FARC In the News Again; Are Ongoing Peace Talks Worth It?

This week, we’ve talked about reasons, micro and macro, why rebels may fight and the methods they utilize. We’ve talked a lot about Syria and Somalia, and I thought it would interest you to talk about Colombia. They’ve been in the news for the past couple of years, and recently this article in which they’ve released a hostage caught my attention . I personally believe they grabbed the hostage in genuine fear; a former U.S. marine that fought in Afghanistan just hiking in the danger zone is suspicious to a guerrilla army.

Considered by mere criminals by many, there are still quite a lot of guerrillas in this faction which would indicate that there’s something more for which they fight. The FARC has existed for 50 years. There have been peace talks in the past couple of years. I’m somewhat skeptical to these since they have twice used peace talks as a tactic to reorganize and to gain power by force. However, this time, things do seem different. In class, we’ve spoken about the importance of reciprocity and future instances in which actors would have to work together. Concerning the peace talks, land reform amounts to recognition by both sides to achieve peace, a series of issues affecting the countryside need to be addressed such as loans and technical assistance for the farmers, and making a program of land restitution, because over the years over 6 million hectares have been taken by violent means by various factions including the FARC themselves. On May 26th of this year, the FARC and government very broadly agreed on the point of land reform. As also discussed in class, Colombia has difficult geography and needs to establish the presence of the state in rural areas (which is one of the five points in the peace talks). The other points are that drug trafficking needs to stop, the issues of political participation, guarantees for safety, demobilization, and the trickiest of all is justice. Some of these guerrillas are terrorists, and FARC are considered terrorists by the U.S. This mirrors the conflict resolution aspect we’ve covered in class.

This is a chance to save lives, destruction and forced displacement of Colombians. But, why surrender? What do the FARC get out of it? Why would they commit? What incentives are there to do so? As discussed in class and acknowledged by President Santos, “It’s much easier and more popular to make war than to make peace,” which echoes the quote by Kalyvas in class about how it's 'cool' to be a rebel.  How could such a sizeable group be convinced to leave behind their arms and reintegrate into society? They are already incredibly disciplined, united and able to control areas which is more than merely knowing the geography, and arguably already have their own society. According to the Americas editor, Michael Reid, of The Economist, a broad decision would have to be reached by November, otherwise they’ll get caught up in the election cycle.

A recent development has been that over the last few years, the leaders have started getting killed and captured. New intelligence and military capabilities of the government have allowed them to take out 39 leaders, (32 killed and 7 captured). The scales have been recently tipping in favor of the government, and this new variable is perhaps why the FARC is willing to put an end to the conflict. Their numbers have dwindled, however, there are estimated to be around 8000 full-time fighters and a similar number of back up militia.

Why stop? Previous governments have tried and failed at eradicating them, but is now the better chance to attempt it again? Even if there is a peace deal, will these ex-guerrillas be able to enter society?

Links:

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/27/us-colombia-rebels-hostage-idUSBRE99Q07V20131027

• http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21578684-deal-land-marks-welcome-breakthrough-peace-talks-there-still-much-do-and

• http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578682-understandable-thirst-justice-should-not-block-deal-would-save-lives-price

• http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21584384-hiccup-serves-confirm-government-and-farc-are-making-progress-edge-and

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/09/protests-colombia

• http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21582305-these-are-what-left-most-needs-peace-and-brotherly-love

This is a really cool link for an Organized Crime Database in Latin America and the Caribbean

• http://www.insightcrime.org/groups-colombia/farc

Here's a really cool file that shows how it's structured compared to Colombia's military, various scenarios, aims, achievements and more: http://www.insightcrime.org/specials/farc_peace_crime.pdf

Is Israel Tarnishing its Credibility in the International System?

CNN has recently reported that Israeli war planes recently bombed a Syrian military base.  Officials of the US government have said that the attack was to stop weapons get in the hands of terrorists in Lebanon.  With the recent de-escalation of US tensions with Syria, I feel that this attack is going to hurt peace talks that are already in progress.  This is one of the many cases of Israel showing itself to be brash in terms of dealing with other nations.  I think that Israel is acting a little to brash in the area of the world that they are in.  This is mainly because they try to act like the victims, when they are the aggressors for a lot of conflict in Southwest Asia.  Their other problem has to do with Palestine, and the treatment of the Palestinian people.

A lot of Americans see one side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that is the attacks the Palestinians carryout, but they ignore the issues that Israel causes.  With the increasing amount of West Bank Settlements that Israel continues to fund, the country is placing itself in the role of the villain more, and more.  The West Bank is supposed to be private Palestinian land, there has been no protection for this land, and Israel has been allowed to make illegal settlements.  This is to me shows Israel ignoring established International norms that deal with sovereign land, and with their reaction towards Palestinian attacks being at the most conservative a ten-fold reaction, it seems that they are not even respecting norms on war.

Violence has begun to spring up on the West Bank, but on the Israeli side.  The Israeli people within these settlements have begun to be violent to the West Bank residents that are Palestinian.  The attack in the talked about in the article is one where some Israeli's burned down a mosque.  This is a weird turn of events, because it would seem that Israel has an Israeli terrorist problem, which should mean that they need to focus on their country, and their people before they do things like attacking other country's military base.

What To Do...

In an op-ed published yesterday (10/29) in The New York Times, the current Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, pleaded with the American people at large to be patient with its nascent enemy-turned-ally, the new Republic of Iraq as it continues along the path of development of ostensibly liberal political and economic institutions. His plea is impassioned and he understands the great majority of the American people feel a sense of responsibility, even if somewhat vague, for the fate of Iraq and its precarious future.

But the American people should be wary, especially considering the content of Mr. Maliki's requests. As an article published by The Times earlier this week noted, since US troops left Iraq almost 2 years ago, Maliki has worked tirelessly to consolidate power in his government and secure the loyalty of key military units. Furthermore, Maliki and his administration, who represent the Shi'a portion of Iraq's deeply divided, sectarian population, have marginalized Iraq's Sunni population and done little to deter atrocities committed against that sect.

