In addition to my hobby of record collecting, I am also an avid coin collector. I generally focus on American, Canadian, Mexican, and British coinage from the 19th and 20th centuries. My favorite types of American coins to collect are proof coins, early commemorative half dollars, and American coins of unusual denomination or type. This is a discussion of the history of the coin collecting hobby.
The first coins ever made are believed to be Lydian staters, minted in the Kingdom of Lydia (modern-day Turkey) during the 6th Century BCE. These coins were made of electrum, a naturally occurring alloy of gold and silver, and featured a lion’s head on one side. The Lydian staters are considered the first coins because they were officially issued by a government body and served as a model for later coinage.
Coin collecting, formally known as numismatics, has roots that stretch back to the dawn of formal human civilization. Coins were first created in the ancient world as a practical tool for trade, but from the very beginning, they carried more than monetary value. Their artistry, the authority of the ruler whose image they bore, and the historical events they commemorated made them attractive to collectors long before the concept of a “hobby” existed in the modern sense. Over the centuries, what began as a pastime for the elite became an organized pursuit shared by scholars, historians, and eventually millions of everyday people.
The generation of numismatists active during the Renaissance generally focused on collecting ancient Roman coins as objects of study, treating them as tangible records of a forgotten history.
The earliest known coin collectors were rulers and aristocrats in antiquity. Roman emperors such as Augustus and Hadrian are believed to have assembled cabinets of coins depicting earlier emperors and historic events, both to honor Rome’s heritage and to display their own refinement. Coins in the ancient world often circulated far from their place of origin, and finding a coin from a distant land could spark fascination. In the Middle Ages, coin collecting became less common outside of royal treasuries, but the Renaissance brought a revival of interest in classical antiquity. The Italian poet and scholar Petrarch, often credited as the first Renaissance-era numismatist, collected ancient Roman coins not as curios but as objects of study, treating them as tangible records of history. By the 16th and 17th centuries, collecting coins had become a scholarly pursuit among European nobility, with elaborate cabinets designed to display prized specimens.
The Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed the scope of numismatics. Advances in minting technology produced sharper and more uniform coins, while the growth of a prosperous middle class meant the pastime was no longer restricted to kings and scholars. By the mid-19th century, organized numismatic societies were forming in Europe and North America. Auction houses began selling entire collections, dealers emerged in major cities, and price lists and catalogues gave collectors a way to gauge the market. The study of coins evolved into a recognized academic discipline, with numismatists cataloging not just coins but also their metallurgy, iconography, and minting history.
When the large cent in 1857 was discontinued in fsvor of smaller-sized cents, the first coin collecting boom in the US began in earnest. Nostalgia took over for many who wanted to remember the coins they grew up with. The idea of collecting by date originated at this time, as many people sought to find as many different dates as possible before large cents disappeared from circulation. The idea of rarity began to present itself, as some dates were especially hard to find. This prompted some to offer the rarer dates at a premium to those who could not find them. Private sales were made, but no recognized pricing or standards were in place yet
In the US, coin collecting developed alongside the country’s own coinage. Early federal issues like the 1793 Chain Cent, with its distinctive link design, and the Flowing Hair silver dollars of the 1790s were recognized even at the time as unusual pieces worthy of saving. Still, for much of the 19th century, collecting was the domain of wealthy hobbyists and scholars. A major turning point came in 1857 when the US Mint discontinued the large cent and replaced it with a smaller-sized cent that is still in circulation today and will continue to be produced until the end of 2025. The sudden disappearance of the older coins from circulation spurred interest among the public, who began saving examples. This episode introduced many ordinary Americans to the idea that coins could be preserved for their historical and monetary significance.
Proof coins such as this 1957 Proof Ben Franklin half dollar are struck from specially polished dies and planchets that create sharp details and mirror-like surfaces.
Also important to the hobby’s development was the production of proof coins by the US Mint. Proof coins, struck with specially polished dies and planchets to create sharp details and mirror-like surfaces, began to be minted on a limited scale starting in 1817. These coins were originally produced primarily for collectors and were not intended for circulation. However, production of proofs ceased in 1916 and was suspended for about two decades. The US Mint resumed proof coinage in 1936, coinciding with a growing enthusiasm for collecting. Except for 1943-1949 and 1965-1967, proof coinage has been made by the US Mint continuously over the past 89 years. Proof sets quickly became prized among collectors for their exceptional quality and rarity compared to regular circulation coins. Over time, annual proof issues became a cornerstone of the hobby, offering collectors a way to acquire pristine examples of each year’s coinage. The introduction of proof coins helped broaden collecting beyond simply searching through pocket change, fostering a market for specially struck, limited-edition coins that remain popular today.
The founding of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) in 1891 helped knit together collectors across the country, offering exhibitions, publications, and a network for buying, selling, and trading. In the decades that followed, US coin collecting steadily gained popularity, but it was the 1930s that truly marked the hobby’s first great boom. The Great Depression paradoxically fueled interest: while many Americans struggled financially, the idea of finding a rare date or mintmark in everyday change, and perhaps selling it at a profit, was appealing. By 1934, the hobby had entered a banner period. That year saw a marked increase in organized coin shows, numismatic literature, and active trading, as well as growing public awareness of certain collectible issues.
During the 1930s coin-collecting boom, a major focus of collector interests was the series of commemorative half dollars produced by the US Mint beginning in 1892.
At the center of this 1930s excitement were the so-called “classic” commemorative half dollars, a series struck between 1892 and 1954 to honor historic events, figures, and anniversaries. In the mid-1930s, the US Mint began issuing a flood of new commemorative designs, often multiple per year, sometimes with variations in mintmarks or dates that encouraged collectors to buy every version. These coins were sold at premiums above face value, marketed aggressively by promoters, and produced in relatively small numbers to heighten perceived scarcity. Between 1934 and 1936, prices for certain issues soared as new collectors entered the market, believing the coins to be sure-fire investments. This was, in effect, the first major speculative bubble in US numismatics.
The commemorative half dollar boom, however, was short-lived. By 1936, the novelty had worn off, and the sheer number of different issues began to overwhelm even enthusiastic buyers. Many collectors resented the increasingly blatant profiteering by promoters. Between 1936 and 1941, prices for these coins plummeted, leaving many who had bought at the peak with pieces worth a fraction of their purchase price. This crash left a cautionary lesson that still resonates in the hobby: manufactured rarity and market hype can be risky foundations for collecting.
The introduction of inexpensive cardboard coin holders in the mid-1930s made coin collecting accessible to millions of people and resulted in the hobby growing.
Despite the collapse of the commemorative half market, coin collecting retained its mass appeal. The introduction of inexpensive cardboard coin boards by Whitman Publishing and other companies in the mid-1930s made it possible for anyone to organize and display a complete series. Families spent evenings poring over pocket change, searching for missing dates or rare varieties. After World War II, postwar prosperity and leisure time encouraged more serious collecting, and key date US silver dollars, particularly Morgan dollars and Peace dollars long held in Treasury vaults, were released to the public in the 1950s and early 1960s, sparking another collecting surge.
During the early 1960s rus on certian low-mintage coins, the price of coins such as the 1950-D Jefferson nickel spiked to record levels, then collapsed once it became clear that it and other lower mintage coins were not as scarce in unirculated condition as claimed.
The early 1960s also saw a speculative rush on certain low-mintage coins, most famously the 1950-D Jefferson nickel, which dealers and investors promoted as a future rarity. Prices spiked but collapsed once it became clear that the coins were not as scarce in uncirculated condition as advertised. Then, in 1965, a pivotal change occurred when rising silver prices led the US government to remove silver from circulating dimes and quarters and reduce the silver content of the half dollar from 90 percent to 40 percent (silver in the half dollar was subsequently eliminated in 1971). Almost immediately, the public began hoarding pre-1965 silver coins (following the concept of Gresham’s law), and they gradually disappeared from circulation over the next decade and a half. After the Hunt Brothers, two Texas oil billionaires, attempted to corner the silver market in 1979–1980, driving silver to record highs, virtually no silver coins remained in everyday commerce.
The 1970s also brought another wave of popular collecting through the Bicentennial coinage program. Special reverse designs for the quarter, half dollar, and dollar coins commemorated America’s 200th birthday and were released in huge quantities, generating excitement among both casual and serious collectors. The 1980s saw the return of commemorative half dollars and dollars, along with the launch of the American Gold and Silver Eagle bullion coins, which attracted a blend of hobbyists and precious metals investors.
Modern circulating commemorative coin series, including the American Innovation dollar series, remain popular with coin collectors and have increased awareness of the coin hobby to a wider audience.
The 1990s and early 2000s ushered in one of the largest collecting booms in US history with the 50 State Quarters Program, launched in 1999. Millions of Americans who had never collected coins before began saving quarters featuring each state’s design. Banks were swamped by customers requesting rolls of quarters just to search for the newest releases. Although later commemorative programs, such as the America the Beautiful quarters, Presidential dollars, and the American Innovation dollar series, maintained some momentum, none matched the cultural impact of the state quarters era.
The formation of coin grading companies in the mid-1980s, such as PCGS, NGC, and ANACS helped to standardize quality assessment, reduced the prevalence of counterfeit coins, and resulted in greater confidence in higher valued coin transactions.
Today, coin collecting in the US is both a cultural pastime and a multi-billion-dollar industry. The market spans everything from modern circulation finds to legendary rarities like the 1913 Liberty Head nickel or the 1804 Draped Bust dollar, which can sell for millions at auction. The introduction of professional grading services in the mid-1980s helped standardize quality assessment, reduce fraud, and bring greater confidence to high-value transactions. The rise of online platforms has made it easier for collectors to connect with dealers and one another, creating a global marketplace for US coins.
What keeps coin collecting alive, even in an age of digital payments, is its tactile link to history. A coin is a small, enduring artifact of a particular time and place. Whether it is a circulated copper cent from the Civil War, a commemorative half dollar from the 1930s, or a modern bullion coin, each piece carries a story of artistry, economics, and human hands. The combination of history, beauty, and the thrill of discovery has sustained the American coin collecting tradition for generations, and all signs suggest it will continue to do so well into the future.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi renewed a years-long quest to remove the remaining Confederate statues from the US Capitol as calls to erase monuments to the Confederacy increase amid the nation’s reckoning with its racist past. Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter on June 10 to her colleagues who co-chair the Joint Committee on the Library that Congress should “lead by example.” “The statues in the Capitol should embody our highest ideals as Americans, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation,” Pelosi wrote. “Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed.” Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader, led this charge in 2017 after the violent white supremacist marches in Charlottesville that began over plans to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. But Republicans rejected her entreaty, saying it is up to the states to decide the likenesses they want representing them in Washington.
Each state is allowed to choose two statues to decorate the halls of Congress. There are, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s letter, 11 Confederate statutes, including Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, the President and Vice President of the Confederate States of America, respectively. Some states have taken it upon themselves to remove statues honoring those who sided with the Confederacy. In 2019, Arkansas replaced two figures from the Civil War with statues of music legend Johnny Cash and civil rights icon Daisy Lee Gatson Bates, though at the time Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson said the reason for the swap was to have a more modern representation of the state. Now, the debate over whether to remove Confederate monuments from public and private spaces has raged anew in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, which spawned a national reckoning over the history of racism in the US.
Unlike other attempts to remove Confederate monuments, a societal awareness around issues of systemic racism could lead to more action. This week, institutions including NASCAR and the US Marine Corps banned the use of the Confederate symbols, and there’s increasing pressure to rename military bases that are named for Confederate generals. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the vice chairwoman of the Joint Committee on the Library, said in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s letter that the Confederate statues displayed around the US Capitol should be replaced. “I agree that the Joint Committee and Architect of the Capitol should expediently remove these symbols of cruelty and bigotry from the halls of the Capitol,” Lofgren said. “I stand ready, and call on the Chair of the Joint Committee to swiftly approve the removal of these statues. The Capitol building belongs to the American people and cannot serve as a place of honor for the hatred and racism that tears at the fabric of our nation, the very poison that these statues embody.”
Ever since its founding as a nation nearly 250 years ago, the US has pursued a destructive, imperialistic, and aggressive policy towards the Middle East. This history of US intervention in the Middle East illustrates the lengths to which the US power elites have gone to gain and maintain US domination in the region. Here is a brief history discussing the evolution of US policy regarding the Middle East:
1777: Under the leadership of Sultan Mohammed Ben Abdallah, Morocco becomes the first Middle Eastern country to recognize the US as an independent country. Morocco and the US established formal diplomatic ties in 1786 through the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship and developed a close relationship that continues to this day.
1801-1815: The US intervenes alongside Sweden and the Kingdom of Sicily in the Barbary Wars, an undeclared series of conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle Eastern countries of Algeria, Tunis, and Libya in response to a series of pirate attack against US ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Even though the wars did not completely end the acts of piracy against American vessels, it proved that the US was capable of waging war, if necessary, in places far from its own shores.
1834: US President Andrew Jackson authorizes the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to send Christian missionaries to the Iranian provinces of Tehran, Isfahan, Hamadan, and Fars. Despite the fact that many of the missionaries held the belief that their actions would improve Iranian society, the true intention of these missions was to establish a US foothold in the region and to weaken the dominant religions of Iran.
May 26, 1875: Mirza Mohammad Ali (better known as Hajj Sayyah), a noted world traveler and democratic political activist become the first person of Middle Eastern descent to become a US citizen. Born in the Iranian province of Markazi in 1836, Sayyah first arrived in the US in 1862, after three years of traveling through Europe and Central Asia. During his stay in the US, Sayyah briefly served in the Union Army during the Civil War and developed a friendship with President Ulysses Grant. After gaining American citizenship, Sayyeh returned to Iran in 1891 and was imprisoned for having instigated a clandestine letter-writing campaign to the Qajar monarch and clergy regarding the unbearable living conditions and lack of political freedom in Iran. After his release, he sought the protection of the US legation in Tehran, which denied him that privilege despite his service in the Union Army during the Civil War and friendship with well-known US political figures.
1920-1928: The US pressures the UK (at the time the dominant Middle Eastern power) into signing a “Red Line Agreement” stating that Middle Eastern oil will not be developed by any single power without the participation of other Western powers such as France, Germany, and Italy. Standard Oil and Mobil obtain shares of the Iraq Petroleum Company due to the agreement.
1932-1938: Oil is discovered in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. American oil companies soon obtain concessions that allow them to access the oil.
1944: The US State Department memo refers to Middle Eastern oil as, “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” During US-British negotiations over the control of Middle Eastern oil, President Franklin Roosevelt sketches out a map of the Middle East and tells the British Ambassador, “Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.” On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement is signed, splitting Middle Eastern oil between the US and the UK.
1945-Present: The US has wholeheartedly supported the brutal government of Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars in financial, military, and technological aid, as well as continued purchasing of Saudi oil. This support has encouraged the Saudi government to expand the oppressive ideology of Wahhabism to neighboring countries and to continually oppress their own people in a manner similar to European rulers during the Dark Ages.
1946: US President Harry Truman threatens to drop an atomic bomb on the Soviet Union if it does not withdraw from the Kurdistan and Azerbaijan regions of Iran. The Soviet Union subsequently obeyed US demands.
November 1947: The US helps push through a UN resolution partitioning Palestine into a Zionist state (which came to be known as Israel) and an Arab state, giving the Jewish authorities control of 54% of the land. At that time Jewish settlers were about 33% of the population.
May 14, 1948: War breaks out between the newly proclaimed state of Israel, and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, who had moved troops into Palestine to oppose the partition of Palestine. The Israeli forces attack some 800,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of the population, to flee into exile to Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel seizes 77 percent of historic Palestine. US President Harry Truman quickly recognizes Israel and authorizes the sending of military aid to the new country.
March 29, 1949: CIA backs a military coup overthrowing the elected government of Syria and establishes a military dictatorship under Colonel Za’im.
1952: US-led military alliance expands into the Middle East with the admission of Turkey and Greece to NATO.
1953: The US, UK, and Israel organize a coup overthrowing the Mossadegh government of Iran after Mossadegh nationalizes British holdings in Iran’s huge oilfields. The Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, is put on the throne, ruling as an absolute monarch for the next 25 years, torturing, killing (at least 160,000), and imprisoning (as many as three million) of his political opponents.
July 1956: After Egypt’s nationalist leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, receives arms from the Soviet Union, the US withdraws promised funding for Aswan Dam, Egypt’s main development project. A week later Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal to fund the project. In October, the UK, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union intervenes on Egypt’s side; and at the same time, the US asserts its regional dominance by forcing the UK, France, and Israel to withdraw from Egypt.
October 1956: A planned CIA coup to overthrow a left-leaning government in Syria is aborted because it was scheduled for the same day Israel, Britain, and France invaded Egypt.
March 9, 1957: Congress approves Eisenhower Doctrine, stating, “the United States regards as vital to the national interest and world peace the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East.”
April 1957: After anti-government rioting breaks out in Jordan, the US rushes 6th fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and lands a battalion of Marines in Lebanon to “prepare for possible future intervention in Jordan.” Later that year, the CIA begins making secret payments of millions of dollars a year to Jordan’s King Hussein.
September 1957: In response to the Syrian government’s more nationalist and pro-Soviet policies, the US sends Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and rushes arms to allies Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
1958: The merger of Syria and Egypt into the “United Arab Republic,” the overthrow of the pro-US King Feisal II in Iraq by nationalist military officers, and the outbreak of anti-government/anti-US rioting in Lebanon, where the CIA had helped install President Camille Caiman and keep him in power, leads the Eisenhower Administration to dispatch 70 naval vessels, hundreds of aircraft and 14,000 Marines to Lebanon to preserve “stability.” The US threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Lebanese army resists, and to prevent an Iraqi move into the oilfields of Kuwait and draws up secret plans for a joint invasion of Iraq with Turkey. The plan is shelved after the Soviet Union threatens to intervene.
1957-58: Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent in charge of the 1953 coup in Iran, plots, without success, to overthrow Egypt’s Nasser. Between July 1957 and October 1958, the Egyptian and Syrian governments and media announced the uncovering of what appear to be at least eight separate conspiracies to overthrow one or the other government, to assassinate Nasser, and/or prevent the expected merger of the two countries.
1960: The US begins working to undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti-government Kurdish rebels and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq’s leader, Abdul Karim Qassim, an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq’s Communist Party.
1963: The US supports a coup in Iraq by the Ba’ath party (headed by Saddam Hussein) to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba’ath names of communists to murder. “Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention…were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing… [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba’ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists.”
1966: The US sells its first jet bombers to Israel, breaking a 1956 decision not to sell arms to the country.
June 1967: With US weapons and support, Israeli military launches the so-called “Six Day War,” seizing the remaining 23 percent of historic Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, along with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Syria’s Golan Heights.
September 17, 1970: With US and Israeli backing, Jordanian troops attack Palestinian guerrilla camps, while Jordan’s US-supplied air force drops napalm from above. The US deploys the aircraft carrier Independence and six destroyers off the coast of Lebanon and readies troops in Turkey to support the assault. The US threatens to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it intervenes. 5,000 Palestinians are killed and 20,000 wounded. This massacre comes to be known as “Black September.”
1973: The US rushes $2 billion in emergency military aid to Israel after Egypt and Syria attack to regain Golan Heights and Sinai. The Nixon Administration puts US forces on alert and moves them into the region. When the Soviet Union threatens to intervene to prevent the destruction of Egypt’s 3rd Army by Israel, US nuclear forces go to DEFCON III (nuclear alert) to force the Soviets to back down.
1973-1975: The US supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq in order to strengthen Iran and weaken the Iraqi government under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Iraq cut a deal, the US withdraws support, denies the Kurds refuge in Iran, and stands by while Saddam Hussein kills many Kurdish people.
1976-1984: The US supports paramilitary forces to undermine the government of South Yemen, which was allied with the Soviet Union.
1978: As the Iranian Revolution begins against the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the US and Israel continued to support him “without reservation” and urge him to act forcefully against the masses. Over the course of 1978, security forces loyal to the Shah kill between 2,000-60,000 innocent civilians, including a large number during a September 8, 1978 protest against the Shah in Tehran’s Jaleh Square. Additionally, the US and Israel supplied the Iranian Army with chemical weapons that were deployed on a small scale against protesters in the Iranian cities of Qom and Mashhad.
Early 1979: The Carter Administration tries, without success, to organize a military coup to save the Shah. In January, the Shah is forced to flee and is replaced by Shapour Bakhtiar, a weak, pro-US puppet leader. Bakhtiar is subsequently forced from office by Ayatollah Khomeini on February 11, 1979. Khomeini, who promised to bring about democracy to the country, as well as to stand up against the ideology of Zionism, immediately became a hated figure amongst US political elites.
Summer 1979: The US begins arming and organizing Islamic fundamentalist “Mujahideen” in Afghanistan. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski writes, “This aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention,” drawing the Soviets into an Afghan quagmire. Over the next decade, the US passed more than $3 billion in arms and aid to the Mujahideen, with another $3 billion provided by Saudi Arabia.
1979: In response to Soviet military maneuvers on Iran’s northern border, President Jimmy Carter secretly puts US forces on nuclear alert and warns the Soviets they will be used if the Soviets intervene.
November 4, 1979: A group of Iranian students seized control of the US embassy in Tehran in response to allegations that the US was planning out a coup to return the Shah to power. The students demand the US return the Shah to Iran to stand trial for his crimes against the Iranian people. The Embassy and 52 US personnel are held for 444 days. This international embarrassment prompts new US actions against Iran, including an abortive rescue attempt.
December 1979: Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, which the US government considered a “buffer state” between the Soviet Union to the north and the strategically important states of Iran and Pakistan to the south, overthrowing the Amin government and installing a pro-Soviet regime.
January 1980: US President Jimmy Carter designates the Persian Gulf as a vital US interest and declares that the US will go to war to ensure the free flow of oil.
1980: The US begins organizing a “Rapid Deployment Force,” increasing its naval presence and pre-positioning military equipment and supplies. It also steps up aid to reactionary client states such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. On September 12, Turkey’s military seizes power and unleashes a brutal clampdown on revolutionaries and Kurds struggling for liberation in order to “stabilize” the country as a key US ally.
September 22, 1980: After a year of minor border skirmishes, Iraq invades Iran with the support of the US and Israel, starting a bloody eight-year war. The US supports both sides in the war providing arms to Iran and money, intelligence and political support to Iraq in order to prolong the war and weaken both sides while trying to draw both countries into US orbit.
1981: The US holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya to intimidate the Qaddafi government. When a Libyan plane fires a missile at US planes penetrating Libyan airspace, two Libyan planes are shot down.
1982: After receiving a “green light” from the Reagan Administration, Israel invaded Lebanon to fight against both the Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon, as well as the large population of Palestinian refugees that resided in Lebanon. Over 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians are killed, and Israel seizes control of Southern Lebanon, holding it until 2000.
