prevalence of democracy!

Or so we'd like to think. Egypt has largely turned into a stratocracy, where the former democratically elected power, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been labeled as a terrorist organization by the Egyptian military. Syria is still in the midst of a bloody civil war that shows only stalemate. Libya is still unstable.

Closer to home, with the revelations of NSA spying and the discussions over cutting welfare for millions of people, some say that we require a 'revolution' in order to truly become democratic and egalitarian and what have you. But then, why would there be a revolution in the western world? In terms of peaceful revolution, one can elect a 'radical' to office to change existing structures of government, but in the end, is there any way to completely ensure that this 'radical' will change anything at all? Is 'revolution' for the western world more than just trust in voting?

The last real revolution in politics, specifically in America, came with Ronald Reagan: he cut taxes on both the rich and companies to their lowest levels since the Great Depression (though he raised them as well), cut benefits for many, deregulated portions of the financial and banking industry (see the Savings and Loan crisis), and he removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed in the White House (not exactly hard-hitting, but symbolic nonetheless). He restarted the Cold War in a way that had everyone once again fearing that their lives could be ended in the next 30 minutes. Some hold him as a mythical Republican hero, some hold him as a right-wing corporatist villain, but either way, he was 'revolutionary.'

(Some would say the Bush administration was revolutionary as well, in the terms of changing how the US comported with the world and how the government acted domestically with regard to the constitution and its citizens. This is true, and should not be taken lightly: everything we see in the international stage today is a result of Bush administration policies, from rendition to wiretapping to Iran to Israel, etc. etc. etc. However, his administration was much more secretive, and the legacy of his administration's impact has yet to fully be assessed.)

Personally, I'd argue that the policies of Reagan and his ilk, such as Thatcher, set western civilization back a few pegs: instead of ensuring wealth for all, it was only wealth for some; instead of maintaining a solid industrial base, it was shipped away to China or Mexico or another country whose standard of work allowed companies to pay workers cents per day.

So then what is the next great revolution in the west? It seems that we've reached our nadir in terms of political activism. After all, it's hard to live in this current society without a 9-to-5, 40 hour a week job that pays just enough for rent and food. It's not as if we can guarantee a higher minimum wage, or a basic salary for all adults between the ages of 18 and 65, or free or subsidized education without the future weight of loans, or an egalitarian tax code, or basic health care for all regardless of income or employment, or paid maternity leave, or paid paternity leave, or an efficient means of public transport throughout the entirety of the US, or the basic necessities of food and water to all, or the reasonable assumption that we can retain the privacy of our opinions within the company of those whom we trust, or that our food, water, and air are clean to eat, drink, and breathe, or that we are reasonably able to provide shelter and accommodation to anyone who may need it. No, we cannot guarantee any of that.

Perhaps when these are enacted, we can say that we lived through the great revolution in the west, or, more specifically, America, because then all will have benefited from the actions of the few, and historicity will deem it so. Fact will no longer be fiction, and the fiction that so many vehemently defend will no longer be fact.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Share |

Afghani War, Part II: The Empire Strikes Back

^Good one, eh?

Part II:
Current US strategy (a general overview)
This comes directly from the White Paper released by the White House (from whitehouse.gov):
"• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.

• Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that
serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal
security, with limited international support.

• Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.

• Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.

• Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN."

These goals seem ideal, but are untenable at the moment. I will go through these point by point:

• Terrorist networks: Al Qaeda operatives are extraordinarily elusive, and the Taliban insurgency has gained in strength and size since 2008. Currently, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, is pursuing negotiations with the Taliban for a greater protection of Afghanistan from Al Qaeda insurgents. The U.S. has not engaged in these negotiations, as these negotiations would seem to be both self-destructive and murky in their possible results. The United States government does not trust the Taliban, as they are a non-state actor and are not accountable under any laws.
• Government in Afghanistan: This is a contentious and confusing issue, as the U.S. continually berates the Karzai government with accusations of corruption (which may be well-founded; see the August 2009 elections) and negligence. The U.S. has also supported tribal militias, often paying them upwards of 1$ million for their assistance in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. This is a multi-faceted problem: each tribe has its own interest in Afghanistan and not every tribe is sympathetic towards the Karzai government. Along with that is the fact that many civilians view the tribes unfavorably, as the tribes often have very little sympathy for accident casualties of war. Arming them now may mean an unstable, war-plagued Afghanistan after the U.S. leaves.
• Afghan security forces: The U.S. wants to build-up the Afghan Army and police up to 134,000 and 82,000 in the next year, which is an extremely unrealistic number. The current number of combat-ready servicemen stands at 60,000 with turnover at only 25%. Also, this is an uphill struggle ideologically: al Qaeda and the Taliban purport to defend the highest Muslim ethics and are often more lucrative enterprises than joining the armed forces.
• Government in Pakistan: This is a troubling issue; though the United States does require Pakistan's help with Afghanistan, intervening too much in Pakistan may cast the United States with the visage of puppeteer. With current President Zardari's approval numbers sinking faster than the Titanic, any U.S. intervention that is intended to change the political sphere in Pakistan would turn whatever support there is against the United States. Pakistanis are a highly proud people, as they showed during the vehement protests against former President Musharraf. The U.S. should allow the citizens of Pakistan to change their government democratically, without any outside assistance.
• International community: Afghanistan is a terribly difficult area for any international access aside from military. With its multiple tribal militias, rampant corruption, an extremely low education level and a growing anti-occupational mindset, other international assistance is difficult to garner.