It would appear that Maliki and his administration are preparing for a civil war in Iraq to determine how power will be shared between Sunni's, Shi'a's, and the basically autonomous Kurds in the country's north. Unfortunately, there is little the US can do besides invade Iraq for the third time to stop this conflict. What we definitely should not do is arm one side with highly advanced weapons, like F-16s. Too late. If Iraq truly descends into all-out civil war, Americans are not going to be happy to see their war planes used to kill the very same civilians its' soldiers died less than a decade ago to protect.

Civil Wars and Their Effect on the World

Civil wars are more common today than interstate wars, but they tend to destabilize the region. We can see this happening around us today and in the Arab Spring Revolutions that have swept through the Middle East.  But in today’s globalized world, civil wars do not just affect the state they take place in. They tend to destabilize entire regions and drag other states into the fray. For example, After military forces loyal to Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, the United States responded by moving many missile destroyers and submarines within strike range of Syria. Russia then moved ships into position off the coast of Syria within the line of fire.  Syria responded by mobilizing troops and hiding soldiers within urban areas.  Posts on social media jokingly were predicting a third world war. In an Economist article, we can see that the war is Syria is already rocking the unstable foundation of Lebanon. It is important to study civil wars because they have the potential to plunge the entire region into war.

America’s hawkish attitude about intervening set the United States at odds with the rest of Security Council, with the only exception of France. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom tried to rally support in parliament to support the United States in intervening in Syria, only to be voted down in Parliament, which was embarrassing for both the United States and for Prime Minster Cameron. This is why we must study civil war. Civil wars have the potential to drag an entire region into conflict.

Links:

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2013/09/syria-crisis?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/08/syria-and-lebanon?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
• http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/09/syria-and-united-states?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
• http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21586600-deal-struck-america-and-its-allies-russia-envisages-removal?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

So Iraq is Totally Doing Great Right?

With the increasing violence in Syria the international community’s attention has been taken away from the continuing instability and crisis taking place in Iraq. The withdrawal of the United States from the region and the introduction of a “stable democracy” makes many people think that there was some sort of conflict resolution. Despite these misconceptions, the country has witnessed increasing levels of violence by bombings aimed at the majority Shi’ite population that now make up most of the government. Time magazine explains that the “Sunni bombing campaign [has been] aimed at the Shi‘ite-dominated political status quo” since the toppling of Saddam’s Sunni led regime by the US invasion of the country in 2003. Attacks have increasingly been coordinated to destabilizing the current political order. Groups such as al-Qaeda and the newly formed organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have been connected with widespread attacks covering large areas of the population. The Economist notes that the number of people dying in car bombings is the highest recorded since the civil strife in 2007-2008 during the Iraq War. To date there has been over 6000 fatalities resulting from the increasing domestic violence (Political Violence @ a Glance).

This raises an important question: Can the Iraqi conflict be classified as a civil war? There are good reasons to argue for this to be the case. What has been seen in the last several months has been insurgent operations directed by a minority ethnic group (the Sunnis) targeting the majority ethnic group in power (the Shi’ites) through terrorist operations. This has apparently been in reaction to grievances experienced by the minority group, and the opportunity to act on those misgivings during a time of political instability. Foreign Policy notes that the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has used his position to exclude, “Iraq's Sunni minority and [to centralize] his own power.” The report goes on further to explain the grievances felt by the Sunni population saying:

There is little question that Maliki's persistent exclusion of Sunnis and consolidation of power has kept Baghdad's perpetual political crisis boiling. The initially peaceful protest movement that broke out among Iraqi Sunnis earlier this year was driven by widespread grievances over his sectarian politics, his government's corruption, and his consolidation of autocratic power. Frustrations grew over his refusal to compromise, and exploded over the government's brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrations… his obstinate political approach created a perfectly toxic environment for Iraqi insurgents to build upon their successes in Syria.

These grievances may have given organizations such as al-Qaeda the opportunity to motivate the repressed Sunni population to rise against the current administration at a time when it is politically and economically vulnerable because of the government’s developmental immaturity. The civil strife has also been exacerbated by the violence spilling over the border from Syria. Maybe the US should pay a little more attention to Iraq once again and start thinking about whether the current situation can be categorized as a civil war. This distinction could change international position and action regarding the country, and is important to the United States since the lasting violence in Iraq could have lasting impacts with the future of US-Iraq relations.

Sources:

• http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21584052-civil-strife-now-vicious-it-was-five-years-ago-bloodier-ever
• http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/iraqs-months-of-sectarian-violence-threaten-to-trigger-a-civil-war/
• http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/18/iraq_s_moment_to_rise_or_burn
• http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2013/10/17/why-not-call-iraq-a-civil-war/

Power Lines Cause Conflict

In Miryang, South Korea there are still many old school style villages who still like to keep all of their traditions alive and well.  Many of these villages rely on their rice paddies and other crops that are planted in order to survive.  At the same time there is the more modern side of Korea, looking to keep up with the world.  Both are completely fine in my book, the issue that then has presented problems is the expansion of power lines from the modern into the lands of the traditional.  These power lines would be "encroaching on the villages, including their burial grounds."  These villages happen to be on the same route that a large "transmission route expected to distribute nuclear-generated electricity."  Many towers have already been built with many more to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/world/asia/koreans-say-power-line-plan-threatens-tradition.html?pagewanted=2

The villagers have been doing everything within their power to protest and keep these lines from being built.  Acts of rare self-immolation, demonstrations in Seoul and a two-year sleep-in by older women who have built tents on the tops of mountains on the plots the utility company cleared for some of the towers are only some examples that these village people have and are doing.  This is holding up a 166 billion dollar utility.  I found it interesting that this story seemed to receive a lot of coverage in South Korea  but as i continued reading the article make a good point of saying, "the story has grabbed headlines not only because it is a potent symbol of South Korea’s perennial struggle to reconcile its traditions with its hard-charging modern incarnation, but also because of a growing battle in South Korea over nuclear power."  As we have seen in the past, Korea is certainly interested in nuclear power and are on the hunt for it.