September 14, 1982: Lebanon’s pro-US President-elect, Bashir al-Jumayyil, is assassinated. The following day, Israeli forces occupied West Beirut, and from September 16-18, the Phalangist militia, with the support of Israel’s military under future Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, moved into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and barbarically massacred over 1,000 unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children.
1983: The US sends troops to Lebanon, supposedly as part of a multinational “peace-keeping” operation but in reality to protect US interests, including Israel’s occupation forces. US troops are withdrawn after an Iran-backed bomber destroys a US Marine barracks in October of 1983.
1983: CIA helps murder General Ahmed Dlimi, a prominent Moroccan Army commander who seeks to overthrow the pro-US Moroccan monarchy, then under the leadership of King Hassan II.
1985-1986: The Reagan Administration secretly ships weapons to Iran, including 1,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk missile parts, and Hawk radars. The weapons are exchanged for US hostages in Lebanon in hopes of increased US leverage in Iran. The secret plot collapses when it is publicly revealed on November 3, 1986, by the Lebanese magazine, Al-Shiraa.
1985: The CIA attempts to assassinate Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Shi’a leader. 80 people are killed in the unsuccessful attempt.
1986: When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub and kills two Americans, US President Ronald Reagan blames Libya’s Qaddafi and orders the US military to strike Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, and Qaddafi’s house, killing 101 people, including Qaddafi’s adopted daughter.
1988: The Iraqi regime launches mass poison-gas attacks on Kurds, killing thousands and bulldozing many villages. The US responds by increasing its support for the Iraqi regime.
July 1988: A cease-fire ends the Iran-Iraq war with a pyrrhic Iranian victory. Over 1 million Iranians and Iraqis are killed during the nine-year war.
1989: The last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan. The war, fueled by US-Soviet rivalry, has torn Afghanistan apart, killing more than one million Afghans and forcing one-third of the population to flee into refugee camps. More than 15,000 Soviet soldiers die in the war.
July 1990: April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, meets with Saddam Hussein, who threatens military action against Kuwait for overproducing its oil quota, slant drilling for oil in Iraqi territory, and encroaching on Iraqi territory. Glaspie replies, “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”
August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The US seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf. The US condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq.
January 16, 1991: After a 6-month military buildup, the US-led coalition launches “Operation Desert Storm.” For the next month and a half, the US and allied planes pound Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, systematically targeting and largely destroying its electrical and water systems. On February 22, 1991, the US coalition begins its 100-hour ground war. Heavily armed US units drive deep into southern Iraq. Overall, 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis are killed during the war.
Spring 1991: Both the Shi’a Muslims of Southern Iraq and the Kurds of Northern Iraq rise up against Saddam Hussein. The US, after encouraging these uprisings during the war, now fears turmoil and instability in the region and refuses to support the rebels. The US denies the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allows Iraqi helicopters to attack them.
1991: Iraq withdraws from Kuwait and agrees to a UN-brokered cease-fire, but the US and Britain insist that devastating sanctions be maintained. The US declares large parts of north and south Iraq “no-fly” zones for Iraqi aircraft.
1992: US Marines land near Mogadishu, Somalia, supposedly to ensure humanitarian relief and “restore order.” But the US also plans to remove the dominant warlord, Mohammed Aidid, and install a more pro-US regime. In June 1993, after numerous gun battles with Aidid forces, US helicopters strafe Aidid supporters, killing scores. In October, when US forces attempt to kidnap two Aidid lieutenants, a fierce gunbattle breaks out. Five US helicopters are shot down, 18 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded, while 500 to 1000 Somalians are killed and many more injured.
March 1992: Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney drafts a new, post-Soviet “Defense Planning Guidance” paper stating, “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.”
1993: The US brokers a “peace” agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in Oslo, Norway. The agreement strengthens Israel and US domination while leaving Palestinians a small part of their historic homeland, broken up into isolated pieces surrounded by Israel. No provisions are made for the return of the four million Palestinian refugees living outside of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
1993: President Bill Clinton launches a missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush two months earlier.
1995: The US imposes oil and trade sanctions against Iran, reinforcing sanctions that have been in effect since 1980, for alleged sponsorship of “terrorism”, seeking to acquire nuclear arms, and hostility to the Middle East process.
1998: Congress passes the Iraq Liberation Act, giving nearly $100 million to groups attempting to overthrow the Hussein regime.
August 1998: Claiming retaliation for attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, President Bill Clinton sends 75 cruise missiles pounding into rural Afghanistan, supposedly targeting Osama Bin Laden. The US also destroys a factory producing half of Sudan’s pharmaceutical supply, claiming the factory is involved in chemical warfare. The US later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
December 16-19, 1998: The US and the UK launch “Operation Desert Fox” a bombing campaign supposedly aimed at destroying Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. For most of the next year, U.S. and British planes strike Iraq every day with missiles.
October 1999: The US Defense Department shifts command of its forces in Central Asia from the Pacific Command to the Central Command, underlining the heightened importance of the region, which includes vast oil reserves in and around the Caspian Sea.
October 2001: In response to the 9/11 Attacks, the US begins bombing Afghanistan, as the first act of war in “Operation Enduring Freedom,” the US “war against global terrorism. Over the course of the nearly 17-year-long war, thousands of civilians have been killed by US-led invasion and occupation forces who bombed wedding parties, humiliated Afghans with house-to-house searches, and locked people up in US-controlled dungeons where many were tortured. Today the US still has “advisory” troops in the country to try to prop up its puppet regime. Some five million Afghans have been driven from their homes and have fled to neighboring countries such as Iran, Pakistan, India, and Russia.
January 2002: In his second State of the Union Address, US President George W. Bush announces that Iran and Iraq are part of the so-called “Axis of Evil,” arguing that both countries are sponsorers of terrorism and represent profound threats to US national security.
2002: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, under pressure from the Bush Administration, rejects the Arab Peace Initiative, a comprehensive proposal to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and create a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.
March 2003: The US attacks Iraq based on false allegations that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks. The invasion resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussien from power and devastated Iraq. Conservative estimates show that over 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of the invasion. Over four million were driven from their homes in the ensuing war and occupation. Over the course of its 8-year long occupation of Iraq, US forces committed numerous massacres and acts of terror against Iraqis, including the destruction of Fallujah in 2004 and the torture carried out in Abu Ghraib prison. The US relied on brutal warlords to help clamp down on the Iraqi people. Iraqi women, once among the most educated in the Middle East, were slammed back into subservient roles in society. The actions of the US directly led to the rise of ISIS, a Wahhabi-inspired militant group that has claimed responsibility for numerous atrocities in Iraq since 2011.
May 2003: The Bush Administration rejects an offer by the Iranian government to begin direct talks to settle the disputes between both countries. Instead, the US government doubles down on its allegations that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons program and is supportive of violent militant groups throughout the Middle East.
February 2006: After the resounding victory of Hamas in the Palestinian General Election, President George W. Bush authorizes sanctions against the Palestinian Authority and refuses to negotiate with the legitimately-elected government of Palestine
July-August 2006: The Bush Administration backs Israel during the Israel-Hezbollah War, repeatedly urging Israel to annex the Southern part of Lebanon and use all means at its disposal to destroy Hezbollah, an Iranian and Syrian-backed Shi’a group that is strongly opposed to Zionism. Even though Israel had the upper hand in terms of military support and technology, Hezbollah ultimately won the war and cemented its support amongst the Shi’a Muslims of Lebanon.
December 2008-January 2009: The US increases its political and military support to Israel during Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli invasion resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinian civilians and created a humanitarian crisis in the area that the effects of which are still being felt today.
June 4, 2009: In a speech in Cairo, Egypt, President Barack Obama stated that his administration would work towards increasing democracy in the Middle East and support efforts by people throughout the Middle East to promote peaceful political reforms.
June 2009-February 2010: In response to allegations that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unfairly elected to a second term, President Obama authorized CIA director Leon Panetta to orchestrate a series of (failed) protests in Iran with the goal of bringing about the collapse of the government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and to allow the US to install Reza Pahlavi into power.
July 1, 2010: President Obama signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which extended US economic sanctions placed on Iran in 1984 and 1995 and prevented nearly all trade between the US and Iran. The results of the legislation were devastating to the Iranian people, as they prevented the importation of even the most basic forms of medicine to the country and resulted in the Iranian economy almost entirely collapsing between 2010 and 2015.
October 20, 2010: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces that the Obama Administration will sell $60 billion in weapons and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia, a direct contradiction of President Obama’s earlier announcement that his administration would reduce its support for oppressive governments in the Middle East.
Map of countries impacted by the 2011 Arab Spring.
2011: After an uprising broke out against Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi during the Arab Spring, the US and its NATO allies intervened to shape and control it for their interests. NATO launched thousands of air strikes, killing thousands of civilians. After a group of insurgents murdered Qaddafi in October of 2011, Libya became enmeshed in warfare among rival groups of warlords and Wahabbi groups who have been variously backed and condemned by Western powers.
2011-Present: The US, Israel, the UK, and Saudi Arabia have played a major role in the Syrian Civil War and their actions have destabilized the entire country for decades. The US-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War has resulted in the deaths of some 500,000 civilians, displaced nearly 12 million Syrians, and has emboldened Wahhabi-inspired militant groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks against Shi’a Muslims and Christians throughout the region. Additionally, the US intervention in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad has resulted in several of Assad’s major allies such as Iran, Russia, China, and Hezbollah intervening in the country, which has increased the risk of a major global conflict breaking out in the Middle East
July 3, 2013: The Obama Administration authorizes a coup against Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi due to his criticism of US policies in the region and opposition to Zionism. Morsi is replaced by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a pro-Western Egyptian general who has suspended the 2012 Egyptian Constitution and repeatedly tortured regime opponents.
July-August 2014: The Obama Administration endorsed Israel’s actions during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 10,000 Palestinian civilians. Additionally, the Obama Administration authorized some $225 million in aid to Israel over the course of the conflict.
March2015-Present: The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States have been heavily involved in the Yemen Civil War. The Yemen Civil War began as a result of conflicts between the Sunni-dominated Yemeni government and the Houthis, a Shi’a political party that seeks to replace the authoritarian government of Yemen with a democratic government. The US-led intervention in the conflict caused the deaths of nearly 100,000 Yemeni civilians, devastated the infrastructure of Yemen, and resulted in a famine that threatens to starve some 17 million Yemeni people.
January 27, 2017: US President Donald Trump signs an executive order arbitrarily banning Shi’a Muslims from the following seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya) from entering the US, arguing that such a policy is beneficial to US national security and that residents from all seven countries were involved in terror attacks on US soil. Foreign policy experts were quick to note that residents from the seven countries were never involved in any attacks on US soil and that such a policy ignores the fact that the perpetrators in all terror attacks carried out in the US by Muslims were Sunni Muslims sympathetic to the Wahhabi ideology.
February 2017: President Trump announces that his administration is supportive of Israeli settlement-building in the Palestinian territories and that he would favor the Israeli government to annex the entire Palestinian territory.
April 7, 2017: The Trump Administration ordered the US Navy to launch cruise missiles at Shayrat Air Base in response to an alleged chemical attack carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Further airstrikes in Syria were carried out in April and September of 2018 even though there was no tangible evidence implicating the Assad regime in any of the chemical attacks.
May 20-21, 2017: While attending the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, President Trump announces his signing a $350 billion arms sale agreement with Saudi Arabia, as well as the formation of an anti-Iran alliance with the Gulf States.
June 7, 2017: The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel covertly carry out a terrorist attack against the Iranian Parliament building in Tehran, resulting in the deaths of 23 civilians. Even though ISIS initially claimed responsibility for the attacks, the Iranian government revealed that it had evidence that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were the perpetrators of the deadly attack.
October 13, 2017: President Trump announced that his administration will not certify Iran in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and would instead implement a new policy that may ultimately lead to the collapse of the current Iranian government.
December 6, 2017: Breaking nearly four decades of precedence set by US Administrations, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite objections from Palestinian leaders, causing further unrest in the region.
December 2017-Present: The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel orchestrated numerous protests within Iran with the goal of weakening the Iranian government.
May 8, 2018: President Trump unilaterally withdraws the US from the JCPOA, claiming (without evidence) that Iran is not upholding its end of the agreement and is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon (a charge that has been proven false numerous times since 2003). Additionally, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that regime change is the main goal of all US policy towards Iran and that the US will consider all military options (including the use of nuclear weapons preemptively) when dealing with Iran going forward.
In the Truthout article “Trump’s Remarks on Andrew Jackson Was a Dog Whistle for White Nationalists,” Alexander Reid Ross discusses President Donald Trump’s praise for former US President Andrew Jackson, as well as how the embrace of Jacksonian policies by the Trump Administration has the potential to lead the US down the road toward Fascism. On May 1, 2017, President Donald Trump stated that if “Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War,” as well as expressed his admiration for the seventh President of the US. Amid criticism of the factual inaccuracy of Trump’s comment, many have also pointed out that Trump’s praise for Jackson offered proof of how contemporary white nationalist narratives continue to shape the Presidents view of the world.
A favorite of white nationalist and fascist political groups, Andrew Jackson set up a legacy for the expansion of the US and the slave-owning South and implemented Classically Liberal economic policies that directly contributed to the Depression of 1837-43, which began less than two months after his successor, Martin Van Buren, assumed office. When Van Buren rejected Texas’s admission to the Union to avoid upsetting the balance between slave states and non-slave states, Jackson withdrew his support for Van Buren in favor of James Polk, a slave-holding president whose support for the annexation of Texas strengthened the hand of slaveholding states in the South. The continued expansion of the slave-holding territories in subsequent presidencies would set the stage for the Civil War. In accordance with this broader white nationalist reverence for Jackson, Trump has sought to present himself as a modern-day Andrew Jackson. For example, Trump paid a visit to Jackson’s home and grave and hung several portraits of Jackson in the White House.
Many of Trump’s actions as President also betray a resonance with the actions of Jackson. Jackson was infamous for his backhanded words regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to defend the Cherokee’s right of place, n used the powers of the executive to contravene the checks and balances of the constitutional system and displace the Native American tribes based in the Southern region of the US. The ensuing “Trail of Tears” that decimated the population of the Cherokee by upward of a third came to mark the policy of “Indian Removal” and Jackson’s presidency. Trump has echoed this sort of unilateral provocation in his own immigration policy proposals and more recently in his May 2, 2017, tweet stating “our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix the mess!”
Another interesting thing to note regarding President Donald Trump’s comments regarding Andrew Jackson is that they came about at a time in which many of his supporters started to declare a “second Civil War” amid confrontations with anti-Fascist protestors that continue to this day. Members of the “Alt-Right” frequently promote the notion of a second Civil War. For example, several Alt-Right organizations have retweeted an article by conservative columnist Dennis Prager that envisions a civil war between the left and the rest of the US over freedom of speech. Trump supporters have been quick to follow the lead of the “alt-right,” suggesting that the second Civil War will occur if the Democratic Party retakes Congress in the 2018 Midterm elections.
Fascists in the US have long identified Jackson’s legacy with their identity as a defeated and subjugated group. Jackson serves as the driving figure of US history for fascists such as the post-war US organizer Francis Parker Yockey, who identifies Jackson with the beginning of “the great epoch of the history of the practice of government in America.” The battle over the legacy of the Civil War and Andrew Jackson is currently taking place in New Orleans, where Fascist Trump supporter and KKK leader David Duke has taken it upon himself to defend historical monuments to the legacy of the Confederacy, including a statue of Andrew Jackson. Duke’s successful manipulation of populist politics, which earned him a seat in the Louisiana state legislature in the 1990s, has been likened to Trump’s own appeals to the white working class. As such, Jackson’s legacy today represents the fulfillment of many of the most violent fantasies underpinning US independence, particularly the white nationalist fantasy of removing all non-whites from the US. For this reason, as well as on account of Jackson’s unilateral approach to sovereignty, white nationalist Trump booster Jared Taylor has described Trump as a “kindred spirit” of Jackson’s.
Despite their similarities, the comparison of Trump to Jackson has always been somewhat out of context. While Jackson melded the brash pose of violent militarism with the persona of a backwoods Southern country boy, Trump entered into his role as US President without spending a day in military service. Despite these differences, Trump has appropriated the identity of Jackson, the founder of both the modern political party system as well as the American Conservative movement who earned his reputation as the “Napoleon of the woods” by defeating British forces during the Battle of New Orleans. Andrew Jackson never met Napoleon Bonaparte, but idealized him, and shared much in common with him. Both Jackson and Bonaparte gained the support of the conservative countryside and the business class through militant nationalism. The Jacksonian legacy is one of a jingoism similar to the support by many Bonapartists of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and its xenophobic objectives gained parallels with Bonapartists who supported the radical-right populism of 19th Century French and German politicians. Considering these factors, it is no surprise that Trump has drawn comparisons to Bonaparte from many different news outlets.
What binds Trump and Jackson runs deeper than a tacit class alliance and something so simple as Trump’s support for Jackson’s policies. It strikes to the core of sovereignty and how it is used. A true sovereign requires not just an “other” that can constitute the political “outside,” but the potential brought about through a suspension of political order itself. The sovereignty desired by the far right would use the specter of the “outsider” as leverage to supersede checks and balances on executive authority and perpetuate its power through aggressive manipulations of nationalist sentiment in the interests of “rebirth” and “national rejuvenation.” As Trump’s most avid far-right supporters move toward creating a violent, autonomous base of power amid what they identify as a “Civil War,” his quest for unchecked sovereignty furthers their unrestrained efforts to liquidate the left in the name of anti-antifascism.
The author concludes by stating that Trump’s invocation of Jackson evidences Trump’s tacit proximity to fascist narratives both in the US and abroad. At the same time, the President’s own quaint regard for a slavery-supporting perpetrator of genocide who set the stage for the Civil War reveals how deeply white nationalism is engrained within the social and historical fabric of the US and how violently it is defended by its proponents.
Many people are asking if the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives in 2018? I suspect they will make significant gains. Upsets in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have shown a weakened Republican party. The Republicans across the state have been slowly eaten by the Tea Party movement and even the Bannon movement where they have been running candidates and working hard to get rid of “moderates”, meaning centrists Democrat types like Bob Mendez (NJ) or others modern neo-liberal Democrats. What the media has been ignoring is “insurgents” candidates across the country that have been chipping away at the Democratic Machine.
In America, money almost always determines victory in an election, but since the Sanders Movement during the 2016 elections we saw an underfunded candidate nearly take over America’s major political party (the Democratic Party). He created a group OUR Revolution which has affiliates in every state in America. Even Puerto Rico! America politics have just been changed forever and people don’t seem to understand it. Sanders victory would not have been winning the presidency, I don’t think he had the political muscle to get anything significant done, the Democrats hate him, the Republicans would have controlled congress, what could he have really done but slow down the de-funding of government? Another debate for another time. Now he goes around, traveling across the country, talking to the American people while Clinton goes on book tours trying to sell her book. He has built the infrastructure for a new style of American Democracy not seen since the 1960s. He has the largest support among millennial’s, now the largest voting block in America. He has a fairly good history on most issues and being on the right side of history except foreign policy (Sanders is relatively weak on anti-war policy). He should have won the black vote but the churches are so establishment-controlled that he couldn’t break through. The only thing Sanders needs is the backing of religious zealots who are progressive and can destroy the notion that Republicans are the only people who talk to God. Over time I doubt those groups will disappear, you’re looking at a long drawn out civil war on both parties, but worse off for the Democrats. You have a long history of political corruption in some states more than others and you have the truth. Its simple enough to pull up statistics and see that the percentages for big companies donating to Democrats or Republicans can be evenly split.
The single-payer idea is the only rational policy and then you have the Democrats being unable to support it because their being funded by the same people destroying American healthcare. Over time with reforms, you could see insurgent candidates stay in power and continue to build stronger power bases for more “working class heroes” or Bernie Sanders-esque politicians. Where Ralph Nader failed in 2000, Sanders succeed in 2016, with many of the same issues, just different microphones. A graph I did personally at Monmouth University showed the vast majority of young MU college students under 50,000 support Sanders, even many in the upper income brackets, but as people get poorer because of the global economy and poor policies that increase poverty, will we see the rise of a new party growing inside the old? A party that is Democratic, a party that fails for a few years and then starts to rebirth the Democrat party? I think so, its the right time in America, unless there is a war where many troops are used then we could see the process speed up, as wars often do to these things. The Our Revolution groups have nowhere to go but up, the mainstream parties battling each other and the ‘insurgent’ candidates can really only become more unpopular as they fail to get real policy in place and start to bring in people who traditional aren’t in the process or haven’t been accepted as a decision maker. We see similar politics in the UK with labor changing under Jeremy Corbyn. We are seeing infrastructure for the Sanderist movement grow, where communication and cooperation between different groups are growing. They are running decent candidates, many of which will lose this time, but will be able to run again, and again, and again. The 2020 election is where everything will likely start to break down. Sanders is the Henry Wallace of his time, although this time labor is set for a huge victory, its the speed that is hard to figure out.
Throughout human history, war has often been a method for different governments, nation-states, as well as organizations, to control resources. These wars have become bloodier and more collectivized over the last 150 years. What do I mean by collectivized? The entire population is gearing up to destroy another nation and now legitimately the enemy of another “nation.” Carl Von Clausewitz’s theory of “Total War” reshaped warfare starting in the 1800s. Total war is defined as “war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” The concept of “total war” has lead to extreme policies by nations such as strategic bombings, commerce raiding, collective punishment, forced labor for military, targeting of agriculture, Scorched Earth policy, Ethnic Cleansing, prolonged sieges that starved cities and nations, use of nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, Free Fire Zones and many more. These extreme policies carried out resulted in the idea that soldiers have a “moral duty” to resist, disobey and refuse to join the military of a nation, usually a draft. The paper will examine the actions of Soldiers who refused to fight wars, deserted the military, and in some cases turn on command, during the Vietnam War.
What was the goal of the Vietnam War carried out largely through the United States?
The Vietnam War was primarily fought over Vietnamese Independence from the “West” (Britain, France, the United States and other “allies” of the United States). After World War II, the Vietnamese wanted independence from France, because it had largely remained a French colony prior to the war and during the war under the Japanese who further devastated the country. The Vietnamese had fought off the Japanese with US support and had planned a constitution modeled after the US constitution. The country was split by a UN mandate in 1954 which split Vietnam into North and South regions. In 1955, the planned democratic elections were halted in the South over fears they would vote to unify with North Vietnam and that the so-called ‘communist” Ho Chi Minh would win. The US, in turn, installed a puppet dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, a wealthy business owner, staunchly anti-communist, and a Catholic in charge of a largely Buddhist nation. Diem brutally persecuted Buddhists and become so unpopular that he was assassinated by the CIA in October of 1963 and replaced by his brother. From 1950 to 1975, the US waged a war to control formerly French Indochina via, military aid (up to 90% of French fighting with US dollars until they lost in 1954), also during and after with “military advisors”, constantly increasing until the US openly intervened in Vietnam in 1964, in which it consistently increased troop deployments until 1975, when the war finally came to an end.