Part III will have my opinion on what strategy the U.S. should execute in Afghanistan. It might be long enough to split into two parts; if it is, don't worry. I won't name the last part "Attack of the Clones."

Das Flüg

A matter of sternness

It has been a decently long time since I last posted anything related to politics, so I suppose I'll get back on track with that and keep myself in practice. This will be about military strategy in Afghanistan.

I won't be presumptuous and say that this is the best strategy for the United States to follow, but it is the one that would likely foster the most ideal results.

Part 1 (of however many parts)
Current predicaments:
Currently in Afghanistan, the United States is fielding near 70,000 troops on the ground. As of recently, they have been working to isolate the Taliban (and subsequently, al Qaeda) to the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan and have been waging successful campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northern Pakistan. The United States fields the vast majority of troops in Afghanistan, with Canada fielding around 3,000 and Germany around 1,000. Recently, Pakistani intelligence (ISI) has captured two top-tier Taliban leaders; however, there are several problems that go along with this.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the ISI have been working with a tenuous relationship to further secure Afghanistan. The two agencies are distrustful of each other, as many in the American government have the view that Pakistan wants to keep some of the Taliban tangible in order to exert a greater influence in Afghanistan after American forces leave. There has also been suspicion on the side of the ISI that several anti-Pakistani militants who have been killed of late (according to the ISI) may have been American spies. Along with this is the ever-prevalent Pakistani fear that the Americans are secretly working with the Indian government to somehow undermine Pakistan. At this time, the relationship is professional and far from intimate.
This war is also relatively unpopular at home, as with its counterpart war in Iraq. As of January 12th, according to a CBS poll, only 46% of respondents approved of his handling of Afghanistan, opposed to upwards of 60% in the late summer of 2009. This is typical in any war, however, as popular opinion for a war typically wanes with an increase in troop deaths. Obama's announcement of a troop surge did not help his poll numbers, as is typical with an engagement of this length. Many people attribute the two wars as having some part in the current economic downturn (though the current proposed budget has $159.3 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq out of a total $3.8 trillion).
This war (both wars, in my opinion) has been poorly handled since former president Bush authorized military operations in Afghanistan. There are a plethora of different, less-lethal strategies that the United States could have pursued and could still pursue, many of which would reduce the number of American and Afghani deaths and foster cooperation and give a positive view of America in the Muslim world. I will go in-depth into one of these strategies in my next segment, Part II.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Das Püp!

Hello Earth/internet/extra-terrestrials/World of Warcraft players,
I am a man. To be precise, I am a human being amongst the other 6 billion human beings to inhabit this pale blue dot in the middle of nowhere. You may be asking yourself what is so special about me to warrant a blog; to that, I respond wholeheartedly, "I dunno."

I am not unlike every other human. 2 legs, 2 arms, a head, a circulatory system, neuro-synapses, etc. I am pretty cut and dry, except for the fact that I am, right now, doing what you see in front of you: continually typing words. Man, I am a boring person.

My life is no more interesting than yours. Sure, you may think that just because you're Brad Pitt, or own a Mustang, or have had sex with multiple people (genders unknown) at the same time that you are the greatest thing since, well, the last person to have sex with multiple people (genders unknown) at the same time. And if you do, well, kudos to you. Life handed you lemons, and you said "To hell with the lemonade" and bought a Ferrari. Yes, a very random sentiment, I agree. It's just a random tangent.

Speaking of tangents, y=f(a)+f!(a)(x-a).

To be a bit more personable, I am currently a single, straight, intellectually-bored college student studying Political Science (a.k.a., nothing really important) and Psychology (double unimportance). Essentially, my life's goal is, to, well... find a goal. I've been a stalwart dilettante for most of my academic career, and after a while, it just gets damned tiring. Sure, I could give you pretty good insights into politics, law, philosophy, economics, psychology, natural sciences, physics, astronomy, classical music, classic rock, history, kung-fu movies, good books, meditation, and exercise (among other things), but what would that get me in life? I would be no more than a wandering philistine. Today's world is about the simple-minded objective of screwing people over in favor of accruing wealth. For that, I could care less.

The funny thing about money is that if enough people devalue it and consider it worthless, well then...it's worthless. I think that I'll end my little diatribe here.

Vaya con dios,
Das Flüg