With many unsuccessful deliberations and negotiations, the villages have come up with alternative methods such as rerouting or burring the lines, but the electric company, Kepco, claims these methods to not be realistic.  This situation has escalated and actions are beginning to become violent.  Examples of these protests have now rose to, " men standing behind ropes tied across the path leading to the outpost, smoking cigarettes and watching for construction workers they feared would come at any time. Three nooses dangled from nearby pine trees. “To hang them or be hanged,” or  "women have also taken a fatalistic turn, building trenches in front of their tents they say will serve as their own grave sites if the authorities try to remove them."  It seems like these instances are something that could lead to war, however I don't see that as a truly feasible option.  It is however an example of how even the smallest of conflicts/actions can lead to an arising issue.

US Drone Strike in Somalia

In the month since the shopping mall shootout in Kenya which left over 60 citizens dead, the United States has taken it upon themselves to eradicate the Somali terrorist network al-Shabaab that planned the attack, whom are believed to be closely aligned with Al Qaeda. On Monday, a US drone struck a vehicle in Somalia killing two members of the radical islamist terrorist group al-Shabaab. This was the first US drone strike on Somalia in over a year. The strike killed Ibrahim Ali Abdi, a Somali who had helped carry out numerous attacks since 2008; including but not limited to attacks on the presidential palace, a Ethiopian consulate, and an UN facility. This drone strike comes a few weeks after a failed US Navy SEAL raid on the coast of Somalia in which the raid was met with heavy fire forcing the SEAL's to retreat. The motivation for the attack was a "fears of a similar attack against Western targets" (nytimes). However, US officials insisted that neither the SEAL raid nor the drone airstrike were a direct response to the Westfield shopping mall terrorist attack. Despite internal divisions in the organization and being exiled from urban regions of Somalia (Mogadishu & Kismayo) to less developed rural areas by African Union troops, the US clearly has identified al-Shabaab as a very dangerous organization.

Does the US have the right to use force against these proven terrorists without officially declaring war in the failed state of Somalia? The use of drones creates a particularly difficult situation in international relations because a state is able to use its military force against a sovereign nation, without having to invade the state. With the advancement of military technology, the opportunity costs of war are significantly reduced and the resolve of a powerful hegemony like the US to get involved in civil wars is increased. Is there enough evidence that Al-Shabaab is a direct threat to US security to justify these attacks, or is the US just protecting its interests and promoting regional stability? Interestingly, 2013 has been a 7-year low for piracy off the coast of Somalia with only 17 attacks so far this year, compared to 99 in the previous year (nytimes). Despite this lack of piracy this year, there is clear evidence that Somalia is a hotbed for terrorist activity, and deserves to be monitored. However, I do not believe there is enough evidence to warrant US military action in the area, especially without an official declaration of intervention.

Additional articles:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/us-drone-strike-somalia-al-shabaab-expert

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-somalia-shabab-20131029,0,3771061.story#axzz2j9HjLsci

Recent posts from around the political science blogosphere

As a reminder, there are a number of political science-related blogs worth reading - many of them recently featured posts quite relevant to our discussions. Here is a small selection, from the Monkey Cage and Political Violence at a Glance blogs:

• Is the nonproliferation agenda stuck in the Cold War?
• Learning from Afghanistan: Multilateralism is Hard
• Germany and NATO Reform? Please
• The Four Things We Know About How Civil Wars End (and What This Tells Us About Syria)
• Why Not Call Iraq a Civil War?
• Five things you need to know about the transatlantic wiretap scandal
• Farewell, Manas!
• Hedging by Rejection: Divining Saudi Arabia’s Surprise UN Security Council About Face for Clues of Regional Realignments
• Dangerous neighborhoods: Why the ‘Democratic Peace’ may have more to do with geography than democracy
• 40 years after the oil crisis: Could it happen again?

NSA and International Surveillance Crisis Deepens

The Obama administration's international surveillance crisis deepened last week as numerous European and South American nations have expressed anger and outrage following a fresh wave of revelations from the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last week. Germany's interior minister says his countries confidence in the United States is shaken amid claims that the NSA monitored Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone, according to CNN. As a result, Germany is sending a group of senior intelligence officials to Washington to discuss the reports. In a statement made Sunday by Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich asserted:

If the Americans intercepted phone calls in Germany, they broke German law on German soil.

Most recently, Spain and France have expressed outrage last week as it seems likely the NSA was also paying on hundreds of millions of communications between innocent civilians within their borders as well says the guardian. These accusations prompted the Spanish secretary of state to summon US ambassador James Costos to Madrid in oder to discuss the nature of NSA spying further.

According to an article in Japan Today, the US could lose access to an important law enforcement tool used to track terrorist money flows as Europe weighs a response to the new spying allegations. Today the German Justice Minister said that she believed the Americans were using the information to gather economic intelligence apart from terrorism and that the deal, known as SWIFT, should be suspended. The agreement, known as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, allows access to funds transferred through the private, Belgian based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which handles the movement of money between banks worldwide. The suspension of the agreement would require an overwhelming majority decision by the 28 EU member states and would represent a crucial disconnect between the United States and some of their closest allies, potentially undermining American national security.

Spying on foreigners is a core aspect of the mission of the NSA, one that it defends as appropriate given the nature of global threats and widespread spying. Do you think that the NSA has abused its power with regard to international spying? And if so, should programs such as SWIFT be suspended despite the fact that this may hinder national security efforts on the behalf of the United States? 

Syrian Refugee Problem

Syria is a perfect example of how costly war can be. Syria is paying for the war in human life, infrastructure, and economy. These costs of war are not going to just hurt the country during the war, but even after the fighting stops. The Syrian infrastructure and economy is falling apart and there have been over 115,000 people killed and millions have been displaced inside and outside of the country (Barnard 1-2). People are unable to go to work and go to school because of the violence and military blockades. According to the New York Times, Syrian children have not been in school for over a year and this can cause there to be a “lost generation” in Syria (Barnard 1-2). The New York Times quoted, ““It is as if we are living on Jupiter or Mars,” said Qusai Zakarya, a spokesman for an opposition council in Moadhamiya, south of Damascus, where the government has not allowed aid convoys to enter for nine months” (Barnard 1-2). What is going on inside the country is devastating, but what is going on outside of the country is what is starting to become a concern for the international community.