Nearly three million Americans would ultimately serve in Vietnam over the next 20 years (Wardog). Many Americans did not agree or even understand why the US was involved in Vietnam. The US lied about the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident in July of 1964, where a US ship was falsely attacked so President Lyndon B. Johnson could gain more war powers and the result had been a major escalation of the war. The Americans did not find out about this event until nearly ten years later. David Duncan, formerly a Green Beret in Vietnam, was one of the first military trainers in Vietnam. After his tour of duty, he came back and told people the war was a lie. “I was really proud of what I thought I was doing. The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn’t doing right” (Sir!NoSir!). He took a stand openly against the war and resigned from the military. The war took a long time to end, it was pushed with starch anti-communism and what Einstein calls the “measles of mankind”, nationalism.
Other soldiers such as Dr. Howard Levy refused to perform their military duties to help the war effort. The ideas of personal responsibility made many people not only question the war, hate the war, but also actively try to stop it or refuse to participate in it. Soldiers created underground newspapers in military barracks, ships and cafes across the country to spread the anti-war news. These would often become ban by the military officers and that banning of it would ironically arouse interests by more troops in what was being printed, almost a metaphor in a way for the drug war. Troops on aircraft carriers were literally signing petitions not to go to Vietnam, over 1,200 sailors signed it.
From April 18 to April 23, 1971, some 900 Vietnam veterans were involved in a massive anti-war rally in Washington, DC. The events included lobbying Congress, “Guerilla Theater” in the streets and keep in mind this was during the 1971 investigation into war crimes, with “150 vets testifying from firsthand experience” (VVAW). This helped the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in 1967, became a national organization. The April events were considered one of “the most powerful anti-war demonstration held up to that time”(VVAW). It scared President Richard Nixon so much that he received hourly reports on the demonstration (VVAW). 50 veterans even took over the office of Senator James Buckley (R-NY) after he refused to meet with them. The last day of the demonstration the veterans each individual made a statement against the war and then threw their medals over the White House fence protesting against the war. One Veteran from the demonstration famously stated that “If we have to fight again, it will be to take these steps.”
The famous May Day Protests in 1971 saw, according to Chief Jerry V. Wilson, some 12,000 to 15,000 protestors block streets, throw “chicken shit” to mock the colonels, block government buildings and marching in protest of the war (Halloran). Most of the protesters were a mix of students and veterans. These people believed that serving the war effort was deeply wrong and that the war would end when soldiers refused to fight the wars. In the 1980s, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, much of this history of the anti-war movement was swept under the carpet and myths of the “hippies” who spat on soldiers started.
Many sailors, pilots, and San Diego residents even joined the anti-war movement. Sailors on the USS Coral Sea, at first signed hundreds of petitions then thousands of them signed it. On Sept. 13, 1971, they wrote a petition to Congress stating that a majority of the sailors do not believe in the Vietnam War and asking that their ship not return to Southeast Asia. Before the petitions could be sent to Congress they were ripped off by the lifers and are now being held by the ship’s executive officer. He said the petition was legal but ignored attempts by the crew to get it back. So the crew ignored the executive officer and started a new petition. Over 300 men signed the first one and were pissed off when it was ripped up (Good Times/Vol. IV No. 29/OCT. 1, 1971). When the ship sailed out the Golden Gate on Monday for a two-week trial run, there were thousands of leaflets with the text of the petition and places for signatures.
The naval carriers and pilot crews often had little combat casualties and dealt severe damage to the civilians across Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, especially when President Richard Nixon started slowly withdrawing troops in 1969, it meant more bombing and higher civilian deaths. Veterans started focusing on actively persuading people that the war was wrong. Saying things like I was there, I did terrible things and we shouldn’t be there, things like that are a lot more persuasive when you can say you fought in that war. Soldiers also did symbolic things like wear black armbands to say they support a protest at home. The Vietnam War is also where you see the “black power” movement start to emerge and groups like the black panthers. Where are legitimate questions asked why are black people fighting for a country that doesn’t provide them with equal rights? Famous athletes like Muhammad Ali refused to fight the war, perhaps modern day Kaepernick could be said as a mini Ali.
Soon after their return home from Vietnam in 1971, a group of 236 GI’s from the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the following statement: “Throughout our time in the service we’ve seen minority group GI’s discriminated against. In Vietnam, that’s been evidenced by higher casualty rates. Other times it takes the form of slower promotions, higher penalties for rules violations, and the worst job assignments. We feel that the Army fosters racism and has purposely avoided dealing with the day-to-day problems of minority groups”(Boyle).
To briefly address it I will reference what’s in Richard Boyle article not far below the previous quote,
“Many white officers and NCO’s made a practice of harassing Black GI’s about their Afros which didn’t conform to “military regulations.” While right-wing soldiers were allowed to fly confederate flags on Martin Luther King’s birthday and could generally count on getting away with making open racial slurs, Black GI’s were given sentences of up to 6 months for giving the clenched fist salute and “dapping” (a brotherly greeting)”(Boyle).
During the 10 years of the Vietnam War according to figures by the Pentagon, 500,000 deserted (Woolf). A large anti-war movement actively protesting, the Vietcong (a “determined enemy”), a military on collapse, Nixon announced the policy of “Vietnamization” making the Vietnamese takeover the efforts which completely failed and people knew it would fail in the 1970s.
“By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous”(Heinl).
THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
North American Newspaper Alliance
Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971
The US military had become almost self-governing in a way, even outside of its officers. Soldiers refusing to go on missions, people on drugs everywhere, especially heroin, officers being killed for given orders; to put it bluntly it was a circus. Because of the drug addiction and disapproval of the military, there was now an “epidemic of barracks theft”. This theft is even more devastating for moral where you have soldiers unable to trust each other, especially when in combat.
“Soldier muggings and holdups are on the rise everywhere. Ft. Dix, N.J., has a higher rate of on-post crime than any base on the East Coast. Soldier muggings are reported to average one a night, with a big upsurge every pay-day. Despite 450 MP’s (one for every 55 soldiers stationed there – one of the highest such ratios in the country) no solution appears in sight (Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
There are more military police than ever and still, the situation cannot be dealt with. The military was in a state of active revolt.
“Crimes are so intense and violent in the vicinity of an open-gate “honor system” detention facility at Ft. Dix that, according to press reports, units on the base are unwilling to detail armed sentinels to man posts nearby, for fear of assault and robbery”(Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
So bad that the military can’t even protect a gate so they have to have a bullshit system to protect themselves from looking weak. These issues are some of many that build up an identity of the military at war with itself that can’t maintain itself, in a war it doesn’t want to fight, unrest at home and a country trying to find itself. Toward the end of the war things got so bad a term “fragging” was given to the time when US soldier in Vietnam would attack their commanders for giving those orders to fight or go on missions.
“Shortly after the costly assault on Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, the GI underground newspaper in Vietnam, “G.I. Says”, publicly offered a $10,000 bounty on Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt, the officer who ordered(and led) the attack”(Heinl).
Several attempts were made on that soldier’s life although he went home alive. But even the brashness to publish something about killing an officer in a newspaper with a bounty shows how bad the situations were. This did affect judgments by leaders, “Another Hamburger Hill is definitely out “said one Major (Heinl). The problem of soldiers refusing to fight is evident throughout the end of the war, notable by two examples, the entire units of 196th Light Infantry Brigade publicly sat down on the battlefield and 1st Air Cavalry Division refused going down a dangerous trail (Heinl). When soldiers actively don’t believe in the “value” of the war serious consequences happen to the nation’s military.
Briefly, I will talk about the problems of historically armies in World War 1, World War 2, Iraq, Afghanistan 1980s and Modern, while touching back to Vietnam. During WW1, over 240,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were court-martialed (Hinke). World War II saw 1.7 million US courts-martial, “one-third of all American prosecutions”, and around 21,000 desertions (Hinke). During the Afghan War, 60,000-80,000 ethnic Soviet border troops from the Muslim Central Asian regions deserted (Hinke). 85,000 Afghan national troops also deserted during this period (Hinke).
2001 to Today
“Pentagon estimates more than 40,000 troops have deserted from all branches of military service. In 2001 alone, 7,978 deserted” (Hinke).
All these problems of desertion relate to poor morale, belief in conflict, in some instances pay, the requirements of troops and length of the conflict. These conflicts are all about domination of regions, resources and/or competing for national interests. The Vietnam War adds up to a cumulative discontent with soldiers disbelief in the value of the conflict and actively trying to end the war. This dislike by the US soldiers does not mean that the Vietcong were just in their actions, who often killed, tortured, overtaxed and committed numerous atrocities, but as the song For What it’s Worth says, “Noboy is right if everybody’s wrong”.
Examine the Vietnam War
Examine the Opposition to the War in the Military(Army)
– How they applied refusing to fight philosophy
-Social Problems of the time (small)
-US Military on verge of Collapse?
Presentation
Present – Stop video at 5:23 mins (https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C1786515/sir-no-sir)
(Ask Questions
Question 1: What do you think about the idea “if people refuse to fight the wars can’t continue”?
– Quick Facts:
More than 21,000 American soldiers were convicted of desertion in World War Two
Since 2000 estimate of more than 40,000 troops deserted from all branches of the military.
In 2001 alone, 8,000 deserted the US military.
More than 5,500 desertions 2003-2004
Any guesses to how many deserted during the Vietnam War 10 year period? 500,000!
-Question 2
Was what they did right for refusing to fight what they perceived as an unjust war?
-Quick Facts
How many people if there was a draft implemented tomorrow and require you to show up at your local town hall would do so, to prepare for a military conflict against China and North Korea?
Images and further Readings
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-news-photo/526094756#viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-war-in-picture-id526094756 ( March in DC Arlington Cemetery)
24 May 1969: Senior US officers say the strategic location of Hill 937 – ‘Hamburger Hill’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/24/troops-count-cost-vietnam-hamburger-hill-archive-1969
References
(2009). From US War Dogs : http://www.uswardogs.org/new_page_18.htm
Between Hitler and Stalin . (n.d.). From UCRDC: http://www.ucrdc.org/HI-SCORCHED_EARTH_POLICY.html
Boyle, R. (1973). GI Revolts The Breakdown of the US Army in Vietnam. From Richard Gibson : http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. North American Newspaper Alliance. From https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. From Montclair University : https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets. (2000, May 2). From Slate : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
Halloran, R. (1972). 7,000 Arrested in Capital War Protest; 150 Are Hurt as Clashes Disrupt Traffic. From http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0503.html
Turse, N. (2017, September 28 ). The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary. From The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/the-ken-burns-vietnam-war-documentary-glosses-over-devastating-civilian-toll/
United Nations Office of Genocide Prevnetion and The Resposiblity to Protect . (2017). Ethnic Cleansing . From United Nations : http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.html
VVAW. (1977, Apirl ). Vets’ History: Operation “Dewey Canyon III”. From Vietnam Veterans Against the War: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1656
Woolf, C. (2015, March 26). From the Revolution to Bowe Bergdahl, desertion has a long history in the US. From PRI: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-26/revolution-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-has-long-history-us
Zeiger, D. (Director). (2005 ). Sir!No Sir! [Motion Picture].
Links if need be
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/total_war
In the third chapter of the book “Democratization: theory and experience,” Laurence Whitehead looks at the concept of civil society and its relationship to democratization. If democracy is to be viewed as a complex and open-ended process, a more explanatory account is needed to describe it more effectively. Before a democratic transition can begin, there must exist a political community receptive to such change and willing to participate in a democratic system. The ideas of civil society and social capital provide condensed analogies to explain the structure of and simplify the ideas regarding the long-term changes that stem from democratization. Instead of focusing on political actors and what they seek to accomplish, political theorists should instead focus on the large-scale and broadly-based features of the entire political community.
Laurence Whitehead then goes on to highlight the factors that help to define the idea of civil society. Theorists of civil society have seen more success in erasing its highly specific origins and have converted it into a free-standing category of thought that comes to mind when Westerners make comparative statements about the density of associative life in diverse political communities. Additionally, most non-Western discourses tend to lack an equivalent concept to the idea of civil society. Even though some argue that non-governmental organizations can be considered to be civil societies, they tend to lack the surrounding ethos, authenticity, and autonomy that are considered to be hallmarks of civil societies. Moreover, non-governmental organizations also lack the well-structured support from the larger community that civil societies often have. The definition of civil society also excludes associations such as households, religious institutions, and hierarchical institutions such as conscripted military forces and the bureaucracy of national government. Between such extremes, there may be an independent sphere of voluntary association in which interactions are governed by the principles of autonomy and self-respect.
Laurence Whitehead also considers the factors that characterize stronger civil societies. Strong civil societies are characterized by a wider set of boundaries for interaction between individuals in society and by a larger acceptance of personal freedom and individual rights. As such, a strong civil society will allow for a greater chance for democracy to be successful and long-lasting despite challenges. Even if people reach an agreement on the factors that allow for the successful implementation of civil society, the results of their agreement will not be quantitative and more descriptive in nature. The idea of a descriptive category, according to Whitehead, is akin to an “empty box,” as there are not previously existing theories within it. As such, people can apply their own theories in interpretations regarding the political process. Additionally, such factors raise the question of how an “empty box” descriptive category shape such dynamic and long-term political process such as democratization. Any linkage between both factors would require both a description and an explanation of how the norms of civility can be compelling enough to reproduce over generations and override the loyalty demands of the state and the primary descriptive groups.
After going over some of the theoretical approaches to the idea of civil society, Laurence Whitehead goes over what would be a tentative definition of the concept of civil society. If groups such as terrorist organizations, armed paramilitary groups, and criminal organizations are not to be defined as being members of civil society, Whitehead highlights the need to stipulate a general definition of civil society that highlights the importance of civility. According to Whitehead, civil society is defined as a set of self-organized intermediary groups that are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of reproduction and production, can discuss collective actions in the defense and promotion of their interests, do not seek to replace state agents or private reproducers or to accept responsibility for governing the polity as a whole, and agree to act within pre-established legal guidelines. Additionally, Whitehead states that civil society rests on four different conditions. The first two conditions are that of dual autonomy and collective action. The next two conditions are non-usurpation and civility. The definition of civil society tends to exclude criminal organizations and paramilitary groups and any organizations that threaten individual rights.
Laurence Whitehead next looks at the idea of civility and incivility. Following such a definition of civil society, it is unlikely that political scientists will find forms of voluntary associative organizations distributed evenly throughout the geographical and social terrain that is covered by the modern nation-state. Whitehead argues that neither the market or the state can be effectively used to even out the uneven social geography that is present throughout the world. The reason why the market is ineffective in evening out social geography because it obeys consumer sovereignty. Additionally, the state cannot solve such issues because its policies are skewed towards societal groups with the highest level of influence. Such factors lead to the question of what mechanism can be used to address the issue of uneven social geography, as civil society will eventually become out of sync with democratic citizenship. The weaknesses of civil society are often evident in many of the newer democracies. For example, efforts at democratization in many post-authoritarian countries are often overshadowed by antisocial forms of individualism that substitute the forms of civil associationalism favored by civil society theorists. Thus, the main advantages of civil society tend to be highly concentrated among a minority of the people in many of the new democracies.
The dynamic between civil society and democratic citizenship is also addressed by Laurence Whitehead. Civil society tends to develop unevenly over time in a logic distinct from state formation. The resulting patterns of associative life and social communication typically emerge as highly structured with insiders, traditional favored sectors, and excluded sectors. Additionally, new democracies often only work effectively if they can restrain such exclusionary tendencies and indulge the people with the most social capital to adapt to a broader and longer-term view of their civic engagement in society. Even though civil society developed incrementally, modern political regimes are often created quickly and with short notice. Examples of political regimes created abruptly include the new nations created Europe after World War One, Asia and Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, and the democracies created in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s. In all cases, formal political equality was established at a specific moment and the citizens earned a full set of democratic rights even though the creation of exclusionary political societies did not coincide with pre-existing maps of associative life between the citizenry.
Civil society may also experience slow growth that eventually allows for the creation of the conditions favorable to democracy. Examples of the gradual development of civil society include Great Britain during the 17th Century and Spain during the 1970s. Additionally, it is also the case that the implementation of a democratic government will foster the development of civil society and create the conditions necessary for its success. Examples include many of the former communist countries and to the experience of many of the former territories of countries such as the US and Great Britain. There also exists the possibility that a civil society attains a high level of development, but never produce a democratic political regime, as in the case of Hong Kong. Moreover, a civil society may develop on the basis that its freedoms and rights can only be secured if there exists a series of exclusionary measures that prevent some members form full participation. Examples include the Palestinian population in Israel, the Cypriot population in Turkey, and African Americans in the Southern part of the US up until the 1960s.
In conclusion, Laurence Whitehead explores the concept of civil society and its role in democratic transitions in “On Civil Society.” Whitehead underscores the importance of political theorists examining the factors that result in the development of strong civil societies that allow for the long-term stability of democratic governments. Additionally, Whitehead goes on to characterize the factors that characterize an effective civil society and the dynamic between civil societies and the expectations of democratic citizenship. An in-depth understanding of the idea of civil society will allow political scientists and political theorists to more effectively understand the factors that allow democratic governments to succeed in certain countries but ultimately fail in others. Moreover, the concept of civil society can be applied to explain potential democratic transitions in countries that a presently authoritarian.
In the book “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study,” Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba present a study of the political culture of democracy and discuss the social structures and processes that help to improve its overall stability. A common concern among political scientists is the future of democracy at the global level. In the years following World War II, events such as de-colonialization have raised some questions about the long-term stability of Democratic political systems and placed the issue into the broader context of the world’s culture. Despite the fact that Almond and Verba feel that the direction of political change at the global level is unclear, they argue that a political culture based upon individual participation will emerge due to demands by ordinary citizens. Additionally, Almond and Verba propose that the emerging nations will be presented with two different models of the participatory state, the democratic and totalitarian models of participation. The democratic model of participation offers the ordinary man the opportunity to take part in the political decision-making process as an influential citizen, whereas the totalitarian offers him the role of the “participant subject.” Both the democratic and totalitarian models of participation have appealed to emerging nations, but it is unclear which one will ultimately win.
According to Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, the democratic model of participation will require more than the introduction of formal institutions of democracy such as freedom of speech, an elected legislature, and universal suffrage. A participatory democratic system also requires a consistent political culture. On the other hand, Almond and Verba argue that there are several problems with transferring democratic political culture to emerging nations. The first issue is that many of the leaders in developing states have little experience with the working principles of democratic policy and civic cultures such as political parties, interest groups, and electoral systems. As a result, the idea of democratic policy as conveyed to the leaders of new countries is incomplete and heavily stresses ideology and legal norms as opposed to conveying the actual feeling and attitude towards democratic ideals. A further reason why the diffusion of democracy to new nations is difficult is that they are confronted with structural problems. For example, many of the new nations are entering the global stage at a time in which they have not fully developed industrially. As a result, individual leaders may be drawn to a policy in which authoritarian bureaucracy promotes industrial development and technological advancement, and where political organization becomes a device for human and social engineering.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the idea of the civic culture. The civic culture is a mixed set of values that contains attributes from both modern and traditional cultures and allows them to interact and interchange without polarizing and destroying each other. Additionally, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as pluralistic and based on communication and persuasion, consensus, diversity, and accessibility to gradual political change. Almond and Verba then explore the development of civic culture in Great Britain. One of the circumstances that resulted in the creation of a modern society in Britain was the emergence of a thriving merchant class and the involvement of the court and aristocracy in economic decisions. Moreover, the English Reformation and the increasing prevalence of religious diversity resulted in a higher level of secularization within British society, leading to greater modernization. As a consequence of both factors, Britain entered the 18th Century with independent merchants and aristocrats who established a parliamentary system that made it possible to assimilate rapid social changes without any sharp discontinuities. By establishing a civic culture, ordinary people were able to enter into the political process and develop British democratic structures.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba describe several different types of political cultures. According to Almond and Verba, political culture refers to the overall attitudes that individuals have regarding the political system and their attitudes toward their respective roles in the system. The term political culture is used because it allows Almond and Verba to separate the non-political concepts from their study and allows them to employ an interdisciplinary approach to their analysis of mass attitudes towards democracy. In classifying objects of political orientation, Almond and Verba start with the general political system, which deals with the organization as a whole. In explaining the components of the political system, Almond and Verba distinguish the specific roles or structures, the functions of incumbents, and particular public policies, decisions, or enforcement of decisions. These structures, incumbents, and decisions are then classified by involvement either in the political (input) process, or in the administrative (output) process.
In their study of mass attitudes and values, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba have identified three distinct types of political cultures. The first type of political culture mentioned by Almond and Verba is the parochial political culture. A parochial political culture emerges when the citizens of a particular nation have no understanding of the national political system, do not possess any tendency to participate in the input processes and have no consciousness of the output operations. Additionally, there are no specialized political roles within a parochial political culture, and the leadership roles are not separated from their religious and social orientations. Examples of parochial political cultures include African and Native American tribes and indigenous communities within particular nations. A subjective political culture is when people are aware of the mechanism of government and the political process, but are not taught to or are not allowed to participate in the system. Examples of subjective political cultures include traditional monarchies or authoritarian government systems. In a participant political culture, the populace is involved in the decision-making process and more or less has a say in public policy decisions. Examples of participant political cultures include the United States, Great Britain, and many other countries throughout the world. The three different classifications of political culture described by Almond and Verba does not assume that one classification replaces the other. On the other hand, the introduction of new classifications serves as a way to encourage previous political orientations to adapt.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also mention that a number of political cultures are systematically mixed. A systematically mixed political culture occurs when there are elements of more simple and more complex patterns of political orientations. The first example of a systematically mixed political culture is the parochial-subject culture, which occurs when a majority of the population has rejected the exclusive claims of diffuse tribal, village, or feudal authority and has developed allegiance towards more complex political systems. Examples of parochial-subject political cultures include the Ottoman Empire and the loosely articulated African kingdoms. In a subject-participant culture, a substantial part of the population has acquired the ability and desire to become more engaged in governmental decisions, whereas the rest of the population continue to be oriented toward an authoritarian political structure and have a relatively little desire to get involved in critical public policy decisions. Additionally, a successful shift from a subject to a participant culture requires the diffusion of positive orientations toward a democratic infrastructure, the acceptance of norms of civic obligation, and the development of a sense of civic competence among a substantial proportion of the population. France during the 19th Century and Germany during the early 20th Century are examples of subject-participant political cultures. A parochial-participant political culture occurs when elements of a participatory system are introduced to a traditionally parochial society. As a result of the lack of structure and experiences with democracy, parochial-participant political cultures have the most experiences with instability and teeter back and forth between democracy and authoritarianism.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba focus on the political cultures of five different countries in their study: The United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. Almond and Verba selected these countries because they have experienced a wide range of historical and political experiences and have gone through a number of events that influenced their political systems. The United States and Great Britain both represent relatively successful experiments in democratic governance despite the fact that the rationale behind their acceptance of democratic values is different. For example, the political culture in Great Britain combines deference toward authority with a lively sense of the rights of citizen initiatives, whereas the political culture of the United States is based on political competence and participation rather than obedience to legitimate authority. Germany is included because its experiments in democratic governance during the late 19th and early 20th Century never resulted in the development of a participatory political culture necessary to legitimize democratic institutions of government. Almond and Verba include Italy and Mexico in their study because both represent less developed societies with transitional political systems.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the feelings towards government and politics that are prevalent in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. The first metric that they measured was the national factors in which the resident of all five countries were most proud of. A majority (85%) of American respondents cited their political system as the greatest source of pride they feel towards their country. In contrast, only 46% of British, 30% of Mexican, 7% of German, and 3% of Italian respondents cited their governmental institutions as their greatest source of national pride. Moreover, American and British respondents were more likely to refer to public policy accomplishments than the respondents from other countries. The Italian respondents cited their countries contributions to the arts and its cultural treasures, whereas the German respondents cited their countries economic system as the greatest source of national pride. Additionally, Mexican pride was distributed equally between the political and economic systems and the physical attributes of their country.