According to the New York Times, there are over 504,000 refugees that have fled into Turkey (Addario). Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister in an article to the New York Times, expressed his ““deep disappointment and frustration because of the absence of a proper reaction by the international community” to the humanitarian crisis” (Barnard 1-2).  One of the organizations that are aiding the Syrian relief crisis is the Mercy Corps. They estimate that 2.1 million Syrian refugees have fled the country, mainly to Jordan and Lebanon. More than half of them being children. They estimate that by the end of the year the number will reach over 3.5 million (Keny-Guyer).

But what do millions of refugees in neighboring countries mean for the rest of us? Refugee spillover can have a number of consequences within Syria and in the neighboring countries. First being the economy of the haven country. A country that suddenly has an influx of half a million people or more, means that there is going to be a drastic increase in cheap labor. Meaning that the price of labor will go down for people in that country and there will be more competition for jobs.  This can cause internal conflict and even ethnic conflict within a country. The French President Francois Hollande in an address to the European Union warned neighboring EU countries that the spillover of Syrian refugees could pose a risk of them coming into Europe ("World Bulletin"). With the current economic crisis in the EU and the soaring unemployment rates in countries like Spain, an influx of refugees may push the EU economy over the edge. While in Syria, after the fighting ends, will have lost millions from their population. Then causing them to feel the consequences of war, making rebuilding the infrastructure and economy of Syria nearly impossible.

New York Times Estimations of Syrian Refugees:

IRAQ 197,000 Syrian refugees

LEBANON 790,000 refugees

TURKEY 504,000 refugees

JORDAN 543,000 refugees

Addario , Lynsey. "The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis." New York Times. 16 OCT 2013: n. page. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/16/world/middleeast/syrian-refugee-crisis-photos.html>.

Barnard, Anne . "Hardships Mounting for Refugees Inside Syria." New York Times. 24 OCT 2013: 1-2. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/middleeast/hardships-mounting-for-refugees-inside-syria.html?hpw&_r=0>.

"France sees Syrian refugee risk to Europe." World Bulletin . 26 OCT 2013: n. page. Print. <http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=121551>.

Keny-Guyer, Neal . "Syrian humanitarian crisis demands new perspective on emergency response." Mercy Corps. 10 OCT 2013: n. page. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/jordan-lebanon-syria/syrian-humanitarian-crisis-demands-new-perspective-emergency-response>.

Obama is naive to expect settlement in Syrian dispute

Going back material from earlier in the semester, we see that conflict is usually the result when states have competing interests. The prisoner's dilemma  is an example of how war prevails over civilized peace agreements more often than not. What we see in Syria is a scenario in which peaceful settlement is next to impossible. In the blog, "Political Violence at a Glance", Barbara Walter looks at civil war and the four themes that contribute to that conclusion. 1: Civil wars last 10 years on average . 2: The more factions, the longer the war. 3: Most civil wars end in decisive military defeats. 4: Most settlements include a segmentation of power among competing interests which might cause more serious problems than a central stabilized government. USA Today shows an article highlighting the difficulties in the basic function of offering humanitarian aide in the face of 13 rebel groups.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/25/envoy-un-syria-appeal-has-made-little-difference/3189471/
http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/

Syria has over 13 factions competing for power and some cultural differences that make settlement almost out of the question. As a realist, and someone who does not believe that interventionism is effective at promoting peace, I believe that Obama should withdraw US interest from the war. As cultural imperialists, the US seems to take a significant role in such conflicts historically, but one might say that our interactions with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea have had questionably successful outcomes at best. Lets shift to the ideas of capitalistic peace and promote free trade and commerce to create healthy global inter-dependency. The cost of our involvement in these wars have cost America billions over the years and threatened our economic wellbeing.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/al-qaida-leader-callsforeconomicattacksonus.html

The US should Not Intervene in Somalia

Since someone posted earlier in the week about how other countries should intervene in Somalia, I thought it might be good to present the other side of the argument. I think that its easiest to look from the perspective of why the US shouldn't intervene because thats the closest context we have to foreign policy action. Also since we're the global hegemon I think that its the most realistic scenario. Additionally I looked specifically at intervening with military because we already send a lot of aid, and relief to the area so I don't think that arguing anything along those lines is a big enough break from the status quo. The mentality that the US should not intervene in Somalia functionally rests on three main arguments: we did try to help once, and it went terribly, perhaps even making things works; we have tried once already this month and it also didn't go there; and finally, intervening in Somalia doesn't give the US any brightline to guide when the US should and should not intervene.

One of the more compelling arguments for me as to why intervening in Somalia would be a bad idea is that we have been there and done that, and it went terribly. If anyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down (if you have never heard of it refer here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265086/?ref_=nv_sr_1) it pretty closely explains the end of the US aid in Somalia, and how it didn't end well for anyone. This article from the History channel actually offers a decent recap of the lead up to the incident under H.W Bush, and afterwards. That can be found at this link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/last-us-troops-depart-somalia. Essentially, the failure of the US action was under the Clinton administration when he sent in about 400 US Marines to eliminate Aidid who massacred UN forces. It led to 18 US deaths, and led Clinton to pull all forces permanently. This shows that the US attempted to fix the solution, and not only utterly failed, but allowed Adid to continue, emblazoned by his success over the Americans. I think that another attempt to fix the problem could likely lead to another total failure, and the risk for troops outweighs.

Not only have we failed in the long past, but in a recent attempt to help intervene we once again failed. The Guardian posted at the beginning of the month a group of Navy Seals attempted to eliminate a terrorist target Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir. (Full article is here:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/us-raid-al-shabaab-somalia-navy-seals) However, because he was highly shielded by civilian targets they were unsuccessful. I think this is what the US would be facing in an attempt to intervene to stop the rise of terrorism in Somalia. I think in the current climate of Somalia, US forces are facing civilian losses, or the inability to get access to the major perpetrators of chaos. And any attack on civilian forces would only help the terrorist forces there, and potentially lead to more instability than already exists.

Overall, I think that a US intervention in Somalia would at best solve nothing, and at worst lead to greater instability in the country and potential loss of American lives. Additionally, I don't think it provides any bright line for US foreign policy on intervention. Why Somalia? Because there are terrorists? If we follow that policy then our military would be pretty far stretched. On top of that, I think that it brings more hypocrisy into US past foreign policy decisions, particularly with the Sudan and Rwanda areas where most of the action could have easily been labeled as terrorism. At the end of the day I think that it would create a more ensnarled US foreign policy, and lead to a greater mess than solution.

Peace in Mozambique Shattered

Eleven years ago, a peace treaty that formally ended 16 years of the southern Africa bush conflicts was signed.  This agreement between leaders of the Mozambique government and the rebellion was drawn out to initiate a cease fire in order to help aid the millions of starving people throughout the region.  However, The Mozambique National Resistance, otherwise known as Renamo, continued to widen their influence.  Tensions between the Renamo and the Mozambique government remained high even in lieu of the agreement.  As we read in Werner and Yuen, compliance occurs with joint ratification, unless a third party is involved.  Although these two groups do not belong to separate states, I would argue this concept could be applied in this situation.  Typically, the third party would be another state or government putting pressure on two states to form an agreement.  In this situation, the third party was the civilian situation.  The government and the rebellion did what was in the best interest of the civilians at the time and established a peace agreement, regardless of unsettled tension between them.  This agreement was able to last in order to provide citizens with food and water without fear of violence.

Now that the civilian situation is not as severe, the Renamo does see any benefit in maintaining the agreement, especially after the government seized a base where their leader, Afonso Dhlakama was residing, according to BBC News.   A Renamo spokesman, Fernando Mazanga is quoted in a recent New York Times article stating that “peace is over in this country…the responsibility lies with the Frelimo government.”   Even though civilians themselves were not able to put significant pressure on the government for peace, they were enough of an influence to force compliance between two opposing forces.  This compliance was bound to collapse at some point.  In a 1992 article in the New York Times published soon after the initial agreement, it is acknowledged that “neither the Government nor the rebel leaders fully control their forces, so it is impossible to say when the agreement will translate into a solid peace.”  Although this somewhat shaky peace was maintained for 11 years, it is clear that hostility between the two groups will remain until a true cease fire can be maintained and enforced.

Somali Intervention?

Truthfully I do feel that other nations have a responsibility to intervene in Somalia. Conditions there are deplorable and they need a working government. Also civilized nations cannot allow a broken barbarian land to threaten their security. http://kenopalo.com/ This link is to an African based blog highlighting an incident of Somali guerillas making a terror raid on the capital of neighboring Kenya 1 month ago.

A failed state like Somalia should be reduced to a size that can actually form a cohesive government, and the remaining territory should be absorbed by its neighbors. But this must be done carefully or it is a recipe for further disaster. If the neighboring countries are competing for land against each other, or are not capable of administering their new holdings effectively then it will surely end in more rebellions and war. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/oct/21/nairobi-westgate-shopping-mall-soldiers-cctv-video This is a video posted on The Guardian today in which the Kenyan soldiers fighting the guerilla raiders from the last article are seen looting a store in their own capital. This calls into question the capabilities and resolve of they Kenyans and highlights the danger of simply allowing them to take power.

The international community must step forward in this case and carefully negotiate and mediate the territorial disputes, and then enforce peace in the new boundaries. If this means involving UN or US peacekeeping forces because the locals lack the training than it will be a worthy task for them. They must come as peacekeepers upholding legitimate governments, though not as conquerors.

The situation is certainly urgent however. The Nairobi attack was far from an isolated incident. Throughout Somalia fighting and terror continue. Just 2 days ago there was another bombing in Beledweyne, Somalia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24595012 With violence and death ongoing, an international call to action is needed.

American Red Cross Hostages

As the United States’ government shutdown and debt ceiling have been postponed, it is time to return to the extreme political unrest and conflict within Syria. More specifically, it is time to directly examine the international community’s relationship to the three remaining International Red Cross volunteers that were taken hostage by Syrian opposition activists. Although the fate of the three remaining Red Cross hostages continue to be unclear, it is likely their detainment by rebel forces could invoke the international community, and force the Syrian opposition to lose some of its legitimacy or international appeal. Consequently, this lose of this legitimacy could influence the international community to pursue direct intervention within the Syrian civil war or possibly influence conflict in the late future, should the rebel forces win. 

Recently, Syria has become increasingly prone to kidnappings and other incidents involving international or foreign aid workers, which coincidentally is during the same time a humanitarian situation is beginning to reach a point of no return. However, this situation in particular can become extremely influential in eliminating rebel forces. This is because the seven Red Cross workers that were originally seized on Sunday, October 13, 2013, outside the town of Sarqeb, a city within Syria’s northwestern province of the Idlib was manned by an al-Qaeda affiliate, which could inevitably benefit the Assad regime. Currently, Assad’s Syrian government has used “terrorists” as a blanket term for all opposition forces, which has gained the dictator some political appeal internationally. This identification has been reinforced across cities, regions, and countries, since as reporters have begun to identify Syrian opposition as terrorist groups, which is clearly seen in a Lebanese newspaper that described, “an armed terrorist group… kidnapped a number of workers in the mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Syria.” Obviously, if the Syrian Opposition continues to associate with Al-Qaeda an international response will be necessary in order to prevent extreme religious groups from taking power. Since Al-Qaeda has been seen as one of the greatest threats to western-democratic safety and security, the fact that Al-Qaeda is a confirmed associate with the rebels deters much international support for the Syrian rebels movement towards a more democratic system. Therefore, this could mean that Assad’s government is receiving a more positive outlook internationally because these “rebels” have become “terrorists,” at least in the eyes of the media. In this sense, the Red Cross hostages bring forth an international dilemma where it is difficult to truly determine the stability of the Syrian opposition, or possibly even question its stability and relationship to the rest of the world. 