The findings show that the Americans and British express great pride in their political institutions and thus feel the least alienated towards their political systems. On the other hand, the Germans and Italian respondents express a low level of pride in their political institutions and feel more alienated towards their governments. The results from the Mexican respondents show that they have a keen interest in political involvement despite the fact that their political culture is largely parochial. The fact that Mexican respondents expressed an interest in politics is due to past feelings associated by the populace with events such as the Mexican Revolution. The continued connection to the Mexican Revolution shows that the Mexican people believe that the revolution did not accomplish its stated political goals and that the process of political change is ongoing. When broken down by educational level, a majority of American, British, and Mexican respondents with higher levels of education expressed more pride in their respective political systems. Additionally, the fact that educational attainment does no influence the levels of national pride among the German and Italian respondents further suggests alienation from the political system as opposed to a lack of awareness of the system.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also go on to explore the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities among the respondents from all five countries. Both Almond and Verba hypothesized that if the respondents expected fair treatment by governmental authorities, they would, in turn, express more support for legitimate authority. The respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany expected a higher level of treatment by governmental authorities than the respondents from Italy and Mexico. Additionally, the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities varies by educational attainment. For example, respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany with higher educational levels expect more equitable treatment by political authorities than respondents with lower levels of education. Even though the number of Italian and Mexican respondents expecting fair and equal treatment in government were relatively low, the differences between the advantaged and less advantaged groups regarding education were larger than in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Such findings show that there is a connection between expectations regarding treatment by governmental authorities and alienation from the political system.
The attitudes towards political communication are also discussed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. A key component of democratic governments is the willingness for ordinary men and women to get involved in the political process. The main factor that influences such willingness is the level of comfort with discussing political issues. Respondents from the United States and Great Britain expressed the highest level of willingness to discuss politics. Additionally, even though German respondents expressed the highest frequency of following reports about public affairs, the number of people who discuss politics on a regular basis was lower than in the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, the Mexican and Italian respondents expressed a relatively low willingness to discuss political affairs. With regards to the percent of respondents who refused to report their voting decision, the American, British, and Mexican respondents expressed little reluctance when revealing their political choice, whereas the German and Italian respondents expressed the highest level of reluctance. The reluctance on the part of the German and Italian respondents to reveal their voting choices shows that they feel that identifying with a political party is unsafe and inadvisable. Additionally, their unwillingness to reveal their voting choices indicates that there is a higher level of alienation from the political system on the part of the German and Italian respondents when compared to the American, British, and Mexican respondents.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then discuss the relationship between the civic culture and democratic stability and the impact of political culture on the political system that it belongs to. One view that Almond and Verba discuss is the rationality-activist model, which stipulates that a stable democracy involves the population to be informed and active in politics. Additionally, the rationality-activist model requires the citizens to base their voting choices on careful evaluation and carefully weighing in the alternatives. On the other hand, Almond and Verba mention that current research shows that most citizens in democratic nations rarely live up to the rationality-activist model. As such, Almond and Verba feel that the rationality-activist model is only a part of the civic culture and does not make up its entirety. Moreover, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as a mixed political culture that involves both citizens who are informed and take an active role in politics and citizens who take a less active role in politics. The diverse nature of the civic culture also implies that the different roles in political such as parochial, subject, and participant do not replace each other and instead build upon each other.
In conclusion, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba discuss the idea of the political culture and its relationship to democracy in “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study.” A major concern among political scientists is what factors result in the establishment of a political culture that allows for the stability of democracy within a particular country. In their study of political culture, Almond and Verba looked at several factors such as citizen views on government, views on treatment by governmental authorities, and the willingness of people to discuss political issues and the views that respondents from five different democracies have regarding them. The results of their study determined that countries with a long-term history of democratic governance were more likely to have political cultures that foster democratic ideas than countries with a shorter history of democratic government. Additionally, Almond and Verba discuss the relationship between political culture and the long-term stability of democratic political systems.
This video by PressTV presents a review of President Donald Trump’s first full year in office. One year has passed since Donald Trump has been elected US President. Since then, the world has seen a US President unlike any other. One that is aggressive, impulsive, uninterested in politics, and egotistical. Despite coming into office with a grand series of promises to change American politics for the better, the case can be made that the policies pursued by the Trump Administration have changed American politics for the worst. Trump has thus far failed to realize any of his campaign promises, fanned the conspiracy flames regarding his relationship with Russia, contradicted and insulted his staff, and made enemies of allies throughout the world. Additionally, President Trump has attacked the governmental institutions he oversees, threatened to use his powers to ruin the lives of his political opponents, waged war against members of his own party, and engaged in race-baiting, sexism, ableism, and religious bigotry when pursuing his destructive agenda.
One such area in which President Donald Trump left his mark during his first year was his immigration executive order banning (mostly Shi’a Muslim) immigrants, travelers, and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya). This action ignited a firestorm of protest and revealed the bigoted, white supremacist agenda underlying the Trump Administration’s policies. President Trump also rattled the nuclear-saber more than any other President in US history with his incitement of North Korea, going as far to threaten the North Korean government with “fire and fury.” Many politicians on both sides of the aisle worry that Trump has misused the moral authority surrounding the office of the Presidency through such statements and actions.
President Donald Trump claimed during his first year in office that he has the unilateral authority to order the Justice Department to open or close investigations into his political opponents. Such rhetoric threatens to set a negative precedent in future Administrations that goes directly against the principles of separation of power spelled out in the US Constitution. President Trump’s outreach to autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel further characterized his first year in office. By backing the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, President Trump has given the green light for Saudi Arabia to escalate its three-year-long intervention in Yemen, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and has encouraged hatred towards Shi’a Muslims throughout the world. Additionally, President Trump’s choice to recognize Jerusalem (“al-Quds” in Arabic) as the capital of Israel has encouraged the Israeli regime to expand its crusade against the Palestinian people.
President Donald Trump also left a negative mark within the realm of international politics and has adopted a firm, neoconservative view regarding the role of the US in the world. President Trump has repeatedly denounced the Iranian nuclear deal, calling it the “worst deal ever negotiated” despite the fact that it was upheld by numerous organizations, most notably the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Additionally, President Trump has proposed a hardliner stance towards Iran, calling it a “terrorist nation” and calling for US military action to remove the current Iranian government from power. These actions on the part of the President have led to many European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to rethink their reliance on US political and diplomatic leadership on the world stage.
In terms of domestic policy, President Donald Trump generally has had an abysmal first year in office. Trump failed to follow through on repealing The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) despite the fact that his party controls both houses of Congress, and has relied on Executive Orders more often than any other first-year President in US history. The only true legislative achievements of President Trump’s first year in office are his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Many critics argue that the presence of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will move the Judicial branch far to the right and have a profound (and what many view as a negative) impact on decisions such as drug policy, women’s rights, abortion, gay rights, and electoral reform. Additionally, nearly all economic organizations point out that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a clear giveaway to the wealthiest 1% and only serve to further the widening income gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Have you ever tried to organize a college event? Did you get frustrated by issues of planning and attendance?
College is a stressful environment often characterized by heavy workloads and important deadlines to meet. Planning a successful college event can be most successful by following certain guidelines to maximize your potential. Finals/Midterms times and prior to are the worst time to hold events. Here are some tips to help you set up a successful event:
1. Early Bird gets the worm
First-time Political leaning or educational events, in my opinion, are always best to be done in the first 2-3 weeks of school. Before Midterms and before homework starts getting overwhelming.
2.Time Time Time
Make sure the event isn’t at a time when most people are in class but perhaps “college hour,” or a time when people want to have some pizza after class.
3. Who’s Who?
Figure out who are the Demographic most likely to attend. Figure out how to attract them, like LGBTQ attract them by telling them about the issue and how it’s important in their life. How they should come and will benefit. Then figure out how to attract large segments of the student or other population.
4. Monopoly MOFO
Making sure your event has a monopoly over the time/date is important so other events don’t drain from your audience. If a more “liberal” socially- (not economically that word is misused today), then figure out what other events that draw people in that realm may be happening or run by and inform them of your event beforehand to make sure you have a leg up on them. Something as simple as saying “hey come to my event” and “save the date.” Informing the faculty who are “experts” in that field your event is on can help spread the word as well.
5. Art Bitches
Make sure you have an attractive flyer to catch someone’s eye to the event. This should also include online postings like on Instagram/Facebook which are drawing more attention these days. A picture is worth a thousand words so keep it relative to the event.
6. Munchies!
Having Pizza at the event can go a long way where people who aren’t generally as interested now come to the event and want a piece of that action. So food is a way to lure people just make sure you try to gauge the attendance with food supply otherwise it will take away from an event. Refillable cups is advised along with water to reduce plastic use and make your event more environmentally friendly.
7. Songs of the time (EXTRA)
Having a musician play relevant music at the end of the event can lure more people- his or her friends to attend- and ends an element that there will be a musician playing at the end. Try to keep the music almost relevant to the event. For example, if the event discusses healthcare policy, include a song that talks about health care or if the event is about immigration feature a song about immigration. Try to keep the music it a genre you think people will like. Solidarity Singers in NJ are known for political songs and is a good source for political events.
Early in Semester
During a right day of week/Time
Figuring out the target group
Making sure the target group has only your event to attend
Posters that are well designed
Some food at the event
(Extra)Perhaps music performance at the end or start
(These are lessons I have learned from my failed events-XOXO )
One of the two major political parties in the US is the Democratic Party. With its roots being traced back to the late 18th Century Democratic Party has arguably been the most important party in US history. The Democratic Party dominated US politics at the national level between 1828 and 1860 and again from 1932 to 1968, and a majority of American voters still identify as Democrats today even though the Party has lost ground in many areas of the country over the past 50 years. Here is a brief overview of the history of the Democratic Party.
Before the Democratic Party
The Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties participated in spirited debates regarding the direction of the young country during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.
After the U.S. Constitution came into effect in 1789, the voters and elected officials divided into two rival political factions. The first such group was the Federalist Party, which favored a strong and active federal government ruled by a wealthy elite. The second group was the Democratic-Republican Party, which advocated dispersing power more broadly among white male property owners. By the time of the 1824 Presidential Election, the Federalists Party mostly collapsed, leaving the Democratic-Republican Party as the only remaining political party in the US.
During the 1820s new states entered the union, voting laws were relaxed, and several states passed legislation that provided for the direct election of presidential electors by voters. These changes split the Democratic-Republicans into factions, each of which nominated a candidate in the presidential election of 1824. The party’s congressional caucus chose William H. Crawford of Georgia, but Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, the leaders of the party’s two most significant factions also sought the presidency. House Speaker Henry Clay was nominated by the Kentucky and Tennessee legislatures. Jackson won a majority of the popular and electoral vote, but no candidate received the necessary majority in the electoral college. When the election went to the House of Representatives, Clay threw his support to Adams, who won the House vote and subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state.
Andrew Jackson is the father of the modern Democratic Party.
Despite Adams’s victory, differences between the Adams and the Jackson factions persisted. Adams’s supporters, representing Eastern interests and progressive economic and social policies, called themselves the National Republicans. Jackson, whose strength was in the South and West, referred to his followers as Democrats. The Jacksonian branch advocated economic populism, social conservatism, and rural values. Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 presidential election by a landslide and soon began to implement his right-wing, populist agenda (which was in many ways similar to the modern-day “Tea-Party” movement in the Republican Party and is cited by President Donald Trump as an inspiration for his policies). In 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland, the Democrats nominated Jackson for a second term as President, drafted a party platform, and established a rule that required party presidential and vice presidential nominees to receive the votes of at least two-thirds of the national convention delegates, thus establishing the Convention System, which nominated all Presidential candidates between 1832 and 1976.
Growth & Decline of the Democratic Party
From 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all Presidential elections except 1840 and 1848 and controlled Congress with substantial majorities. As the 1840s and 1850s progressed, the Democratic Party suffered internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats wanted to allow slavery in all the areas of the country, while Northern Democrats proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through a public vote. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge, and Northern Democrats nominated Senator Stephen Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate. With the Democrats split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote.
American Presidential elections during the late 19th Century were split based on ethnic, regional, and ideological lines.
The election of 1860 is regarded by most political observers as the first of the country’s three “critical” elections—contests that produced sharp yet enduring changes in party loyalties across the country. It established the Democratic and Republican parties, which represented the right and left of the political spectrum respectively. In federal elections from the 1870s to the 1890s, the parties were evenly split except in the South, where the Democrats dominated because most whites blamed the Republican Party for both the American Civil War and Reconstruction. The two parties controlled Congress for almost equal periods through the rest of the 19th century, though the Democratic Party held the presidency only during the two terms of Grover Cleveland (1885–89 and 1893–97).
A Shift Towards Progressivism
The Democratic Party began to move to the left during the 1896 Presidential Election with the nomination of former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan. In contrast to prior Democratic nominees, Bryan advocated a progressive platform meant to counter the growing power of economic elites and return some semblance of stability to the common man. Even though Bryan ultimately lost to Republican William McKinley, his nomination resulted in a permanent realignment of both political parties on economic policy. The progressive trend within the Democratic Party continued under President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21). Wilson championed various liberal economic reforms, such as federal banking regulation, child labor laws, the break up of business monopolies, and pure food and drug regulations.
The peak of the Modern Democratic Party
President Roosevelt is credited with reviving the Democratic Party during the 1930s and 1940s.
The stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent start of the Great Depression was the primary catalyst for the Democratic Party revival of the mid-20th Century. Led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats not only regained the presidency but also replaced the Republicans as the majority party. Through his political skills and his sweeping New Deal social programs, Roosevelt forged a broad coalition including small farmers, some ethnic minorities, organized labor, urban dwellers, liberals, intellectuals, and reformers that enabled the Democratic Party to retain the presidency until 1952 and to control both houses of Congress for most of the period from the 1930s to the mid-1990s. Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, 1940, and 1944 and was the only president to be elected to more than two terms. Upon his death in 1945, Roosevelt was succeeded by Vice President Harry S. Truman, who was narrowly elected in 1948. The only Republican President during this period was Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander during World War II and a largely liberal Republican.
Despite having overwhelming control over the American political system, the Democratic Party began to witness divisions regarding the issue of civil rights during the 1930s. Northern Democrats mostly favored federal civil rights reforms, whereas Southern Democrats expressed violent opposition to such proposals. As the 1950s progressed, many Southern Democrats Senators such as future President Lyndon Johnson (TX), Estes Kefauver (TN), Claude Pepper (FL), and Ralph Yarborough (TX) began to embrace the idea of civil rights and sought to push the Democratic Party to take a firm stance in favor of the issue. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson took charge on civil rights and pushed Congress to pass the previously-stalled Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These efforts led to another realignment in American politics that resulted in the Republican Party gaining ground with Southern Whites and the Democratic Party cementing its support amongst minority voters and liberal voters in the Northeast and West Coast.
The New Democratic Party
The Democratic Party under President Bill Clinton moved to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues.
By the late 1960s, the extended period of Democratic Party domination was coming to an end. With the party split over issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the proper role of government, Republican candidate Richard Nixon was able to defeat Vice President Hubert Humphrey and independent segregationist candidate George Wallace by a comfortable margin. Despite retaining control over both houses of Congress until 1994, the Democratic Party lost 6 out of the 9 Presidential elections between 1968 and 2004. To regain support at the Presidential level and capitalize on public dissatisfaction (particularly in the Northeast and West Coast) at the continuing rightward drift of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party started to move towards the political center during the late 1980s and 1990s. Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), the Democratic Party adopted neo-liberal economic policies such as free trade advocacy, support for targeted tax cuts, and fiscal conservatism. Additionally, the Democratic Party during this period began to move towards the left on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and the role of religion to gain ground in the mostly secular Northeast and West Coast. Even though these policies endeared the Democratic Party to numerous voting groups, they negatively impacted Democratic chances in the Appalachian and Ozarks regions in the South, parts of the Midwest, and in the Great Plains states.
Future of the Democratic Party
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million but ended up losing the electoral vote by a close margin. These results reveal that the Democratic Party is regaining its status as the nations majority party, albeit with an entirely different coalition of voters. Additionally, Clinton performed strongly in several typically-Republican states such as Texas, Utah, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina. Perhaps these results indicate a new trend that will allow the Democratic Party to gain control of the Southwest and some of the more cosmopolitan Southern states.
The Republican Party is one of the two main political parties currently active in the United States. Founded by anti-slavery activists, economic modernizers, and liberal Whigs and Democrats in 1854, the Republicans dominated politics nationally and was the majority political party in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains for most of the period between 1854 and 1932. The Republican party has won 24 of the last 40 U.S. presidential elections, and there has been a total of 19 Republican Presidents between 1860 and 2016, the most from any political party.
Liberal Republicans & The Civil War
The Republican Party was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 and soon became the main anti-slavery political party within the US.
The Republican Party was officially formed in the small town of Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, as a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats opposed to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus repealing the 34-year prohibition on slavery in territories north of the Mason–Dixon line. This change was viewed anti-slavery members of Congress as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South. In addition to supporting an anti-slavery platform, the Republican Party followed a platform based on economic modernization, a more open interpretation of the constitution, expanded banking, openness to new immigrants, and giving free western land to farmers as a way to discourage the spread of slavery to the Western territories. Most of the support for the new political party came from New England (particularly Vermont, Maine, and parts of Upstate New York), the Midwest, and certain areas in the Upper South such as Eastern Tennessee, Southeastern Kentucky, and Western Virginia (regions where slavery was non-existent).
The Republican Party almost immediately made a mark on American politics and soon superseded the Whig Party as the chief opposition party. The first Republican Presidential nominee was John Frémont, a former general during the Mexican-American War and a strong opponent of the spread slavery. In the 1856 Presidential Election, Frémont scored 33% of the vote and came very close to defeating Democratic candidate James Buchanan in the Electoral College. The strong performance of the Republican Party was an impressive feat despite the fact that the party lacked a strong organizational structure and was not on the ballot in all states. The Republican Party built upon their successes by winning control of both House of Congress in the 1858 midterm elections.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War led to the first era of Republican domination of the American political system.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War opened a new era of Republican dominance at the federal level known as the Third-Party System. President Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union. Most of the remaining Democrats at first were War Democrats and supportive of the Union war effort until late 1862. When in the Fall of 1862 Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as one of the leading war goals, many War Democrats became “Peace Democrats” and thus became more sympathetic to the cause of the Confederacy. The Republicans condemned the peace-oriented Democrats as disloyal and won enough War Democrats to maintain their Congressional majority in 1862. In 1864, the Republicans formed a coalition with many War Democrats (such as Tennessee military governor Andrew Johnson) as the National Union Party which reelected Lincoln in a landslide.
Nearly all of the state Republican parties accepted the idea of the abolition of slavery except Kentucky. In Congress, the Republicans established legislation to promote rapid modernization, the creation of national banking system, high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money issued without backing (“greenbacks”), a large national debt, homestead laws, federal infrastructure spending (particularly on the railroads and industries), and federal aid for education and agriculture. These legislative efforts added to the perception that the Republican Party was the more liberal of the two main political parties.
Post Civil-War Republicans
After the successful conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the Republican Party leadership was faced with the challenge of Reconstruction. The Republican Party soon became split between the moderates (who favored a lenient approach to Reconstruction) and the Radical Republicans (who demanded aggressive action against slavery and vengeance toward former Confederates). By 1864, a majority of Republicans in Congress were part of the Radical branch of the party. These tensions reached their boiling point after President Lincoln’s assassination in April of 1865. The Radical Republicans at first welcomed President Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s second Vice President and a Southern Democrat who supported the Union), believing that he would take a hard line in punishing the South and enforce the rights of former slaves. However, Johnson denounced the Radicals and attempted to ally with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing laws over President Johnson’s veto. President Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1868 but was acquitted by the Senate by only one vote.
The Republican Party of the 1870s sought to establish a viable political coalition based on the ideas of racial equality and progressive public policy.
With the election of Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party structure, and the army and sought to build a Republican base in the South using the votes of Freedmen, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers, supported directly by the US army. Republicans all throughout the South formed clubs called Union Leagues that mobilized the voters, discussed policy issues and fought off white supremacist attacks. President Grant strongly supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth Amendment and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Despite President Grant’s popularity and devotion to the cause of racial and social equality, his tolerance for corruption led to increased factionalism in the Republican Party. The economic depression of 1873 energized the Democrats at the Congressional level. The Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in 1874 and formed “Redeemer” coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state. Reconstruction came to an end when an electoral commission awarded the contested election of 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who promised through the unofficial Compromise of 1877 to withdraw federal troops from the control of the last three southern states (Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana). The South then became known as the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats for the next century.
Economic Conservatism
The Republican Party by and large remained the dominant political party at the Presidential level for the next five decades, with the Democrats only winning the Presidency in 1884, 1892, 1912, and 1916. Starting in the mid-1890s, both of the political parties began to shift on economic policy due to events such as the 1893-1897 economic depression. During the 1896 Presidential Election, the Democrats nominated former Congressman William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, whereas the Republicans nominated Governor William McKinley of Ohio. In contrast to previous Democratic nominees, Bryan followed a platform aligned with contemporary liberalism. Some of the main components of Bryan’s platform included increased federal aid to farmers and factory workers, opposition to the gold standard, a federal income tax, opposition to the wealthy elite, and economic populism. In contrast, Republican William McKinley took an entirely opposite position, arguing that the application of classically liberal economic policies, the continuation of the gold standard, and protectionism would lead to widespread prosperity. Ultimately, McKinley defeated Bryan by a comfortable margin, but the political shifts from this election would have ramifications moving forward. Even though the Republican Party moved towards the left-wing of the political spectrum once more under the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, the conservative branch would win out by 1920 with the nomination and subsequent election of Warren Harding to the Presidency.
A Party in Decline & Flux
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio led the conservative wing of the Republican Party from the late 1930s to the early 1950s and advocated for the party to support fiscally conservative principles.
The initial era of Republican domination at the Presidential level would come to an end with the start of the Great Depression in 1929. President Hoover attempted to alleviate the widespread suffering caused by the Depression, but his strict adherence to Republican principles precluded him from establishing relief directly from the federal government. Additionally, President Hoover became the first Republican President to openly-endorse white supremacy and supported the removal of blacks from state-level Republican parties, which alienated black support for the Republican Party. The Depression cost Hoover the presidency with the 1932 landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and allowed the Democrats to gain a substantial Congressional majority for the first time since the 1850s. The Roosevelt Administration implemented a legislative program known as the “New Deal,” which expanded the role of the federal government in the economy as a way to alleviate the suffering caused by the economic decline and to prevent another economic decline on the scale of the Great Depression from occurring again. Additionally, President Roosevelt sought to gain the support of voter groups that typically voted Republican such as African-Americans, ethnic minorities, and rural farmers. Roosevelt’s efforts were ultimately successful and led to strong victories for the Democratic Party at the ballot box for the next three decades. During this period, the Democratic Party retained control of Congress for every year except 1946 and 1952 and won the Presidency in all elections except 1952 and 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower, a liberal Republican, defeated a fractured Democratic Party.
In response to the New Deal and the policies of the national Democratic Party, the Republicans split into two factions. The first wing was the liberal faction, which favored expanding the New Deal social programs, but felt that such programs would be managed better by Republican administrations. Additionally, the liberal faction of the Republican Party firmly favored civil rights legislation and worked closely with Northern Democrats to push forward positive legislative changes in that arena. The other group was the conservative faction, which advocated a return to laissez-faire economics and fiscal conservatism. Even though the conservative faction of the Republican Party also supported civil rights reforms, they started to form alliances with conservative Southern Democrats in the late 1930s as a way to prevent progressive laws from passing. After the 1938 midterm election, the “Conservative Coalition” formed a majority in Congress and prevented successive Democratic administrations from expanding the New Deal and other associated social programs. It can be argued that the “Conservative Coalition” controlled Congress until 1958, when a large group of liberal Democrats was elected to the Senate and House of Representatives.
The Southern Strategy & The Republican Resurgence
The political parties began to shift again in the 1960s due to policy changes within the Democratic Party. The main split in the Democratic Party came about due to the struggle for civil rights. Since the late 1930s, the Democratic Party experienced a major split between the liberal and moderate factions, which favored civil rights, and the Southern faction, which was steadfast in its opposition to federal civil rights legislation. These tensions came to a head when Lyndon Johnson became President after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Despite being a Southerner, Johnson had a record in support of civil rights since the mid-1950s and felt that civil rights represented a major political opportunity for the Democratic Party. Over the course of his Presidency, major civil rights legislation was passed in 1964, 1965, and 1968 and the Democrats soon became associated with civil rights reform. In response to these changes, the Republican Party began to appeal to white Southerners opposed to the changes to their way of life. These appeals first became apparent in the 1962 Alabama Senate Election between Democrat Lister Hill and Republican James Martin. Despite being a supporter of segregation, Hill was targeted relentlessly by Martin as a covert supporter of federal civil rights legislation. Ultimately Hill won the race, but by only a 1% margin. The Hill-Martin Senate race served as a prelude to the 1964 Presidential Election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater lost in every region of the country except the Deep South due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Modern Republicans look up to President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the main political leader to emulate.
The Republican Party began to see a resurgence at the federal level during the late 1960s that continue to this day. As a result of the aforementioned civil rights reform, the ongoing Vietnam War, and the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to reform the party structure, the Republican Party regained control of the Presidency in 1968 and retained control of this office in each election except 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012. On the other hand, the Republican Party did not regain control of the Senate until 1980 and the House of Representatives until 1994. The growth of the Republican Party over the past 50 years can be attributed to the implementation of a conservative platform on both economics and foreign policy as well as the rise of the Christian Right political movement in the late 1970s. The modern Republican Party considers President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the political leader to look up to, much like how Democrats view Franklin Roosevelt as their political idol. During his Presidency, Reagan implemented neoliberal economic policies, expressed strong support for socially conservative values, increased defense spending and advocated an internationalist foreign policy that some credit with contributing to the end the Cold War.
Contemporary Republican Party
Today, the Republican Party is at its highest level of support since the late 1920s. The Republicans control both House of Congress and have gained total control over historically Democratic areas such as the Appalachian and Ozark regions of the South since 2010 and are increasingly becoming dominant in the industrial Midwest. On the other hand, the Republican Party has lost nearly all of their historic support in the Northeast and West Coast due to their adopting of a socially conservative and xenophobic platform over the past decade.
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton with 304 Electoral Votes but lost the popular vote by 3 million. Trump performed strongly in the Midwest, Appalachia, Ozarks, and some states in the Northeast such as Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Additionally, Trump performed very poorly in several typically Republican states such as Texas, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Utah. Perhaps the 2016 Presidential Election signals a new realignment for both political parties. Future elections may see the Republican Party cementing their gains in the Midwest, Appalachia, and Ozarks, and the Democratic Party continuing to grow in support along both coasts of the US and picking up parts of the cosmopolitan Southern states and the Southwest.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the decline of the Ottoman Empire during the late 19th and early 20th Century. The Ottoman Empire was an empire founded in 1299 AD in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) by Osman I, a Turkish tribal leader. By 1354, the Ottoman Empire reached into Southeastern Europe and eventually ended the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) in 1453 with the conquest of Constantinople. During its height of power in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational and multicultural empire controlling a majority of the Middle East and Southern Europe (including countries such as Greece and parts of present-day Italy), the Caucuses, and Northern Africa. With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Middle East and Western worlds for half a millennium.
Despite its long track record of success, the Ottoman Empire began to fall behind European rivals such as Great Britain, France, and Russia during the mid-18th century. Additionally, the Ottoman army consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which prompted them to initiate a process of reform in the late 1830s known as the Tanzimat. As such, over the course of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state became more powerful and organized, despite suffering territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where many new states such as Greece and Albania emerged by the 1860s. The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, hoping to escape from the isolation which had contributed to its recent territorial losses, and thus joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to hold its own during the conflict, it began to deal with internal dissent, in particular with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings and the rise of Jewish immigration into the region of Palestine starting in the late 19th century. During this time, atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. The Ottoman Empire ultimately collapsed by the end of World War I and was replaced by the Republic Turkey in 1923. The former Ottoman territories were also divided up into new nations by Great Britain and France after World War 1 and continue to serve as the basis for the modern Middle East.
Traveling back to 1945, an era where World War II had wiped tens of millions off the face of the Earth, resulted in genocide and mass murder on an unimaginable scale, we find the world plunged into darkness for nearly 6 years. By the time the Germans had surrendered, the war with Japan was also coming to an end(May 1945). The atomic bomb was a poker hand play by President Truman to force the Soviet Union into submission on deals across Europe and Asia. By doing so, the US could maintain its hegemony over the entire world and expand its influence into Eastern Europe.
President Harry Truman himself wrote after the Potsdam conference that “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.” Six out of seven Five Star Generals during World War II were against the use of the devastating weapon on Japan because they knew Japan was going to surrender and that the use of such weapon could not be undone. Here is some direct information discussing why some high ranking military officials were against the use of the atomic bomb:
In his “third person” autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated “The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”
The use of nuclear weapons did not bring Japan closer to surrender. The Japanese had wanted to reach peace with the Allies as early as March of 1945, but also be able to have their Emperor and Prime Minister have a role in determining military decisions, which was something the Truman administration would not accept.
General Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF), recalled in a 1962 interview that he gave “notification that I would not drop an atomic bomb on verbal orders–they had to be written–and this was accomplished.” Spaatz also stated that the dropping of the atomic bomb was “done by a military man under military orders. We’re supposed to carry out orders and not question them.” In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview, Spaatz stressed that the bombing “was purely a political decision, wasn’t a military decision. The military man carries out the order of his political bosses.”
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not about winning a war, it was about testing a new weapon on an enemy many people believed to be subhuman (the Japanese). The bombings targeted civilians populations like modern terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Those left alive from the atomic bombs suffered a cruel death from radiation poisoning and severe burns. Estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) considered over conservative by the Children of Atomic Bomb project.
General Douglas MacArthur, the US commander in the Pacific, thought that the use of such bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view. General Curtis “Demon” LeMay, a staunch anti-Communist who gained notoriety after being selected as segregationist candidate George Wallace’s running mate in the 1968 Presidential Election said that “Even without the atomic bomb and the Russian entry into the war, Japan would have surrendered within two weeks. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”
Douglas MacArthur was an American five-star general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II.
In every US history class, we are told the opposite, in that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan saved lives and resulted in a speedy victory against Japan. That statement is unequivocally false. The US didn’t have to invade the Japanese mainland or use the atomic bomb. The United States could have ended the war sooner without unconditional surrender and many people paid the price of politics of the war with their lives. The atomic bomb was a political weapon more so than a military one. The atomic bomb now poses a threat to wiping out the human species, as nuclear weapons have become significantly more powerful with the new Hydrogen Bomb and now numbers in the thousands across the globe. Currently, the US and Russia hold 90% of world stockpiles and the stakes for war between both countries are much higher than they were during the height of the Cold War (roughly between 1955 and 1963) because of US troops on Russian borders and other areas like North Korea.
The scientist and people who developed the Manhattan project circulated a petition with over a 70 people signing it against the use of such a bomb. The petition stated that“If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States, as well as the cities of other nations, will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.”
The US had a moral responsibility to prevent the use of the weapon and make sure others weren’t pushed to pursue it. The Truman Administration failed to realize the long-term problems of using nuclear weapons. Because he used them the Soviets put tons of time and energy into developing the technology. Truman not considering the advice from the scientist ignored warnings that the rest of the world would catch up, specifically the Soviet Union, which the scientists claimed could lead to a Cold war and destroy human civilization. An accidental mishap could mean triggering a nuclear war, which has come close to happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and a few other times, most notably in 1979, 1983, and 1995. It should be known that these weapons aren’t safe and that mistakes have been before, where atomic weapons have almost been set off. For example, unarmed nuclear weapons were accidental dropped by the US Air Force in South Carolina in 1958 and North Carolina in 1961. Luckily neither incident resulted in the detonation of the bombs. Another time a maintenance worker while fixing things around a nuclear warhead accidental armed it with his tool belt. These are just a few instances of how a weapon endangered the lives of countless people. There are also the nuclear weapons that are missing not to ruffle your feathers.
A world without nuclear weapons is a safe one and the United Nations just passed a resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons with many European countries and the US abstaining. The resolution goal is to hold a conference in March 2017 to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Bullet Points
Japan was going to surrender just under terms it felt would allow them to keep their Emperor.
Most high-level military Generals were against the use of Atomic weapons.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
Bombs had no military or strategic importance.
Truman made decision to drop bomb not experts.
US leaders failed to understand they would lose nuclear monopoly in the future(20 years later).
Scientists who developed the bomb were against its use.
UN resolution to ban Nukes on table recently.
For those less tech savoy words highlighted in blue if clicked link to sources.
I recommend watching the video below, it is graphic but shows the horrors of nuclear attack on Japan.
The symbol originally designed for the British nuclear disarmament movement. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament symbol, designed by Gerald Holtom in 1958.
Some Images
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm
Supplemental Materials
Oliver Stone Untold History of the US (Season 1 Episode 3) Goes into detail on Atomic Weapon Use and why it was Immoral
Conversations with History: Kenzaburo Oe University of California Television (UCTV): Japanese man who lived through Bombings/Outspoken against nuclear weapons
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2605/0/13-times-the-US-almost-destroyed-itself-with-its-own-nuclear-weapons.html
This video by Caspian Report discusses the Islamic conquest of Persia (Present-day Iran) during the 7th Century AD. The rise of Islam as a religion coincided with significant political, social, economic and military weakness in Iran, which was then under the rule of the Sassanid Empire. The Arab armies initially attacked Iran in 633 through the province of Asōristān (present-day Iraq). After a 21-year-long campaign, the Sassanid Empire collapsed in 654 to the Arab forces under the leadership of Uthman ibn Affan.
The conversion of the Iranian people to Islam was gradual and incentivized in various ways over 400 years with some Iranians never converting and widespread cases of the destruction of cultural artifacts and opponents to Muslim rule being harshly persecuted. Even though the Arab forces attempted to force an entirely different culture and traditions on the Iranian people, Iranian culture and the Persian language remained largely intact.
Additionally, the Arab conquest of Iran is mentioned to have ultimately strengthened Islam and allowed it to become a major world religion that has endured. On the other hand, the Arab conquest is one of many examples of a foreign imperialist invasion force attempting to invade Iran and weaken its culture. Additionally, the Arab conquest of Iran is mentioned to have prevented the emergence of a strong and independent Iran until the rise of the Safavid Empire in the early 16th Century.
Afghanistan, the United States, the Soviet Union, And Illegitimacy PS 401: Seminar in Political Science
Fall 2016
Marco Palladino
(Work In Progress citations not cited properly due to format of blog- can submit original copy if needed(word doc)
Abstract
Intervention in a failed state is not an effective counterterrorism tool when it is reliant on military power to prop up a perceived illegitimate government. Additionally, foreign hegemonic forces are often viewed as invaders even if that does not represent the underlying goal of the intervention. This study will focus on the policies implemented by the US and the Soviet Union over the courses of their interventions in Afghanistan, which is at the forefront of America’s failed counter-terrorism campaign in the Middle East and North Africa. Afghanistan has a history of being invaded and pushing invaders out. For example, Greece, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union all invaded Afghanistan at various points in time, but their efforts ultimately ended in a resounding defeat. All these unsuccessful invasion help give Afghanistan the nickname of “The Graveyard of Empires.” This paper seeks to explore what are the likely results of an intervention by foreign hegemonic forces in a failed state to install and maintain an illegitimate government. The methods measured include casualty rates, economic indices, military spending on intervention by hegemonic power and results of such interventions, and various social indices. Examining the long-term effects of war and insurgency will be critical to determine the effectiveness of foreign intervention against terrorism.
Introduction
The ongoing “War on Terrorism” has been a major foreign policy challenge over the past decade and a half.
A major foreign policy issue in recent years has been the ongoing War on Terror, which is an international effort to destroy groups, organizations, and affiliates that are a threat to the United States or its Allies. The War on Terror began as a response to the 9/11 Attacks by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which includes the United States, France, United Kingdom and Germany. Even though NATO was set up as a military and political alliance during the Cold War era, its focus has shifted towards intervention in numerous failed states and has conducted many aerial bombings in attempting to combat “terrorism” and to implement governmental change.
According to the Global Political Forum, a failed state is “a government that can no longer provide basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty”. Using United Nations data on casualty rates, stability, corruption, and social well-being will determine if the country is moving forward or backward. Military spending will also factor in the results if the amount of money invested was spent wisely and has had a noticeable positive effect on national progression. Is there a lack of diplomacy or willingness to negotiate that could be reducing possible results?
This paper will examine the effects of foreign intervention by hegemonic forces and their role in exacerbating the problems in “failed states” such as Afghanistan. The hypothesis is that a heavy reliance on military intervention in a country to prop up a perceived illegitimate government will have largely negative results. This paper will also look at the robust strategic patterns of the United States and the lack of ensuing results through military intervention in failed states in addition to general campaigns in Afghanistan and their correspondence to the objective of the reduction of terrorism and increasing stability in the nation-state. This paper focuses on Afghanistan, which has been considered the epicenter for global terrorism and had large-scale intervention by foreign hegemonic forces. The result of the intervention in many states has been largely negative for the population in question. The cases study will look at Afghanistan as a whole and the large-scale military intervention by NATO in the last few year’s outcomes. The case study will look at spending habits and how they factor into the successful elevation of suffering and counter-terrorism in a failed state. The final area will be how diplomacy factors into resolving a crisis in a failed state.
Originally part of Iran, Afghanistan received its independence in 1709 after a successful revolt against the Iranian government, then under the leadership of Shah Sultan Husayn, a member of the Safavid dynasty which ruled Iran from 1502-1722. Over the ensuing centuries, Afghanistan was characterized by conflicts with European powers such as Great Britain and the Russian Empire. By 1919, Amanullah Khan was finally able to remove British influence from Afghanistan and began to pursue an independent foreign policy. Over the next few decades, Afghanistan was led by Mohammed Zahir Shah, who ascended to the throne in 1933. Mohammed Zahir Shah shares some similarities with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of neighboring Iran in that he sought to increase economic modernization and secularism within Afghanistan. Additionally, Mohammed Zahir Shah was generally a far less repressive leader than Pahlavi and allowed a much higher level of political freedom overall in Afghanistan than in Iran.
Beginning in 1955, the Soviet Union provided large amounts of military training and materials to Afghanistan that gradually increased over the next two decades. For example, 1 out of every 3 members of the Afghan military was trained on Soviet soil by the early 1970s. The major political event to note during Mohammed Zahir Shah’s rule was the creation of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) in 1965. The PDPA ultimately split into two factions, the Khaliqis led by Noor Taraki, and Parachamists led by Babrak Karmal. The Khaliqis has a base of support in rural areas and among the Pasthuns. The Parachamists primarily had support from urban areas and were the reformist political faction within Afghanistan. In 1973, Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud peacefully overthrew Mohammed Zahir Shah. The Khalq faction never fully recognized Daoud’s leadership, viewing his overthrow of the King as a plot to gain power.
On April 28, 1978, Afghani soldiers supportive of the Khalq faction killed Mohammed Daoud and his family in his presidential palace, thus allowing Noor Taraki to become Prime Minister and Babrak Karmal to become Deputy Prime Minister. The Carter Administration viewed the overthrow of Daoud as a communist takeover. Internal Afghan politics complicated the US and Soviet influence during this period. Hafizullah Amin, an ally of Taraki received word that Karmal was planning a Paracham plot to overthrow the Taraki regime. Amin executed many Parchasmists to reinforce his power. The overthrow damaged the communist revolution that was attempting to spread across the country. The communist governance was now by the winter of 1978 met with armed insurgency across the country. Amin and Taraki signed a treaty allowing direct Soviet military assistance against any insurgency threatening the regime.
In mid-1979, the Soviets began to sends advisers to Bagram Air Base outside Kabul. In response, the Carter Administration started supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan Mujahideen, a Sunni Islamic insurgent group. Amin believed the Soviet intervention was designed to strengthen Taraki at his expense. As a result, Amin ordered the death of Taraki in October of 1979, earning the ire of the Soviets. Additionally, Islamic fighters were defeating the Afghan army and the Soviets were forced to either lose their foothold in Afghanistan. As such, the Soviets invades Afghanistan on December 26, 1979, and initially sent in motorized divisions and Special Forces. The Soviets killed Amin and installed Barak Karmal as head of Afghanistan. President Carter subsequently stepped up aid to the insurgents and announced his own doctrine to protect Middle Eastern oil supplies from encroaching communism. Washington wanted to make the Soviet occupation as painful and as brief as possible. The Soviet war in Afghanistan ended up lasting 10 years and millions of lives lost. The Soviets spent $50 billion dollars and lost 15,000 men in addition to a strong uprising emerging in Afghanistan, this igniting a civil war.
After the Soviets left in 1989, Afghanistan was destabilized and was characterized by various political groups vying for power. The Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group, ultimately took power by 1992. The Taliban would later allow Osama bin Laden to establish training bases in Afghanistan beginning in 1996. Their rationale behind this decision was to make Afghanistan an outpost for Wahabbi Islam and to ultimately attack Iran, which is majority Shi’a and strongly opposed to radical Islamic ideologies.
Afghanistan would subsequently suffer from major social, political, economic, and governmental problems following the 2001 invasion by the United States. The result of the invasion would be the exacerbation of all the problems in Afghanistan from food shortages to increased levels of violence precipitating the region and more complex problems arising. Before the invasion, millions of people were on the edge of starvation and many aid groups had to leave before the invasion because it wasn’t safe. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is increasing every year. A United Nations Assistance in Afghanistan report states ” During the time covered by this report, 157,987 Afghans were displaced because of the war. This brings the estimated total number of conflict-induced displacement Afghans to 1.2 million.” All this is indicative of 40 years of intervention by NATO in a conflict-prone area increasing casualties and failing to solve the problem through the use of diplomacy.
Methodology
The paper will use various variables relating to the state of Afghanistan, either progressing further into or out of a “failed state” that help demonstrate government legitimacy. The United State’s relation to that progression or regression will be key in the country. Such variables like civilian deaths per year (graphs/charts, including deaths from violence), drug production levels (estimated # of tons), internal/external displaced populations (note population displacement is hard to calculate and numbers often conservative, Afghans are the 2nd largest refugee population in the world).
The fiscal problems facing the Afghan government include a small GDP and a heavy reliance on foreign money from the United States. Looking at insurgent attacks over the last decade will help paint a picture of future violence. The goal of the gathering of these statistics is to map out where the future of Afghanistan is headed and to provide an overview of the growing problems in the country. In relation to these problems, the United States & Soviet Union’s role in the country may be positive or negative. What has been the effectiveness of the United States at legitimizing through solving these problems? Examining basic areas of spending patterns will support understanding on if investments proved worthwhile long-term (10-15 year period).
There are some limitations to this analysis, however. One such issue is the measurement of insurgent members in Afghanistan. Finding this data is difficult due to the fact that many attacks are unreported because the government of Afghanistan does not have effective record-keeping procedures. As such, the level of casualties is used to help blanket insurgent levels. Looking at micro use-spending habits could also prove difficult to uncover and total spending habits also may be hard to figure out, as a result of how certain projects are classified. Examples could include, weapons programs being tested, use of special forces, the cost of technology, soldiers with PTSD or other medical issues that encompass US Spending in Afghanistan. The numbers keep growing and examining simpler terms would provide a better overview of the situation rather than smaller difficult programs to map out the impacts. Determining the number of munitions dropped by the US in Afghanistan alone is an impossible task for the research to dive into because there is a lot of shock and awe tactics (where large sums of bombs are dropped quickly). The cultural, linguistic, and religious variables that affect Afghanistan will not be included. A 14-week schedule makes an analysis of a wide variety of data difficult at best. The motivation behind the methodology is to look at simpler variables to construct a conceptualization and overview of Afghanistan at present as well as its future. The research is by no means to suggest solid claim of Afghanistan future but merely a roadmap in the direction in which the country is heading.
Literature Review
Carl Von Clausewitz was one of the earliest philosophers who studied the notion of warfare.
The philosophy of war has a long and arduous history ranging from the Ancient Greeks to the modern members of Congress that make military decisions. The literature review will focus on contemporary theorists in the philosophy of war. One of the earliest theorists was Carl Von Clausewitz, a 19th Century Prussian general, and military theorist. Primarily influenced by the Napoleonic Wars and Frederick the Great, Clausewitz focused on the moral and political aspects of war and said that “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” According to Clausewitz, the US war in Afghanistan would be considered an unideal and unjust war due to the fact that the US has been indiscriminate in harming civilians and other non-military targets.