These kidnappings are extremely significant and bring forth an entirely new issue when interpreting the Syrian nation. As Al Jazzeera Zeina Khodr, a reporter in Beirut, commented these kidnappings reveal there is “a lot of insecurity in the north, even though most of that area is held by the rebels.” This is probably because the current governmental forces no longer control areas such as Idlib, which have created areas where there have been absolutely no claims of responsibility within the Syrian opposition. Consequently, Jitka Korenkov for the Czech People in Need, an aid group working in Aleppo city of Northern Syria commented that “the security situation has got much worse in recent months, especially in August given the rise of the influence of extremist groups directly linked to al-Qaeda.” This has made much of the countryside in Idlib, as well as the rest of northern Syria become areas filled with Islamic extremists, and increasingly unstable, and a possible threat to international security. 

It is possible some of these groups are planning to use the hostages as leverage in bargaining or at least getting more international attention, but situations are becoming increasingly more dire for those living within the country, and international intervention seems to be an ever increasing point of consideration within the country. Kidnapping may be the first step towards international awareness and serious contemplation of retaking and reestablishing areas of regional stability. However, what is far more alarming is the fact that rebel forces are in control of specific areas, but lack organization and responsibility. This lack of stability within the rebel party has already gotten severe public criticism, but it is unlikely to seize in the near future, instead the hostage situation brings forth an even greater concern. As Turkish diplomat Ahmet Uzumcu discussed the difficulties international aid workers were having in Syria, he also mention that one chemical weapons site was left abandoned and was currently in rebel-held territory, wherein routes went through opposition-controlled areas that prevented access, due to lack of rebel cooperation. Inevitably, this implies the Red Cross hostages bring forth a breakdown of leadership and communication amongst the Syrian opposition, which is concerning if any political, religious, or extremist group possibly gained access to any chemical weapons that might be in this facility. If the hostages are beginning to show that organizations such as Al-Qaeda are becoming increasingly significant players within the Syrian civil war and unrest, the international community will have to respond in order for the global protection of world citizens. 

Therefore, conflict may escalate within the Syrian region as security with international workers increases and the power and safety of other nations is threatened. Although the current course is unclear, it seems that direct intervention may become necessary if radical or extremist groups begin to take more power in the disorganization of the Syrian opposition’s rebellion. 

• http://www.euronews.com/2013/10/14/four-red-cross-workers-freed-in-syria-three-remain-hostage/
• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/10/four-kidnapped-aid-workers-released-syria-2013101413640975846.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-syria-four-of-seven-kidnapped-red-cross-red-crescent-aid-workers-are-released/2013/10/14/a3a62f06-34f8-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/13/us-syria-crisis-redcross-idUSBRE99C04E20131013
• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/10/red-cross-members-kidnapped-syria-20131013165812823368.html
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/14/red-cross-4-of-7-kidnapped-staffers-in-syria-safe/2979129/

Somalia: This is Civil War, This is Our War, Not Yours

This week in class we are discussing civil war and its relevancy for war, peace, and strategic defense.  I thought a good and proper topic to bring up is the issue of Somalia.  Somalia has long been a "country" of severe turmoil and has been the topic of heated debate in many aspects particularly those regarding state sovereignty and the definition of a failed state.  So where does the line between state sovereignty end and other state's interests begin?  According to Merriam-Webster, sovereignty is defined as a country's independent authority and right to govern oneself.  Unfortunately for Somalia, civil war, genocide, and a complete and utter lack of economic activity has left this nation without a central government.  This has given rise to numerous issues, the most famous of which being the Somali pirates.  These pirates have for years been attacking unarmed vessels located in international waters creating issues of jurisdiction and prosecution/counter-piracy measures.

Along with piracy, Somalia is now becoming a hotbed for terrorist activities.  The recent hostage crisis in Kenya leaving at least 67 people dead on 21 September 2013 has left the international community feeling frustrated, distraught, and down right angry.  Recently, the US launched a raid in Somalia in an attempt to capture a HVT (High Value Target) associated with the Kenya hostage crisis.  Though the US navy seals were unsuccessful, what is important here is the issue of whether or not a country like the US should be deploying troops into another country's borders without any declaration of war or diplomatic discussions.  The counter-argument can of course be raised that Somalia has no diplomats with whom to speak with which therefore leaves only military action as a suitable means of resolving such threats.  Indeed, in a globalizing world where countries are becoming more and more intertwined with one another, the line needs to be drawn where a state's sovereignty stops and the international community's best interests begin, starting with Somalia.

Are Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Chad Wrong For the UN Security Council

This week the UN Security Council added 5 new non-permanent members including Chad, and Saudi Arabia.  These two particular countries have caused commentators to weigh in on if they are
worthy of theses seats.  The other three countries were Lithuania, Chile, and Nigeria.  Hillil Neuer of UN Watch thinks that these additions are not worthy of their new sots on the security council for particular reasons (http://www.newser.com/story/176071/un-elects-5-new-security-council-members.html).  These problems being the downright oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia, were women cannot do anything, and the fact that Chad uses child soldiers within their military.  I can see the criticism that Neuer has, because the UN Security Council is the most important cooperative body in the international system, and with these two regimes having seats on the security council it could look like the security council condones these practices.  However, I think that such a prestigious place in the international system would force these two countries to move closer towards the international norms of rights for all, and not using children as soldiers.  This happens to be what Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch believes.  I think that the power associated with a seat moves a nation towards international norms.

However Saudi Arabia gave up their non-permanent seat.  This seems unexpected, however they have some grievances that have been caused by the security council, which begin with the lack of a quick solution to the Syrian civil war, the lack of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the inability to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons into Southwestern Asia.  I would think that being on the security council would give them the ability to naturally effect change within the region, so I do not look to deeply into these reasons, however I do think that this is a reaction to the US talking to Iran, who are a longterm regional rival to Saudi Arabia.  I think this is unfortunate for the region, because a nation feels that they are not being heard, which is the main point of our international system.

The Supreme Court and Government Shutdown

I came across this op-ed in the Huffington Post that argued a link between the Citizens United ruling in 2010 that allows unlimited campaign donations by businesses and corporations.  The author argues that this ruling has forced many Republicans not in favor of the shutdown to go along with the extremist wing of their party as a result of being obligated to act in their financial supporters' interest. This argument is obviously very biased, but it does utilize logic worth considering. I think this is an extremely interesting case for looking at how domestic politics can have an impact on international relationships.  As tomorrow is the date that we will default on many of our loans, and we have yet to see an agreement to raise the debt ceiling (although the day is not yet over, see Senate Paves Way) this is a very serious issue. An earlier post showed that we owe debts to foreign countries, but many other domestic actors as well. Defaulting on our loans will certainly have a negative impact on our economic relationships (the behavior of our Congress has already cast a negative light on us), as well as potentially making us look weaker overall, incapable of running a functioning government. Defaulting will have a greater impact on smaller countries than economically strong ones, and this will breed even more resentment. This shutdown has greatly increased the amount of uncertainty other nations feel about our actions as a whole.

When looking at institutions that may affect international relations, we generally look at electoral structure and the structure of the executive branch in a country. But in this case, the Supreme Court is being criticized for having allowed the further polarization of party politics.  This institution's decisions have a much more serious and longterm impact and if the causal link is accurate between Citizens United and moneyed interests controlling Congress we should be very concerned. This perhaps points to the fact that Democracy's institutions for resolving conflict are not as strong as we like to think.

Nuclear Peace talks between U.S. and Iran

Today Iran met with the P5+1 which consists of the permanent members of the U.N. security council  (Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States), and Germany at a United Nations palace to address the current international concern of Iran's nuclear program as reported Foreign Policy. While at the meeting the U.S. counterparts, led by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and other Americans met with Iran, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for about an hour to discuss different diplomatic efforts according to The Los Angeles Times. This provides hopeful signs of peaceful negotiations, as Iran and the U.S. have not met in over seven years to discuss anything about Iran's nuclear program. Along with the meeting with the United States, the Geneva talks also sparked signs of hope when Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif began the day with an hour long PowerPoint presentation "Closing an Unnecessary Crisis — Opening New Horizons." The meeting so far has shown promise as it has ended a six month period in which Iran refused to get rid of uranium enrichment in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.

While the talks between the Iranian government and P5+1 will not necessarily resolve any major issues, it shows Iran's willingness to discuss issues with the U.N. and seek possible agreements as read in globalpost. This could prove beneficial to the world as nuclear tensions continue to rise throughout the world constantly threatening world security and war. This also will help ease tensions in the Middle East especially between Israel and Iran. As the discussions continue, international sanctions on Iran are likely to ease up helping spread more peace into the region. As discussed in class, the security dilemma plays a huge role as well as the threat of other nations constantly try to gain power over other countries. The threat of nuclear force also serves as a powerful offensive power that Iran wishes to attain in order to provide more dominance in the region. This also incorporates the ideas of having alliances to be able to defend one another and seek out diplomatic problems in venues such as the United Nations. While there are no guarantees anything good will come from these talks it does show that Iran is finally willing to meet over its nuclear program and possibly come up with a diplomatic resolution.

Intergovernmental Organizations and Interstate Conflict

The conflict in Syria has, of course, been an ongoing headline topic recently, with international implications increasing this year.  The focus of this post is on these intergovernmental reactions to the Syrian Civil War, namely the United Nation's recent response.  The New York Times published an article last month detailing a deal made by the U.N. Security Council regarding the Syrian chemical weapon attack of unknown origins.  The chemical attack on Aug. 21 killed over 1,400 people while the country still runs under the al-Assad regime.  This deal provided legal action in order to enforce a chemical weapon disarmament with the agreement of all five permanent U.N. members, as well as the total fifteen member-states.  In an attempt to successfully implement the change, the deal arranged possible economic sanctions and even military attack in the case of Syrian noncompliance.  However, if the issue is not resolved, the U.N. Security Council will meet again to address the future course of action, and the permanent members each have veto power, including Russia.

Secretary of State John Kerry sitting with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the U.N. Security Council meeting.

As we know, the civil war in Syria has become an international puzzle with many other countries  both directly and indirectly involved.  Thus far the usefulness of intergovernmental organizations such as the U.N. has proven to be important in this instance, for now providing a safeguard against further global involvement and possible interstate war.  What would be the reaction of the United States and other countries if the U.N. Security Council did not exist, and Russia did not have the power to veto military action?  And on the other hand, as addressed by Chapman and Wolford, can an international organization decrease the costs of interstate war enough to make military conflict more likely, as would be the case if all fifteen members of the Security Council decide to invade Syria in the future?  However, for now the utility provided by these country's cooperation in the U.N. has both kept interstate war at bay providing peaceful solutions, while at the same time disabled stronger powers from entering the fight for a quicker resolution.

Conflict, economic interdependence, and the price of oil

... in which "the price of oil just went up because traders misread a tweet", namely this one:

Oct. 10 #YomKippur73: Israel Air Force bombards airports in Syria to prevent Soviet weapons reaching the Syrian Army http://t.co/tKnMzYjgFF

— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) October 10, 2013

Full story here at the Washington Post.

Everyone the US owes money to in a graph

I found this really simple, informative graph that relates to what we have been talking about with respect to a possible US default on their debts. It was in an article posted by Fareed Zakaria, a journalist and author that worked for Newsweek and now works for CNN. (Graph after the jump.)

UNCTAD on Economic Interdependence

Recently in class we have been discussing economic interdependence and the proposition put forward that more economic interdependence will forge better ties between states and lead to greater incentives for avoid conflict.  This was also the focus of our debate in class today and is a topic that has many aspects to it.  While each side made good points I continually found that many examples being used could from a certain aspect help and harm either argument.  Mainly these all hinged on the fact that underlying the idea of this capitalist peace and economic interdependence idea is the notion that positive economic interactions will lead to greater incentives for peace.  One of the better examples given in class was the history of economic relations between Taiwan and China and the continued tension we see in these relations.