On the other hand, John Keegan has the opposite perspective and is referred to in political science as the anti-Clausewitz. His perspective is that modern wars like Vietnam were not immoral and instead fought the wrong way. Essentially, Keegan is saying that it is not the crusade that was wrong but the way the crusade was carried out. According to Keegan, the War in Afghanistan would be perfectly moral and flawed only due to the fact that the US did not entirely commit itself to fight the war successfully. Keegan would suggest that the US should dramatically expand its presence in Afghanistan and not hold back in its efforts to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.
it is not the crusade that was wrong but the way the crusade was carried out
Neorealism is another well-known theory in international relations.
Kenneth N. Waltz, Patrick James, and David Fiammenghi are proponents of neorealism. The neorealist theory states that international politics is defined by anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities. As such, there exists no formal central authority and that every sovereign state is formally equal in this system. The states, in turn, act according to the logic of self-help, meaning they seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to the interests of other states. Additionally, the security dilemma in realism states that a situation in which actions by a state intended to intensify its security, such as increasing its military infrastructure or building alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when neither side desires it.
Charles L. Gaster is a proponent of the concept of the security dilemma and illustrated the political consequences of military strategies within individual countries. Gaster stated that “The first focused on military capabilities and implicitly assumed that the basic goals of the Soviet Union were fixed; its central concern was to determine what military capabilities the United States required to deter or defeat the Soviet Union. The second component focused on what I term political consequences the effect of U.S. policy on the basic goals of the Soviet Union and on Soviet views of U.S. resolve. Sharp disagreements about political consequences played an important role in dividing the American cold war debate over military policy.”
Another theory in realism is the prisoners’ dilemma. As described by Robert Jervis and R. Harrison Wagner in a January 1978 World Politics journal article, the prisoners’ dilemma shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears to be in their best interests to do so. An example could be the dynamic between Iran and Russia on one hand, and the US on the other hand regarding the Syrian Civil War.
Defensive Realism is the theory that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to follow to the balance of power theory, thus decreasing the primary goals of the state, namely ensuring their security. Kenneth N. Waltz considered the founder of defensive realism as a theory, explains his perspective on international relations after the cold war by stating that the “one condition for success is that the game is played under the shadow of the future. Because states coexist in a self-help system, they may, however, have to concern themselves not with maximizing collective gain but with lessening, preserving, or widening the gap in welfare and strength between themselves and others. The contours of the future’s shadow look different in hierarchic and anarchic systems ”
Offensive Realism holds the anarchic nature of the international system responsible for aggressive state behavior in international politics. John Mearsheimer is one of the first who explored this theory in his 2001 book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” Offensive Realism depicts powerful states as power-maximizing information control entities, that force others to fight while they are on the sidelines, overbalancing strategies in their ultimate aim to dominate the international system. Contributing theorists include Glen H. Snyder, Eric J. Labs, Fareed Zakaria, Colin Elman, Randall L. Schweller. Steven E. Lobell writes, “According to offensive realism, security in the international system is scarce. Driven by the anarchical nature of the international system, such theorists contend that states seek to maximize their security through maximizing their relative power by expansionist foreign policies, taking advantage of opportunities to gain more power, and weakening potential challengers. The state’s ultimate goal is hegemony. How a state will go about expansion will vary from nation to nation (due to geography, military tradition, etc.)—offensive realism does not predict the same security strategy for every state. ”
Is there an offensive-defensive theory of realism? According to Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Offensive-defense theory argue that there is an offense-defense balance that determines the relative efficacy of offensive and defensive security strategies. Variations in the offensive-defensive balance, the theory suggests, affects the patterns of intentional politics.”
The Neo-Classical realist perspective is closer to the defensive realistic perspective, the actions of a state in the international system can be explained by systemic variables, the distribution of power capabilities among states, as well as cognitive variables, such as the perception of systemic pressures, other states’ intentions, or threats and domestic variables such as state institutions, elites, and social actors within society, affecting the power and freedom of action of the decision-makers in foreign policy. While holding true to the neorealist concept of balance of power, neoclassical realism further adds that states’ mistrust and inability to perceive one another accurately, or state leaders’ inability to mobilize state power and public support can result in an under expansion or under balancing behavior leading to imbalances within the international system, the rise and fall of great powers, and war.
Gideon Rose states that “Neoclassical Realism argues that the scope and ambition of a country’s foreign policy are driven first and foremost by the country’s relative material power. Yet it contends that the impact of power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening unit-level variables such as decision-makers’ perceptions and state structure.”
Noam Chomsky is a critic of the idea of American Exceptionalism.
Relative material power brings the discussion to the United States with its exceptional power over other nations. American Exceptionalism is the idea that American is unique and superior to other nations, Marilyn B. Young, a Harvard scholar on American Foreign Relations, says “There’s an arrogance born of power”. In here view America has become very deceptive in how a leader in government talk about, how the military reacts to war and the lack of transparency in some areas. Noam Chomsky depicts the United States as a country which goal of its foreign policy is to create more open societies where the United States can expand control of politics and the market.
In contrast, Neo-Conservatives think that the military is there for the United States to use it. Essentially we have the power so we need to use it to push our way into practice by force. Senior officials in the Bush Administration such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are prominent followers of this ideology which is an extension of American Exceptionalism. Former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick is another neoconservative who criticized the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, who endorsed de-escalation of the Cold War.
Another component of neoconservatism is the Bush Doctrine, which holds the idea of a preemptive attack on perceived enemies of the US. William Kristol, a supporter of the Bush Doctrine, wrote in 2002 that the “world is a mess. And, I think, it’s very much to Bush’s credit that he’s gotten serious about dealing with it. … The danger is not that we’re going to do too much. The danger is that we’re going to do too little. ” Neo-Conservatives hold true the idea of policing the world as a way to ensure political peace and stability and would argue that intervention in Afghanistan by the US is an appropriate step for this goal.
Current Problems Facing Afghanistan
The decade-long Soviet intervention in Afghanistan left 15,000 Soviet military personnel and nearly a million Afghani civilians dead. The war was a proxy for the United States against the Soviets in which the United States used “our gold and their blood” (referring to Afghani civilians). During the war, the CIA encouraged Islamic extremists to join in the war to defend Islam against an invasion by the “godless Communists.”. Much of the weapons in Afghanistan today were paid for by either the United States or the Soviet Union and left there an estimated total of 45 billion dollars in arms/ammunition. The mass amounts of weapons would aid the conflict of the civil war that plagued Afghanistan from 1989 to 1996. The Taliban came to power in the ruins of the civil war and ruled Afghanistan as an Islamic state based largely on the ideology of Wahhabism. Bin Laden would later find refuge there where he helped the government fight off the Soviets in the 1980s and was largely viewed as an honorable man within Afghanistan due to the fact that he successfully repelled a foreign imperialist invader who sought to install an illegitimate government into power.
The United States invaded Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001 in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban government did not provide any material support or personnel (mostly Saudi Nationals) for the attacks on 9/11, though they allowed Osama Bin Laden to have a safe haven. The Taliban refused to release Bin Laden to the United States and said they would give him to a neutral 3rd party. The United States rejected their offer. The Taliban also asked for evidence and the US declined their request. According to the UN and aids groups, prior to the invasion, it was thought there would be a mass famine where millions would starve because of Afghanistan’s dependence on foreign food. After the United States bombed Afghanistan for 2 months, the Taliban government ultimately surrendered in December of 2001. The United States would install a government that Afghani civilians view as illegitimate, corrupt, and weak. Displacement of the population is one of the biggest problems in Afghanistan and the Middle East from war and conflict.
Afghanistan has one of the worst population displacements problems in the world. Afghans make up the 2nd largest refugee population in the world and it is estimated that 3.7 million Afghans have been displaced by the conflict in the last decade or so. That is a daunting number no government or institution can handle alone to manage. One million are estimated to have fled to Iran, another 1.5 million into Pakistan. From a 2014 report, 700,000 are expected to be displaced in Afghanistan itself. Every year the numbers get worse and worse, more death and more casualties beating the last year. There is a variety of reason for this but many civilians die in either ground engagements or through IEDs that are leftover or part of the current war. The surge under President Obama, which was the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, did not make Afghanistan safer and their withdrawal has not reduced the casualties rates. Killing members of Taliban have only created more instability and turned various areas of the country into a devastated war zone. In this climate, these policies undermine government legitimacy constantly because the government cannot provide basic necessities. Additionally, this policy has the government of Afghanistan largely taking orders from NATO and the US, which have large cultural differences and questionable understanding of the country. For example, Afghanistan is predominantly Muslim (~85-93% Sunni and ~7-15% Shi’a) and the main languages spoken are various dialects of Farsi (an Iranian-based language which is not widely taught in the West).
Heroin usage and production is a major problem facing Afghanistan, as it produces 80-90% of the world’s supply of Heroin. The Taliban profits nearly a billion dollars a year from the trade, namely by exporting opioids to other countries. It is estimated that there are around 1.6 million drug users in Afghan cities and another 3 million in the countryside. Unfortunately, the opium production has helped fuel severe problems with addiction to opium which has worsened the situation in Afghanistan. In 2001, The Taliban government issued a fatwa forbidding heroin use, which essentially put a stop to the problems of its use in Afghanistan. The US invasion that same year and the subsequent installation of Hamid Karzai as the Afghan President saw the prior ban go away and thus opium production skyrocket starting in 2002.
The US invasion had multiple coalitions of groups such as the Northern Alliance in Northern Afghanistan and the Puston Warlords in the South-East who also played a major role in the trafficking in Heroin which would result in it’s come back largely in Afghanistan. The whole story isn’t told there, “The drug trade accounted for most of its tax revenues, almost all its export income, and much of its employment. In this context, opium eradication proved to be an act of economic suicide that brought an already weakened society to the brink of collapse. Indeed, a 2001 U.N. survey found that the ban had “resulted in a severe loss of income for an estimated 3.3 million people,” 15% of the population, including 80,000 farmers, 480,000 laborers, and their millions of dependents”. As such, banning opium, which was largely pushed by Westerners, was a severe miscalculation on the part of the Taliban-led government. Ideally, it would have been smarter to have a transition period meant to phase out opium production and allow those whose livelihood depends on its production to developing alternative sources of income.After the invasion in 2001, the Taliban went back to selling heroin to fund the insurgency but there are other segments that sell and control opium distribution.
Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989), opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. The CIA helped design the Afghan Narcotics economy to fund the Taliban and launder money during the War against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Currently, the problems of heroin fuel the insurgency and corrupt the government while increasing drug usage both inside and outside the country. The US would later spend 7.6 billion to eradicate opium in Afghanistan and in every measurable way they have failed. Instead, it helps fuel the insurgency by upsetting locals and fueled government corruption. Again undermining the legitimacy of the government while pushing cultivation practices that they have helped start in the first place. That 7.6 billion wasted in opium eradication is just the tip of the iceberg with unsustainable spending patterns.
The financial problems facing the Afghan government, such as a small GDP and reliance on foreign money from the United States and others present serious problems. The reliance of foreign money make long-term success difficult and, if foreign money is withdrawn from the economy, the government would collapse. Corruption is also a major problem in Afghanistan. Many hands are taking money out of the government coffers for personal gain. The corruption isn’t something that is only on the local level but stretches all the way to the top. It’s difficult to measure the level of corruption but there are key findings to support the idea that the Afghan government has serious corruption problems which undermine the government as an institution and waste precious money needed to support the Afghan people. In 2012, nearly half of Afghan citizens paid a bribe while requesting a public service and the total cost of bribes paid to public officials amounted to $3.9 billion US dollars. This corresponds to an increase of 40 percent between 2009 and 2012. So the government abuses its position which increases the cost for the people who pay taxes and then pay again to get something done. A snapshot of Afghan culture is that bribery is embedded in social practices, with patronage and bribery being an acceptable part of Afghan culture. These practices of bribery are also in other regions without government.
Non-governmental groups like village associations and the Taliban have patronage systems. Bribery usually occurring in government to change police or judicial results or provide governmental services faster. The bribes can undermine government institutions which are flooded with money. Examples of government corruption can be to keep a family or relative from going to jail by paying the judge or police off. An instance of corruption is the people put in power, namely family relatives, for example, the director of Education was put in power because of his relatives but could not read or write.
These problems are worsened by the uncertainty of how long the US will stay and fight. If one thinks they’re leaving next week or not here to stay then obviously you’re going to abuse the money that comes in. You have elections where they have large accusations of voter fraud and reinforcement of the idea that Afghanistan looks like a “tin-pot dictatorship”. It costs somewhere around $12 billion dollars a year to train Afghan security forces and neither the US nor the Afghan government can sustain that figure. So in no way is the situation an economically manageable one, especially with record numbers of security forces being killed and high levels of desertions. “Between October 2013 and September 2014, more than 1,300 Afghan army troops were killed in action and 6,200 were wounded”. Senior US Officers have called that “unsustainable”. Desertion is a problem but there are poor numbers on this so it’s just important to mention it as a problem. The Taliban have been killing more and more people in the security forces and expanding their territory.
Growing insurgency problem across the countries level of violence grows worse.US Policy may appear to be helping reinforce insurgency numbers. The basic premise of counter-insurgency strategy is you’re only as good as the government you represent. The government that represents Afghanistan lacks legitimacy with Afghan people and it can’t even hold the Taliban at bay. While the US in for example in 2011, was killing 360 insurgent leaders in a 90 day period using Special Forces, there were more attacks against coalition forces and no reduction in overall violence. Basically, it goes back to the old adage of “if you hit me, I hit you.” Abdul Hakim Mujahidin, the Taliban Envoy to the UN from 1998 to 2001 said” They consider that the continuance of the war in this country is not for the benefit of their people. But in practice, they are using their military against the Taliban. They are forcing the Taliban to respond militarily”. Osama Bin Laden was not part of the Taliban but Al Qaeda and his objective were to drive the US into Afghanistan to shatter will at home and push US and Allies to get out of the Islamic world. The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in US history and the US government has still been unable to ensure Al Qaeda’s come back into Afghanistan. Some reports show drone strikes are counterproductive and other say they are. It’s hard to tell productive ones from unproductive ones when they target high-ranking leaders but when they kill innocent civilians or low-level combatants they can help fuel an insurgency.
What has the US Invested For Afghanistan’s Success? The United States is spending too much money on Afghanistan, so much so that the numbers are often unknown or hard to pin down. Many different sources provide different estimates for costs on different things, but to figure out the total and cost year by year is simply too long of a process. For instances, some institution will say the cost of Iraq X and others Y. From Pew, it was shown that the US is spending around $16-17 billion dollars a year on counter-terrorism. What exactly does that cover? Again hard to pin down what exactly all these funds are being spent on. You also have heightened violence which is going to require more mobilization of the military to things like Veterans health which are extremely costly. These costs are often stuck with other wars. Here are some estimates on the spent money in key areas, reconstruction, $110 billion dollars, the largest portion of that is $60 billion being spent on training Afghan security forces.But this may not be accurate because many costs are left out of such reports so it’s better to give a bulk total of 4 to 6 trillion on the costs then try to micro-manage every cost exactly into the bill. Again this is unsustainable spending and if the US pulls out tomorrow and loses everything much of that investment could prove worthless, which is why many are reluctant to do so.
At the same times it getting harder for members of Congress to justify trillions of dollars spent for a deteriorating situation. The government gives aid to Pakistan and sometimes that aid is used to train the Taliban and other groups while fighting against Al Qaeda. Pakistan has received military aid from the US since 1948. Since 2001, the US has given Pakistan roughly $2 billion per year in military and assistance some of which has been used to support insurgent groups.This aid has gone up and down and appears to have no effect on reduction of violence in Afghanistan or Pakistan. These failures undermine the US influence in Muslim countries and appear to not give the Afghan government more legitimacy. Instead, it is akin to throwing money down a drain and hoping that something sticks.
American Exceptionalism
American Exceptionalism is the idea that America is unique, just and always on the side of good. The idea of American Exceptionalism date back to the founders, but has become largely ingrained in American Society and Politics in the 21st century following World War II. The American Military is a manifestation of this Exceptionalism and when it does something with the use of force it is always to protect our Democratic system and protect our national interests. An example of this is the perception of the Iraq where US citizens perceived the invasion of Iraq to be freeing the people of Iraq and keeping the world safe for democracy. The truth tends to be different from the perception by the American public. There is the problem of Amnesia, where people forget what the US had done wrong like people will say the government did that in the past or not remember it at all.
People also preach the perceived values of the US even if their false and the idea the US has the right to break the rules to enforce the appropriate world order. This type of clouded perception of US intervention has helped lead to two costly wars, namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Idea that the US was on the side of right when it invaded allowed it to label others as the bad guys versus the good guys which is one of the biggest reason for the strategic blunder. The biggest mistake the Bush Administration admits too is not differentiating the Taliban from Al Qaeda. That mistake has helped continue years of bloodshed which looks like a result of that clouded perception by the US mindset and no victory coming closer. Again this idea of American Exceptionalism is a weakness Osama Bin Laden used to push the US to invade Afghanistan and undermine its legitimacy has a hegemonic power.
The United States repeated and made the same mistakes the Soviets did in Afghanistan such as invading the country and installing/propping up an illegitimate government. There is also a large disillusion that the problems could be solved in a few months where it would appear they cannot t be solved in 16 years. Both the Bush Administration and the Soviet Union thought they would have victory in Afghanistan relatively quickly, but long-term insurgency never seemed to be defeated completely. They would kill tens of thousands and there would be a battle the next day. There was also this feeling that once the Soviets got in, the fight was about “National Prestige”(Vietnam Syndrome)(much like American Exceptionalism). If they left they would shame their country, so the Soviets stayed for 10 years and then got kicked out. There was a very large disconnect between the Afghan culture, language and the invaders (US/Soviet). There continues to be a problem that stems very much from Afghanistan, Jihad to protect Islam whether or not it’s true it is an idea that has spread. There was the idea that both the Soviet Union and the US had about creating stability even though their actions did the opposite (referencing actions of Soviets in the 1980s vs the US today). In Afghanistan, they were almost always high casualties largely taken by poor farmers who felt they were defending their country or pro-government forces caught between tribal disputes. There is still consistent aid and travel by the Taliban in and out of Pakistan. There is also the problems of people deserting the Afghan army which the hegemony supports. Both countries become involved in a war they thought they won in weeks but ended up turning into something like the Sopranos where everyone is killing everyone and the hegemony is caught in the middle.
Possible Options To Increase The Legitimacy Of The Government Of Afghanistan *Gain control of opium production and put it under some form of governmental control. The government needs the money and many of them are already involved in the opium trade it’s a legal barrier of just legitimizing it to gain more secure control of the country. It always puts a lot of people to work and helps many people to make a living, after Afghan is more built up its possible to move it away from there after large improvements are made.
* Make peace with large portions of the Taliban and allow them to govern more legitimately (in the eyes in the Afghan people). This policy is difficult to implement and will require much work, negotiation, and large term forward-thinking on the part of policymakers in the US.
*Reduce bombing campaigns to be more strategic and at all costs reduce refugee populations
* Figure a way to build large housing developments in a cost-effective manner and again working with the Taliban to make a safer country long term. These policies would help alleviate problems of population displacement and allow the people of Afghanistan to live in safety.
*Work heavily with Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and other neighboring countries to improve stability within the Middle East. Some of the ways include increased military cooperation, political planning, and population management. Another solution is to partition Afghanistan between Iran and Pakistan. Iran would gain the primarily Shi’a Western regions of Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan would get the Sunni-dominated regions in Eastern Afghanistan. The key to this proposal is to implement it democratically through an UN-sponsored referendum. If this step is not done democratically, it can further embolden insurgents and make the already difficult situation in Afghanistan much worse.
*Governance should be looked at a provincial level rather than a Federal state (small self-governing provinces). Tribalism playing a role here.
*There needs to be a transition from a strategy of killing Taliban and Al Qaeda Leaders to legitimizing Afghan government, as key counter-insurgency means.
*Increase and incorporate region cultural understand, natural, economic and political problems as the heart of counter-insurgency.
What does Trump mean for the future of Afghanistan? President Donald Trump has made many negative and inaccurate statements about Islam, which does not do any good to help the image of the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Trump is appointing neoconservatives which are generally more hawkish than Neo-liberals such as President Obama or Bill Clinton. A more hawkish approach would be to increasing militarizing the situation by increasing bomb campaigns which will likely worsen the situation. Trump’s view of the conflict with terrorism as an ideologically struggle against where the enemy is 110% evil echoes the same problems the Bush Administration pushed where they failed (even Obama), a reasonable understanding of the situation is crucial to success. Trump seems to display a profoundly ignorant understanding of the conflict.
Trump has also spoken in favor of a hardened US policy towards Iran for the nuclear reason, which is largely rooted in ignorance and misunderstandings of the sorts. If a war was launched against Iran, it would ensure that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups become stronger than ever. Iran borders Afghanistan and conflict in the area would make both countries less safe. Trump’s dislike for NATO could mean the United States occupies Afghanistan alone and increases the requirements for more troop deployments. Trump embodies the idea of American Exceptionalism in a negative way. Trump’s position on Russia was formerly stable, but his advisers pushed him away from that stance into a more confrontational one due to the issue of Syria. Trump has already reneged on many campaign promises so it’s hard to tell what the policy will be but he has surrounded himself with the people who lead the country into Iraq.
Conclusion
The United States and NATO need to refocus on why they are in Afghanistan and the plans for the future. If they plan to continue fighting heavily in Afghanistan they need a new long-term strategy. The United States needs to increase accountability with aid and better keep track of resources in order to maximize efficiency. Increasingly high casualties taken by civilians and security forces undermine government legitimacy. A record number of refugees destabilize the region where countries like Iran, Pakistan, and others taken in millions of refugees. The new administration coming in needs to make sure it uses forces to find a political solution and not to defeat the insurgency because ultimately Afghanistan will be solved by a political solution whether it be dividing Afghanistan up or other solutions like negotiating heavily with the Taliban. If the government wants to become more legitimate curbing corruption is a major hill to climb as well as developing a proper narcotics strategy that makes sure the Afghan people are put first. Poor results have been shown to develop with high levels of violence, high population displacement, high corruption, and war. Perhaps it’s impossible given the problems to remove the label from Afghanistan of Failed State under the next administration.
Citations
Abramowitz, Morton, James Holmes, Seth J. Frantzman, and Ashton B. Carter. “How American Exceptionalism Dooms U.S. Foreign Policy.” The National Interest. The National Interest, 22 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
“Afghan Refugees.” Afghan Refugees | Costs of War. Watson Institute, Apr. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“Afghanistan: Record Level of Civilian Casualties Sustained in First Half of 2016 — UN Report.” UNAMA. United Nations, 25 July 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Afghanistan War Documentary. Dir. Andrew Mackay. Perf. David Cameron. Afghanistan: The Lessons of War. BBC, 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Atal, Nishant. “More Harm Than Good?” World Report. US News, 25 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Chomsky, Noam. “The War In Afghanistan.” The War In Afghanistan. Z Magazine, 1 Feb. 2002. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Chossudovsky, Michel. “The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade.” Global Research, Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
DeSilver, Drew. “U.S. Spends over $16 Billion Annually on Counter-terrorism.” Pew Research. Pew Research Center, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2016.
Dharapak, Charles. “The Man Who Keeps Tabs On U.S. Money Spent In Afghanistan.” NPR. NPR, 15 May 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
France-Presse, Agence. “US Afghan Army Suffers Heavy Combat Losses.” Defense News. Defence News, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Gall, Carlotta. “An Afghan Secret Revealed Brings End of an Era.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Jolly, David. “Afghanistan Had Record Civilian Casualties in 2015, U.N. Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Lodin, Azizullah, Jean-Luc Lemahieu, and Sandeep Chawla. “Corruption in Afghanistan:Recent Trends.” Islamic Republic of Afghanistan High Offi Ce of Oversight and Anti-Corruption (2012): 1-40. 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
McCoy, Alfred. “Tomgram: Alfred McCoy, Washington’s Twenty-First-Century Opium Wars (February 21, 2016).” Academia.edu – Share Research. Academia, Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Micallef, Joseph V. “How the Taliban Gets Its Cash.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“Milestones: 1977–1980 – Office of the Historian.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pamela Constable. “Heroin Addiction Spreads with Alarming Speed across Afghanistan.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 8 Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pike, John. “Military.” Peace Operations in an Insurgency Environment. Global Research, 1997. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pike, John. “Military.” The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan- 1979-1989. GlobalSecurity.org, 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
Roy, Arundhati. “‘Brutality Smeared in Peanut Butter’” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 Oct. 2001. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Scahill, Jeremy. The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016. Print.
Simon, Roger. “Down the Opium Rathole.” Down the Opium Rathole. Politico, 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Soviet War in Afghanistan 1979-1989. Perf. Http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/01/cp.03.html. Afghanistan. CNN, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Thompson, Mark. “The True Cost of the Afghanistan War May Surprise You.” Time. Time, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“‘US Drone Attacks Are Counter Productive and Terrorise Civilians’” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, Sept. 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Literature Review Citations
“Assessing the Bush Doctrine”, in “The war behind closed doors.” Frontline, PBS. 20 February 2003.
Mores, Bill, and Marilyn B. Young. “Marilyn B. Young on the War in Iraq BillMoyers.com.” BillMoyerscom. May 11, 2007. Accessed October 18, 2016.
Glaser, Charles L. “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models.” World Politics 44, no. 4 (1992): 497-538.
Gideon Rose, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World
Politics 51, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144–77.
Jervis, Robert. “Cooperation Under Security the Dilemma.” World Politics 30.2 (1978): 167-214. Social Sciences UCLA. Social Sciences Division UCLA, 1978. Web. 5 Dec. 2016
“Lawrence AS Theory.” Lawrence AS Theory. Accessed October 18, 2016. https://lawrencemediatheory.wordpress.com/2016/09/.
LOBELL, Steven E. “War is Politics: Offensive Realism, Domestic Politics, and Security Strategies.” Security Studies 12.2 (2002): 1-30. 2002. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Offensive-Defense Theory and Its Critics.” Security Studies 4 (Summer 1995): 660-91
Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000): 5-41.
One of the most significant tools in political communication is the use of public addresses and statements by the President of the United States. In addition to directly informing the public, Presidential addresses set the political agenda and put forward direct appeals to the American people. Throughout American history, Presidential speeches have focused on many different themes based on the mood of the public and the events occurring at both the national and international levels. One example of a particular type of Presidential address is the inaugural address. Since the creation of the office of the Presidency, the primary purpose of the inaugural address was to introduce the President to the American people and frame the underlying goals of the administration. The tones expressed in inaugural addresses have varied from inspirational to passionate, and reflect the overall attitudes of the American people. The use of distinct political communication concepts and theories can be used to analyze Presidential inaugural addresses and highlight their underlying messages.
One of the more notable Presidential inaugural address is Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address. During the 2008 campaign, Obama focused on different rhetorical approaches such as thematic and policy appeals. Thematic appeals are developed by Presidential campaigns in order to explain the broader ideals that a candidate seeks to represent. Some of the thematic appeals used by Obama during the campaign included the need for unity in the face of increasing divisions within American society, the need to overcome both racial and political divides, and the necessity for political change. In addition to the thematic appeals, the Obama campaign focused on several different policy positions including healthcare reform, national security issues, education reform, and the economy. The use of specific thematic appeals and the focus on policy issues highlighted the key theme of change that the Obama campaign sought to promote. In this way, Obama framed his overall message to distinguish it from those of rival candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The overall themes of the Obama Presidential campaign were carried over to the inaugural address and served as a way to frame the overall goals that his administration would seek to follow.
One of the main rhetorical approaches used by Barack Obama in his inaugural address is his use of optimistic language. Projecting an optimistic and positive tone during difficult times is an important communicative tool because it allows the speaker to impart a feeling of confidence and hope to their audience and create the impression that their actions will turn things around for the better. An example of a President presenting an optimistic message in their inaugural address was by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. In spite of the economic challenges facing America and the feeling of hopelessness felt by many, Roosevelt projected a sense of optimism by stating that the American people had “nothing to fear but fear itself” and by framing his speech in a way that projected the feeling that he understood the challenges and would seek to address them adequately. Much like Roosevelt, Obama attempted to project an optimistic tone in his inaugural address by stating that even though the problems facing the US will not be met easily, they will ultimately be addressed due to the resilience of the American people and due to the change in leadership as a result of his election.
Another rhetorical approach used in Obama’s 2009 inaugural speech is the call to action to address the economic crisis and to create a new foundation for future growth. Calling for action is important in any Presidential speech because it mobilizes public support for policy proposals and creates a higher level of support at the grassroots level to lead the charge for change. A notable example of a Presidential address that focused on the idea of calling for action to address the issues is John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address in 1961. In this speech, Kennedy stated the American people should, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Through such language, Kennedy was saying that it is in the best interest of the American people to address the challenges of the 1960s and, by doing so, would create a shared sense of duty to the country. Similarly, Obama stated that the people who claimed that the US lacked the ability to tackle emerging challenges ignored the resolve of the American people and what they can accomplish with unity between them and a common goal.
Another notable aspect of Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address was the fact that he was able to communicate two conflicting messages successfully. For example, Obama spoke of the fact that free market economic policies are a useful tool in creating prosperity and increasing individual freedom, but that it required a watchful eye to prevent its powers from spiraling out of control. Additionally, Obama explained that tough choices are necessary to address the problems at both the national and international level and also expressed optimism that the American people can and would solve such problems. Moreover, the language used by Obama in his speech created the impression that he is the type of leader who is not afraid to suggest that radical actions may be necessary to enact change and settle long-standing issues. It helps also that he is a mainstream and moderate political leader. By communicating two conflicting messages in his inaugural address, Obama is framing his ideas in ways that appeal to both people who supported him and reaching out to people who may be skeptical towards him or his policies. Additionally, by highlighting two contradictory values, Obama is attempting to create the perception that he is a political leader who would look to more pragmatic solutions to address the issues facing America. The idea of pragmatism was also expressed during the Obama campaign, in particular, his pledge to be an inclusive leader who would serve as a representative for all the American people in an uncertain time.
The Obama inauguration further appeals to traditional values. An important aspect of political communication is the promotion and highlighting of traditional values by political leaders. One of the most important traditional values prevalent in the US is religious faith and religious traditions. Furthermore, the debate over religion is significant within American political discussions. In his inaugural speech, Obama appealed to religious values by thanking God for giving him the opportunity to be President and mentioning that the US is a “nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” Additionally, Obama stated that religious traditions and diversity serve as a binding force within the US to strengthen American society, not divide it. The idea of religion as a unifying source within society further relates to the underlying campaign theme of Obama that cast himself as a unifying leader.
Barack Obama’s inaugural address also served as a way to reveal the oratorical qualities of Obama himself. During the speech, Obama utilizes language that can be considered to be formal, yet plain enough for the average person to understand. For example, Obama states the US “is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare our nation for a new age.” Through such language, Obama is stating clearly the problems facing the US in a way that can easily be understood by the American people. Additionally, Obama uses lofty rhetoric during the inaugural speech as well. An example of more formal and lofty rhetoric in the speech occurs when Obama states that “the words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.” The use of loftier rhetoric requires the listener to think more about the words to connect them to real-life events. Obama’s use of both formal and informal language is efficient because it enables his speech to have a poetic and rhythmic flow at the same time as allowing the average listener to understand the main points of the speech.
A number of symbolic themes also surrounded Obama’s inaugural address. The central symbolic aspect was that Obama’s inauguration served as a culmination of the ideas promoted by the Civil Rights movement and as a step forward for the American people. Additionally, the overarching theme of Obama’s inauguration was the idea of “a new birth of freedom,” which recognized the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The idea of the “new birth of freedom” served as a symbol in promoting the idea that the struggles faced by African-Americans over the course of American history had finally come full circle. The media further supported this symbolism in Obama’s inauguration by highlighting the past accomplishment of past Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. Despite the media’s positive to Obama’s inauguration, some argue that the press ignored the continued racial inequalities within the US and attempted to frame Obama’s inauguration as the end to such disparities.
In conclusion, the Presidential inaugural address serves as a valuable tool in political communication. An analysis of Presidential inaugural addresses allows political scientists to understand better the underlying goals and ideas of the President and the ways in which he communicates such ideas to the American people. Throughout his 2009 inaugural address, Barack Obama touched upon numerous political communication concepts such as the use of an optimistic tone to build confidence in the American people, appealing to traditional values, and calling for action to enact political change. Additionally, the Obama inaugural address promoted the idea that the struggles of the Civil Rights movement finally came full circle within the American political system. The Obama inaugural address further served as a way to introduce the American public to a new President and set the overall tone of the Obama Administration.
In the article “The political economy of democratic transitions,” Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman explore the effects of socioeconomic factors on democracy. Since the early 1970s, articles by Dankwart Rustow on democratic transitions have been reference consistently by experts. Rustow analyzed the socioeconomic, political, and psychological prerequisites of democracy. Democratization is the result of regime change, among numerous other factors. Most contemporary theories of democratization do not specify the resources that contending parties bring to negotiation and do not consider what is at stake for those involved. In contrast, the approach by Kaufman and Haggard examines the leverage of incumbents against the opposition. Additionally, they look at ten middle-income countries in Latin America and Asia to better explain where democracy came from.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman start in the 1970s. Guillermo O’Donnell argued that economic changes create issues and incentives for militaries and individuals to abandon democracy and turn to authoritarianism. Additionally, Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan (other theorists) instead argued that electoral institutions increased polarization (such as the recent Clinton-Trump Presidential divide). Both Linz and Stephan argue that polarization is a reflection of a failure of democratic leadership.
The collapse of authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe and Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s increased interest in democratic transitions. During this period, politicians were influenced by Rustow’s emphasis on strategic interaction and negotiation. For example, after the Cold War, a number of new democracies throughout Europe due to these strategic negotiations.
The approach by Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman focuses on the effects of economic circumstances on the preferences, resources, and strategies of the most important political actors in democratic transitions. In addition, they recognize that many factors contributed to the democratic transformations of the 1980s and 1990s such as diplomatic pressures, structural changes associated with long-term economic development, and the spread of democratization within neighboring countries Moreover, Haggard and Kaufman argue that there is no relationship between regime change and economic crises.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman go over the responses to the economic crises by authoritarian regimes. The financial crises of the 1970s and 1980s were far reaching and cut across all social classes, necessitating policy reform. Kaufman and Haggard argue that poor economic performance reduces the power of authoritarian leaders. Economic declines such as the 2008 Great Recession alter the status quo between governments and the private sector. Cooperation between private sector business groups and authoritarian rulers is crucial for the stability of authoritarian rule. If the private sector loses confidence in the ability of the government to manage the economy, businesses begin supporting opposition groups. In contrast, even though authoritarian regimes may decline in periods of weaker economic growth, they have greater power in a stronger economy because of public dissatisfaction.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman go on to further support their arguments by comparing transitions from military rule in ten different countries. The six crisis transitions the look at include Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, the Philippines, Brazil, and Peru. The regime transitions in Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, and the Philippines occurred during economic downturns. Even though the transition in Brazil occurred during economic recovery, it experienced severe economic shocks several years earlier and still continued to face a series of unresolved adjustment challenges at the time of their respective transitions. The four non-crisis transitions they examine are Chile, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey. The authoritarian governments in these transitions withdrew due to a variety of international and domestic political pressures. Additionally, the transitions in each country occurred against the backdrop of strong economic growth and economic stability. These conditions help to account for variations in the terms of the transition and the political alignments that emerged under new democratic regime.
The first area that Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman look at is the terms of the transitions in both the crisis and non-crisis scenarios. One area in which the differences between the crisis and non-crisis cases exists is through the processes through which constitutional orders were written and implemented. In Chile, Turkey, and Thailand, the transitions occurred under constitutions drafted by the outgoing authoritarian government. Even though incoming opposition political leaders succeeded in including some amendments, these constitutions provided the framework in which new democratic governments operated. On the other hand, opposition forces held much greater influence during crisis transitions. Their influence was particularly strong in the Philippines and Argentina. In such cases, opposition political leaders made choices with little input from the outgoing government and returned to the constitutions in effect prior to authoritarian rule. The relative strength of authoritarian and opposition forces in the negotiation process also influenced governmental design. The two objectives of outgoing authoritarian rulers were to preserve the military’s organizational autonomy and to impose limits on the opposition.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman then go over the fact that outgoing authoritarian political leaders often create authoritarian enclaves in the noncrisis transitions. The main authoritarian enclave set up by the outgoing authoritarian rulers was the military. For example, Thailand’s military continued to be a dominant force in its political system despite the country’s transition towards democracy and Pinochet remained as the commander of the Chilean military after he stepped down from power in 1990. Additionally, civilian oversight of the Turkish army remained limited after its transition to democracy in 1983. On the other hand, economic difficulties and loss of support prevented outgoing leaders from preserving either military prerogatives or other means of political influence in the crisis scenario. In the case of the Philippines, the military provided crucial support for the democratic transition and thus had considerable support within the new democratic government. Additionally, the Brazilian military retained the most extensive institutional rights of any military among the crisis transitions but left office constrained by deep internal divisions and a decline in support among both politicians and the general public. As a result, its influence on the new Brazilian constitution is relatively limited when compared to a number of non-crisis transitions such as Chile and Turkey.
Restrictions on political participation is another way in which both the non-crisis and crisis scenarios vary. In the non-crisis transitions, mechanisms of exclusion range from bans on political activity and outright repression to subtle manipulation of electoral laws. Exclusionary mechanisms were most visible in Turkey. For example, the government used legal restrictions on Islamic fundamentalism to clamp down on press freedom. The main labor confederation also remained banned after the transition in 1983 and the government sought to persecute union activists. Moreover, the Turkish military also banned numerous political organizations. On the other hand, the elimination of restrictions on labor and political groups was much more evident in the crisis cases. For example, labor unions regained the right to organize, strike, and press their political demands in countries such as Bolivia and many of the countries characterized by crisis transitions implemented open electoral laws that resulted in the development of strong multi-party political systems.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman also explore the political economy of new democracies. Even though both Haggard and Kaufman reject the notion that social interests determine the prospects for democracy, they recognize that the opportunities for political elites to mobilize support is dependent on how economic policy affects the distribution of income across different social groups. The first important factor that Haggard and Kaufman note is that the economic legacy of authoritarian rule determines the policy agenda of democratic successors. New democratic governments that come to power in the wake of crises confront a difficult set of economic policy choices. New democratic leaders can often trade political gains for short-run economic losses, but the transition itself raises expectations that government will respond to new political challenges. Additionally, policy reform is difficult because economic problems are pressing and demands for short-term economic relief are widespread. Economic evidence from middle income developing countries provides broad support for these expectations. For example, average budget deficits were almost twice the level of the pre-transition period, whereas in the noncrisis cases deficits remained low. Moreover, four of the crisis cases (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru) experienced hyperinflation during their first democratic governments.
In the noncrisis transitions, new democratic governments faced a different agenda of policy reforms. Even though economic reform was less pressing, even the most economically successful authoritarian governments were faced with societal issues that could erupt under democratic rule. Among the noncrisis transitions, the consequences of a large social deficit were most evident in Turkey, where inequality grew steadily during the 1980s. Despite such challenges, many of the countries that experienced non-crisis transitions made headway. For example, Chile’s democratic government had some success in reducing poverty and allowing for increased economic equality while maintaining strong economic growth throughout the 1990s. On the other hand, the continuing power of interests linked to the old regime placed limits on the extent to which the new democratic governments could adequately address the economic demands of previously excluded social groups.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman also argue that the transition paths also affect the evolution of the political institutions by which economic demands and policy dilemmas are addressed. In the non-crisis cases, new democratic governments often had to deal with the persistence of nondemocratic enclaves, the autonomy of the military establishment, and links between political groups and business elites. Efforts to address political legacies risked to unravel the democratic bargain and make the respective societies more at risk to return to authoritarianism. On the other hand, the crisis cases exhibited a different set of institutional dilemmas. The overall economic circumstances encouraged executives to concentrate their authority. Such a pattern has been evident where economic issues require complex stabilization packages. Divergent forces within the party system also increased the difficulty of sustaining support and strengthened the incentives for executives to govern in an autocratic manner. Democratic institutions may also be undermined by a failure to take swift and effective action in the cases of severe economic crises. However, the absence of institutionalized consultation with legislators and interest groups deprives executives of needed feedback that may be essential to correct past policy errors.
In conclusion, Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman explore the impact of economic crises on democratic transitions in “The political economy of democratic transitions.” Their case study includes several different countries from Latin America and Asia and focuses on factors such as economic performance and the types of transitions towards democracy in each country. Through their study of the experiences of each country, Haggard and Kaufman conclude that economic policy and performance serves as a way to influence both transitions towards democracy and the future success of newly established democracies.
During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution in the late 1780s, a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers were written. Primarily written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the purpose of the Federalist Papers was to promote the ratification of the Constitution and expressed the underlying principles of the new American government. In addition to discussing numerous issues relating to the American national government, the Federalist Papers also examined the roles and responsibilities of the Presidency. One example of a Federalist Paper that discusses a critical issue regarding the Presidency is Federalist No. 68, which goes over the methods of electing both the President and the Vice President, and the roles of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the event of an electoral tie.
In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion of the executive branch, specifically the subject of what is the most efficient way to elect the President. In his argument, Hamilton states that a system based on the Electoral College is the proper way to select the President for several reasons. One such reason as to why Hamilton backed the electoral college system is because it would give individuals the right to have a say in who was to be elected President while at the same time maintaining the stability of the American political system. Hamilton argues that the direct election of the President could result in a corrupt leader taking power without the will or the people, or ultimately the downfall of the American national government. Hamilton further explains that the Electoral College would consist of capable people free of any bias resulting from the fact that they do not hold political office and are unaffiliated with electors from any other state. As a result of such factors, Hamilton believes that the Electoral College process would afford a “moral certainty” that the office of the Presidency is filled by highly qualified and trustworthy individual.
Federalist No. 68 goes on to describe the procedures to select the electors and what is to occur in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. Hamilton mentions that the people in each state will choose who will serve as the electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of such state in the national government. Their votes, as Hamilton describes, are to be transmitted to the federal government and the person with the highest number of votes is to be the winner of the Presidency. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives is to select out of the candidates with the five highest number of votes, the one who is the most qualified in their eyes. Hamilton goes further and references several specific guidelines that the electors must follow. The guidelines mentioned by Hamilton are meant to prevent any bias in the selection of the Presidency and are intended to encourage everyday individuals to gain a level of involvement in the electoral process in the respective states.
Alexander Hamilton also discusses the methods for the election of the Vice President in Federalist No. 68. The selection of the Vice President its to occur in a similar manner to the President, but instead, the Senate has the authority to vote in the case of a tie in the electoral vote as opposed to the House of Representatives. Hamilton is highly critical towards the idea that the Senate should elect the Vice President and goes over two arguments against that particular point. The first argument is that if the Vice President is elected by the Senate, they would be beholden to that particular body. As a result, the Vice President’s vote in the case of a tie in the Senate may be influenced by the opinions of other senators. The second argument is that the Vice President assuming the office of the Presidency without being selected by the Electoral College may raise questions about their legitimacy as a leader. Considering such factors, Hamilton expresses opposition to the idea that the Senate should play the primary role in electing the Vice President.
Overall, Alexander Hamilton makes several valid arguments for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68. The strongest argument that he makes is the fact that it allows for impartiality and reduces the chances of a corrupt or unqualified individual from becoming President. Furthermore, the electoral college system may encourage an increased level of citizen participation in politics and foster a higher level of political knowledge. On the contrary, it can also be argued that the Electoral College is unnecessary in the contemporary political environment because it compels Presidential candidates to focus primarily on campaigning in the states with the highest number of electoral votes. Additionally, it can be argued that the direct election of the President through popular vote is more in accord with longstanding democratic principles and will give people an increased say in who will govern them.
In Conclusion, the issues surrounding the election of both the President and the Vice President are explored by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68. The system that Hamilton advocates for is the Electoral College. Throughout Federalist No. 68, Hamilton makes a compelling argument for the Electoral College. With a Presidential election process based on the Electoral College, Hamilton argues that the selection of the President will occur in a way that preserves the stability of the American political system and that the office of the Presidency will be held by a highly qualified person free of any corruption. Furthermore, Hamilton also explores the procedure is which Presidential electors are appointed and the election process of the Vice President in Federalist No. 68 as well.
Source:
Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist No.68.” The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2016.
Throughout the 2003 book FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, Jim Powell argues that the policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal did little to restore the American economy during the height of the Great Depression and that they only contributed to the stagnant economic situation and high rate of unemployment. In addition, he argues that the New Deal necessitated a heightened level of government intervention in the economy through the establishment of a myriad of regulations in nearly every aspect of economic life. To back up his argument, Powell examines the long-term effects of the New Deal and analyzes President Roosevelt’s policies in order to assert that they had an adverse impact on the economy overall. In the introduction, Powell attempts to clarify what went wrong during the Great Depression, declaring that it would have been “avoidable” with better governmental policies. He determines that “chronic unemployment persisted during the 1930s because of a succession of misguided New Deal policies.”
Overall, Powell’s assessment of President Roosevelt’s economic policies represents a new interpretation of U.S. economic history. The conventional belief among historians is that the New Deal reforms ultimately saved the U.S. economy from ruin and that the Great Depression was primarily caused by the lack of government regulation in the economy. For example, in the introduction to “The Great Depression: America 1929-1941,” historian Robert McElvaine argues that the Great Depression was caused primarily by the lack of government regulation and oversight in the economy, further stating that the policies of the New Deal ultimately succeeded in their goal to prevent another economic collapse as severe as the Great Depression. Additionally, McElvaine argues that President Roosevelt was too cautious with spending on the New Deal and that increased spending would have made the New Deal programs more efficient. In contrast, Powell argues that the Great Depression was caused in part by changes in monetary policy by the Federal Reserve in 1929 and due to the Federal Reserve’s failure to adequately respond to the subsequent drop in consumer demand.
Powell mentions that President Roosevelt harmed the economy by increasing taxes during his term in office. To end the Great Depression and restore economic stability in the U.S., Roosevelt sought to increase government influence over the economy by requiring higher taxes. Initially, Roosevelt pushed for higher excise taxes on products such as tobacco, liquor, and gasoline during his first year in office, and further sought to increase income taxes beginning in his second year. The 1934 Revenue Act impacted higher-income individuals, through raising taxes on all incomes above $9,000 annually. Additionally, the Social Security Act of 1935 introduced the payroll tax, which increased the cost of hiring people and prolonged high unemployment. The implementation of a variety of tax increases by the Roosevelt administration reduced the spending power of both average and wealthy Americans and prolonged the difficult financial situation.
Powell argues that the New Deal resulted in increased costs for consumers through the enacting of numerous federal regulations. Powell cites the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which set up the National Recovery Administration (NRA), as an example of a New Deal program that established new economic regulations. The primary goal of the NRA was to bring business, labor and government together to create codes of fair practices and to fix prices to reduce competition from monopolies. The NRA also implemented regulations requiring businesses to reduce output and keep established prices to increase the wages of their employees. In reality, the policies of the NRA increased the cost of consumer goods and did little to cure persistent unemployment. Additionally, the NRA created government-sanctioned cartels between industries through the establishment of uniform codes businesses had to follow. Ultimately, the NRA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935. After the NIRA had been overturned, economists declared that “the NRA on the whole retarded recovery” by increasing regulations on businesses and raising the costs of consumer goods.
Powell then goes on to explore the economic effects of the public works program established through the New Deal such as the Public Works Administration (PWA), which was established to construct complex and large-scale public works projects such as highways, bridges, and dams. As a result, most PWA projects tended to employ skilled workers as opposed to poorer and unskilled workers affected most by the Great Depression. Much of the money allotted for relief and public works programs were also used to promote favoritism and patronage towards supporters of the Democratic Party and President Roosevelt, thus encouraging corruption at the highest levels of government. For the Democratic Party to attract the loyalty and votes of states such as Nevada and Utah, Powell contends that the Western region benefitted most from the New Deal public works programs even though the area was affected less by the Great Depression than the South and larger urban centers in the Northeast.
Powell contends that the recovery from the 1937-38 Recession was worsened by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which specified a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour. The implementation of a minimum wage depressed the economy by increasing the cost of hiring new employees and necessitating an increase in wages that many employers could not afford. The minimum wage particularly impacted African American agricultural workers in the South. For example, the Labor Department reported in 1938 that some thirty to fifty thousand workers, primarily southern African Americans, lost their jobs within two weeks of the implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result of the economic downturn in 1938, many Americans began to turn against the New Deal, and it increasingly looked like President Roosevelt did not have a clear economic policy.
Despite the factual basis of Powell’s argument, there are several instances of bias throughout the text. For example, Powell shows bias towards the economic belief that reducing taxes and government spending is the primary factor that leads to economic recovery. Powell exhibits this conviction in the final chapter when he is comparing the recovery from the Great Depression with recoveries from preceding economic downturns. Powell mentions that the reason the U.S. recovered from the 1837 Recession and the 1920 Recession was through reductions in government expenditures and taxes. However, his comparisons may not be entirely valid, as at the time such economic downturns took place, the U.S. economy lacked the 1930s-levels of industrialization and globalization.
Moreover, Powell at times criticized President Roosevelt in a way that lacks objectivity. For example, Powell compares Roosevelt’s actions regarding economic regulation to the actions of dictators such as Juan Peron and Mao Zedong. Additionally, Powell accuses some of the advisors to President Roosevelt as pushing for socialism through their support of progressive economic policies. Powell then implies that President Roosevelt’s advisors pursued economic policies based purely on a form of idealism that did not take into account the potential negative effects of government intervention in the economy. The chapter titles may also serve as an indicator of Powell’s own bias, as they are worded as questions asking the reader why a particular policy of President Roosevelt and the New Deal negatively impacted the economy.
To sum it up, Jim Powell argues that the New Deal programs and the economic policy of President Franklin Roosevelt ultimately failed to end the Great Depression and instead worsened the economic situation in the U.S. In order to back up his arguments, Powell cites examples of President Roosevelt’s economic policy such as the low effectiveness of the public works programs, tax policy changes during the 1930s, banking policy, and economic regulatory policy. Overall, Powell makes a compelling case against the New Deal through the factual basis of his opinions, though his own personal bias takes away from the central focus of his arguments at times throughout the text.
In the Islamic world, there has been much debate over the relationship between Islam and politics. Some Muslims argue in favor of increased secularism, whereas others argue that both Islam and politics are interconnected. As a result, a diverse array of political movements has emerged throughout the Islamic world. The individual goals and agendas of various political movements in Islam vary; in addition, the factors behind their origins are diverse as well. One such example of an Islamic political organization is Hamas, which is based in the Palestinian territory. Hama is currently one of two political parties active in the Palestinian Authority, having won a majority of the vote in the Palestinian national elections in 2006. As a result of its use of violence to achieve political goals, Hamas is controversially classified by the U.S., Israel, and the European Union as a terrorist organization.
The creation of Hamas can be traced back to the Six-Day War in 1967. As a result of the war, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan, beginning a long and brutal occupation of both territories. As a result of Israel’s occupation, the local populations became resentful, and a powerful resistance movement emerged. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood gained influence in Egypt as an Islamic political organization denouncing the occupation. One Palestinian cleric and activist in the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin began performing charitable work and preaching Islamic scripture in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some of Yassin’s work and that of other activists included setting up schools, clinics, and youth clubs in Gaza and the West Bank. Initially, Yassin’s efforts were encouraged by some in the Israeli government, as it was believed that these efforts would discourage violence and allow for greater stability in the occupied territories. By 1987, Yassin established Hamas as the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip. Hamas was founded shortly after the first intifada, which was a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
The main political agenda of Hamas consists of the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Palestine and the liberation of the Palestinian territories from Israeli occupation. As many political parties and factions in Palestine do, Hamas views the occupation as a human rights violation. In addition, Hamas operates schools, hospitals, and religious institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and manages a highly effective social welfare system. As a result, the organizations popularity among the Palestinian people has grown. To achieve their goals, Hamas often carries out attacks against Israel through its military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigade. According to a study by the Council on Foreign Relations, Hamas is believed to have killed roughly 500 people in 350 separate attacks since 1993.
By 2005, Hamas began to get involved in electoral politics and immediately became a success. During the 2006 legislative elections, Hamas was able to gain a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. As a result of Hamas’ win, the U.S., Israel, and the European Union placed economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. Fatah, a rival Palestinian political organization, initially formed a unity government with Hamas. However, Hamas ultimately seized unilateral control over the Gaza Strip in 2007. It was at this point that Israel began to hold Hamas responsible for all terrorist attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip and executed several military campaigns against Hamas. In the military campaigns, Israel conducted against Hamas in the Gaza Strip since 2006, some 5,000 people were killed, and much of the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip was destroyed. In addition, Israel implemented a blockade against Gaza to isolate Hamas. Despite the fact that Hamas was weakened military following its conflicts with Israel and internationally isolated, the Palestinian people grew to admire Hamas for surviving in the fight against Israel despite the odds stacked against them.
Despite the fact that Europe, Israel, and the U.S. have condemned Hamas and view it as a terrorist organization, opinions regarding the organization vary throughout the Middle East. While countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are wary of embracing Hamas, the leaders of Turkey and Qatar openly back Hamas as a way to bolster popular support in their countries. The main Middle East backers of Hamas are Iran and Syria. In the past, both countries supplied Hamas with weapons and various forms of sponsorship. As a result of events such as the Syrian Civil War, Syrian support for Hamas has been reduced. Furthermore, Hamas refused to send in troops to assist Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has instead supported rebel groups fighting against his government. Additionally, international diplomacy has convinced Iran to reduce its funding for Hamas, and Iran has sought to increase its ties with separate resistance groups in the region. Due to the mixed opinion within the Middle East, the conflict between Hama and Israel is developing to a conflict between extremists and more moderate elements throughout the Middle East. Furthermore, the popular support for Hamas throughout the Middle East shows that the organization is becoming a socio-political movement with a message in support of Palestinian sovereignty that resonates throughout the Middle East.
In conclusion, Hamas was originally established as a social movement to promote general welfare in occupied Palestine. Over time, Hamas has developed into a political and violent military faction with the support of a number of Middle Eastern countries. The methods of Hamas vary from conventional political activities such as participating in elections to less typical ones such as using violence to achieve its goals. In response, numerous Western countries denounced Hamas through sanctions and military actions. In addition, civilian casualties from Israeli attacks against Hamas have garnered sympathy for the group and the Palestinian people in recent years. The actions of both Hamas and Israel have polarized opinions across the world. Only time will tell if both Israel and Hamas will come together to mediate their disputes, which may not be possible at this point in time.
Throughout the 1980 book The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America, Drew McCoy attempts to explore the competing economic visions in the U.S. during the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and how different leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had conflicting ideas regarding what economic system would be the most suitable for the newly independent nation. Hamilton advocated a commercialized economy in which manufacturing was fundamental. On the other hand, Madison and Jefferson felt that an agrarian economy would be best for the U.S. and would ensure its success as a nation. McCoy explores the relationship between political economy and morality and how this definition shifted during early American history. Furthermore, McCoy argues that the economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were short-lived and that several factors prevented them from becoming permanent.
In the first chapter, McCoy discusses the debate during the 18th Century over economics and morality and how they would later influence the founding fathers. By the mid-18th Century, Europe was undergoing a commercial and industrial revolution that led to profound changes in its economic conditions. In addition, the rise of industrialization raised many questions about its effect on society and helped to alter the opinion regarding luxury goods. Since the middle ages, luxury was considered to be a corrupting influence in society and a danger to public welfare. However, the 18th Century marked a transitional period in the perception of luxury goods. As a result of increased materialistic impulses, some began to redefine the meaning of luxury and explore the societal implications of the increased emphasis on luxury goods.
McCoy describes the reaction to the changes in the economy by philosophers during the 18th Century. A major critic of the new social order was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the commercialization of society would have a harmful effect on society and would promote a multitude of artificial needs and desires in men, to which they would become enslaved. Furthermore, Rousseau felt that the drive for status and wealth would never fully satisfy individuals and that it would increase social inequalities. In contrast, David Hume defended the commercialization of society that came as a result of the industrial revolution. Hume argued that the advancement of commerce, mechanical arts, liberal arts, and fine arts were interdependent on one another. As a result of their interconnection, Hume argued that the advancement of commerce would be beneficial to society by establishing a more refined culture. The differences in opinion regarding the growth of commerce and its effects on society would soon influence the debate in post-Revolutionary America over which type of political economy would develop in the new country.
McCoy first discusses the economic ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who served as Treasury Secretary under George Washington. The political economy of Hamilton advocated an aggressive expansion of American commercial interests and the development of a strong manufacturing sector with the cooperation of a strong federal government. Hamilton’s economic plan called for a funding of the national debt and the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, which would help the new government establish its credit and encourage the investment of private capital in the development of a commercial sector. Hamilton viewed the development of commercial relations with Great Britain as a way to supply America with the capital and credit that could ignite the economic growth that he envisioned .
Additionally, Alexander Hamilton felt that a manufacturing economy was a sign of social progress and that the social inequalities resulting from it were inevitable. Proponents of the Hamiltonian system argued that a growing manufacturing sector would also increase individual liberty by giving people more freedom in choosing an occupation. Hamilton’s economic policy was further pushed forward by the Jay Treaty, signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1794. In addition to averting a major war between both countries, the Jay treaty opened up limited trade between the U.S. and several of Britain’s colonies. The resulting increase in foreign trade helped to fuel further the commercial revolution and made its eventual spread to the U.S. increasingly inevitable.
In contrast to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison advocated a political economy that focused on agriculture and the growth of a household goods industry as opposed to rapid commercialization. The main component of Madison’s political economy was westward expansion and national development across space rather than across time. By encouraging a spread across western lands, Madison argued that the U.S. would remain a nation of industrious farmers who could market their surplus crops overseas to purchase manufactured goods from Europe. As a result, America could remain a young and virtuous country and at the same time offer a market for advanced manufactured goods from Europe. Unlike Hamilton, Madison believed that the rise of industrialization in countries such as Great Britain was a sign of moral and societal decay. He concluded that Hamilton’s plan threatened to subvert the principles of republican government and would lead to the “Anglicization” of the American government.
McCoy then goes on to describe the political and economic aspirations of Thomas Jefferson after his election in 1800. Jefferson described his election as a return to the original values and ideals of America that were overturned and repudiated under Federalist rule. The main aspects of Jefferson’s political economy included his advocacy of western expansion as a way to encourage the continued strength of a primarily agrarian economy; a relatively liberal international commercial order to offer markets for American agricultural surplus; and a reduction in government spending and the national debt. Through such steps, Jefferson sought to evade the social corruption of an increasingly commercialized society and preserve the republican vision of American society. Jefferson’s political economy was enacted through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. By purchasing the Louisiana territory from France, Jefferson hoped that the addition of new lands would preserve the agriculture-based U.S. economy and add to his notion of a continuously expanding “empire of liberty” across the western hemisphere.
McCoy main thesis in “The Elusive Republic” is that the political economy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ultimately failed and was not realized in the long term. Overall, the basis of his argument is strong and is based on several key factors. The first two factors were the outbreak of the wars resulting from the French Revolution in 1792 and the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794. Despite the widespread belief that European demand for American exports would decline as a result of the wars, it instead increased dramatically after 1792. McCoy argues that the wars resulting from the French Revolution marked a major turning point in the American economy because it made it profitable for Americans to export goods and materials to Europe. Additionally, the Jay Treaty helped to open the door to increased international trade and cemented America’s economic ties with Great Britain.
Furthermore, McCoy argues that the Louisiana Purchase augmented the spread of slavery and in turn, undermined the political economy of Jefferson and Madison. Despite the fact that the Louisiana Purchase removed several obstacles to the realization to Jefferson’s republican vision, it also exposed some of the contradictions within his vision. For example, the supporters of Jefferson frequently boasted of the isolation and independence of the U.S., but in reality American republicanism depended on both an open international commercial order and the absence of any competing presence in North America. The U.S., McCoy argues, could isolate itself from foreign influences only if it were to resign itself from international trade and westward expansion (204). In addition, the Louisiana Purchase fueled the spread of slavery as the U.S. expanded westward. The Jeffersonian political economy had hoped by the controlled exploitation of land would reduce the need for slavery and that it would eventually die out. In reality, the demand for slave labor increased dramatically as the agricultural industry expanded westward (252).
In conclusion, Drew McCoy explores the competing economic visions in early America in The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America. The major figures in the debate over political economy in America were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Ultimately, the political economy of Jefferson and Madison did not come to define the U.S. in the long-term, and several diverse factors prevented it from becoming permanent. Furthermore, McCoy discusses the implications of the shift towards a highly commercialized economy and the changing moral beliefs regarding luxury goods throughout the 18th and early 19th Centuries.
One major foreign policy issue facing the world over the past few years is the rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). ISIS is an anti-Western militant group whose goal is to establish an independent Islamic state. ISIS currently controls territory in both Iraq and Syria and is seeking to gain more territory throughout the Middle East. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, ISIS has taken advantage of regional instability and publically promoted itself online with graphic videos of threats and violence. The rise and spread of ISIS has further confounded policymakers with regards to their promoting stability in the Middle East. In recent years, there has been much debate at the highest levels of government over ways to combat ISIS and the reasons behind its creation and expansion. As with many other foreign policy issues, the debate over ways to fight ISIS has evoked debate on both sides, with some arguing for a more forceful response and others seeking to stay out of the conflict. The underlying reasons behind the rise of ISIS can be contributed to a number of factors such as the current instability in the Middle East, cultural and religious differences, and intervention in the region by western powers such as the U.S.
The formation of ISIS can be traced back to 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in response to the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. AQI played a major role in the Iraqi insurgency that followed. They reacted to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq with a variety of violent acts that resulted in the deaths of civilians and U.S. soldiers alike. Despite the fact that AQI was weakened after the death of al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, the organization survived and a faction of AQI separated and began to rebrand itself. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as head of this organization in 2010, changed its name to the Islamic State (IS) in 2011, and the group grew more violent as U.S. forces began to withdraw from Iraq.
As the U.S. further withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, IS began to expand its efforts into Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. In 2012, IS established the Al-Nusra Front, a satellite organization of IS headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, establishing a base for IS outside of Iraq. The expansion of efforts into Syria gave IS an opportunity to expand its ideology into a newer territory. In an attempt to prevent a rift between both organizations, al-Baghdadi unified Al-Nusra Front and IS in 2013. The name of the organization was then changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, al-Julani refused to align his group to al-Baghdadi and switched his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of the rivalry between the two groups, Al-Zawahiri announced the unification (between ANF and IS) had been annulled as of June 2014. On January 3, 2014, al-Zawahiri announced he had severed all connections with ISIS. As a result, the disputes between ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front worsened, leading to violent clashes between both groups and further adding to instability in the two countries. As of today ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, and Al-Qaeda all operate in the region.
One of the major underlying reasons behind ISIS’ rise is the instability of the Middle East. Historically, preexisting disputes in the region have been cultural and religious in nature and have only worsened with the addition of western intervention over the past century. One of the main religious disputes has been between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. This dispute causes tension and a desire for dominance in the region between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest and most stable powers in the region. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, whereas Iran is primarily Shia. Interestingly enough, Iraq and Afghanistan, two unstable countries, have sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Furthermore, the recent escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and debate over nuclear proliferation has stirred tension. In addition, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has destabilized the country and made it a prime recruiting ground for ISIS.
Another reason for ISIS’ creation is the Middle Eastern backlash against western intervention and foreign policy. After the discovery of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, numerous western powers sought to gain a foothold in the region in order to meet their need for resources. With the increasing demand for oil, the U.S. began to assert its influence by supporting western-backed dictators in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In addition, the U.S. has intervened on numerous occasions in order to keep these leaders in power in order to preserve its own interests, such as supporting regime change and military action against leaders who reject U.S. goals and interests U.S. policy of intervention in the Middle East is manifested in the Carter Doctrine, which was laid forward by President Jimmy Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address. The Carter Doctrine stated that the U.S. had the right to intervene in order to defend its interests in the Middle East, in particular, to ensure the access to oil. As a result of the Carter Doctrine, the Middle East became a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, resulting in increased anti-American sentiment throughout the region.
The most notable example of the U.S. intervening in the Middle East occurred in Iran in 1953 through Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was the CIA/Mossad backed a coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, giving more power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran as an absolute monarch for the next 26 years, executing an estimated 160,000 political opponents, using secret police forces such as SAVAK to torture and intimidate regime opponents such as leftists and Islamists, and allowing little dissent against his rule. One of the major reasons behind the US/Israeli-backed coup was that Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iran’s oil production and use the profits to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. This commandeering of its oil reserves did not align with U.S. interests. Operation Ajax is considered to be an important factor behind the 1979 Iranian Revolution and another reason Iran and the U.S. have a strained relationship today. This reaction to U.S. intervention resulted in heightened instability in the country, which allowed for the current Islamic Republic of Iran to take control. Similarly, the volatility derived from U.S. actions in Iraq and the Syrian Civil war has now promoted the recent rise of the similarly-titled “Islamic State” of Iraq and Syria.
The main ideology of ISIS is based off Wahhabism, a form of Sunni Islam that follows a strict interpretation of the Quran and promotes violence against non-believers. ISIS’ primary goal is to establish an independent Islamic State in the Middle East and expand its influence into other parts of the world. In order to achieve these goals, ISIS uses several brutal methods, such as mass killings, beheadings and systematic cruelty against those who would challenge their actions, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In addition, ISIS promotes its goals through videos and social media sources, by which the group seeks to gain more recruits. ISIS justifies its actions through religion, as members feel that they have a moral obligation to kill whoever stands in the way of their establishing an independent Islamic State.
ISIS has received funding from a variety of different sources. The main source is from oil smuggling on the Turkish border, through which ISIS sells oil from Syrian oil fields that it controls for as little as $25 per barrel. Another source of funding for ISIS comes from wealthy individuals in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These donors have long served as sources of funding for ISIS as well as for other violent anti-Western militia groups in the Middle East. Between all of those sources, U.S. officials estimate that ISIS is bringing in close to $1 Million per day in order to fund its operations.
ISIS also relies on foreign fighters from a number of countries. Some 20,000 foreign nationals are currently fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with roughly 3,400 from Western countries. In addition, an increasing number of U.S. citizens are seeking to join ISIS. According to Congressman Michael McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee, the number of U.S. citizens seeking to join ISIS this year is 150, up from only 50 last year. McCaul also stated that 18 Americans have already succeeded in joining ISIS and 18 others who have joined the similar Islamic terrorist groups. One of the members included is Douglas McAuthur McCain, a Californian who was killed in August while fighting alongside ISIS in Syria.
There are several possible ways in which the international community can defeat ISIS and restore a sense of stability to the Middle East. At this point, a ground invasion of Syria and Iraq by US troops would only make matters worse because it would result in another major war in the Middle East and directly play into the goal that ISIS has of drawing Western powers into the conflict. One such option to fight ISIS would be for the core countries such as the US to change their economic policy towards the Middle East. If the Middle Eastern Countries become economically interdependent on the United States and each other, the beginning of trade would bring an end to the fighting, leading to increased stability. Stability in the region would help to defeat ISIS because ISIS needs the instability of the region to survive. Furthermore, another thing that would go a long way to help encourage more stability in the Middle East would be for the US and other Western powers to acknowledge their past instances of intervention in the Middle East. Doing so would increase the level of trust between them and the governments of many countries in the region and make them more willing to work to defeat extremism and terrorism. Additional options to fight ISIS include working with local governments in the Middle East in order to identify threats, identify funding for ISIS and similar groups and work to increase public understanding with regards to the reasons why ISIS was created and its stated goals and ideology.
Works Cited:
Cambanis, Thanassis. “The Carter Doctrine: A Middle East Strategy past Its Prime.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC. 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Dassanayake, Dion. “Islamic State: What Is IS and Why Are They so Violent?” Express. Northern and Shell Media Publications, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Dehghan, Saeed Kamali, and Richard Norton-Taylor. “CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iranian Coup.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Dilanian, Ken. “US Intel: IS Militants Drawing Steady Stream of Recruits.” AP News. Associated Press, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 May 2015.
Ghitis, Frida. “Why ISIS Is so Brutal.” CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
“ISIS: Portrait of a Jihadi Terrorist Organization.” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.
Reynolds, Ben. “Iran Didn’t Create ISIS; We Did.” The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