Although this is a good case for pointing out that economic interdependence does not necessarily lead to peaceful relations, I think it is a clear example that the interactions and interdependence in this situation have been negative interactions, which has led to this result of continued hostility between the two.  Something that may be overlooked when simply stating that economic interdependence will lead to increased instances of conflict avoidance.

An article I came across from UNCTAD highlights exactly this idea that the result of economic interdependence can go either way and largely depends on how we structure these interactions.  It would be interesting to see a study looking at relations between countries with fairly balanced amounts of trade (as the UNCTAD article emphasizes is necessary) and between nations with skewed trade where the relationship could almost be framed as exploitive.  I think that a closer look at this along with discussion geared more towards the specific structure of the economic interdependence would be quite interesting and potentially bolster the claims of the Capitalist Peace Theory further.  

This is a topic I find interesting and would be quite interested to see what kind of discussion could stem from this.  Stephen Walt posted on his blog on Foreign Policy specifically discussed the EU and the scenarios we discussed in class during the debate today in both the article I have linked to and his previous articles links are provided for in the post.  

Economic Interdependence, Harbinger of Peace?

I recently came across a press release from the European Union online database dealing with the decision of the European Commission to fully open the European Union's market to wine imported from the Republic of Moldova. I believe the current situation involving Moldova serves as a good case study highlighting how Economic Interdependence can foster both peace and conflict.

 The European Council's decision is a godsend for Moldova, which lost its largest foreign wine market when Russia banned the sale of Moldovan wine earlier last month. This was not the first attempt by Russian to strong hand Moldova with economic sanctions. In 2006, a diplomatic conflict with the Russian government over Moldova’s desires to join the European Union resulted in Russia banning all Moldovan wines, significantly damaging the domestic wine industry. The EC’s recent decision just might prevent the same level of damage as well as bring a degree of stability and certainty to Moldova’s, at times, rocky economy. Russia is currently trying to set up an economic zone called the Eurasian Union in competition to the European Union in hopes of remaining a relevant power in the area without losing their sphere of influence with former soviet states such as Moldova and the Ukraine.

Moldova, by tying its wine market to the European Union, will have far less of a likeliness to engage in conflict with any EU member nations due to the increasing costs of war that is associated with interdependent markets. On the other hand, the decision of Moldova to go with the EU market versus the Eurasian zone increases tensions with Russia.

The Moldavian wine case serves as an example of neofunctionalism. In this example we see two states or entities, Moldova and the European Union, integrating various sectors, most importantly economic, leading to benefits for both involved parties. This case shadows the decisions of France and Germany to integrate their economies in hopes for future peace via the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. Under the ECSC control of the production of steel and coal, materials vital in a nation's war-making capabilities, were placed under the control of a common high authority. This integration played a key role in deterring Franco-German aggression by drastically increasing the cost of war for each nation.

Economic integration has a track record of being able to bring peace in thousands of instances across the globe, however it can not be ignored that with increasingly high levels of integration and reliance comes more chances for conflict when one party is dominated, ignored, or even simply just plain jealous of various nation's decisions to cooperate and leave them out.

Government Shutdown Having Effects on the Democratic Party Due to Audience Costs

This is day 9 of the government shutdown and it has been said that the effects of the shutdown could be detrimental for the democratic party.  Obviously Obama is serving his second term of his presidency so with that being said, it does not matter if he is perceived well or not because he can not be elected again.  (Obviously it matters in other aspects but his goal of being reelected is obviously permissible).  Audience costs, as we talked about in class, measures how far a leader will go without risking the perception of the people.  The "audience" we spoke about was the population responsible for keeping the leader in power.  To relate this to the government shut down,  it has been believed that the shutdown is not going to cost Obama his candidacy, but it is going to boost the republican party for the 2016 election, YES THEY SAID BOOST... because the population is slowly losing faith in the liberals.  I know that is a tricky thing to blog about and disclaimer: I am not bias to any side what so ever, but several scholarly articles prove that theory could very well be the case, only when speaking of audience costs of course.

For example, congressional leaders met for the first time in days to figure out the plan of attack last Wednesday.  This meeting was supposed to come with not only a solution, but a plan of prevention to ensure this shutdown is unlikely to occur again.  But, when House Speaker John Boehner,  Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, sat down for this much anticipated, intense meeting, nothing promising emerged.  This was just the first of many empty promises the people were fed by the government.  Several polls conducted by NPR and CNN say that this was the initial downfall of the population's belief with Obamacare.

"Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer asked for the meeting, and as we've stated publicly, we're willing to meet with any Democratic leader who is willing to talk," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

Although the shutdown continued after the meeting, Boehner took to the House floor to double down on the Republican position that Obamacare be part of negotiations to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling.  I think that this maybe boosted the Republican position and belief system because this was the first answer the population has heard since the shutdown, so therefore it automatically became the most enticing.  The audience cost of ANY explanation is going to be much lower (meaning less of a backlash) than the audience cost of no solution what so ever.  Make sense?  Basically, during a time of uncertainty like this,  articles say that because the republican party is the only party speaking out publicly on what they can do to help, could be the reason for their newfound boost; but one could also argue that that is because the democratic party is too busy solving the problem rather than just strictly talking about it.  Either way though this crisis is jeopardizing  the future of the democratic party according to many political sources, for reasons previously explained.

"Our message in the House has been pretty clear. we want to reopen our government and provide fairness to all Americans under the president's health care law. You know the law had a big rollout last week, but its been called, and I'll quote, an inexcusable mess," Boehner said on the House floor, in reference to the widespread technical glitches on the websites people use to sign up for insurance. "How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?..This is why we need to sit down and have a conversation about the big challenges that face our country."

Nine days into the federal government shutdown, with the debt ceiling approaching rapidly, Republicans continue to hammer President Obama to negotiate to resolve both problems.  I personally think that this hammering could be perceived to the people as trying to get the problem solved, which could contribute to the audience cost theory of the declining democratic party as well.

BUT, to switch gears and to give you do completely different side of the government shutdown to think about........one could argue that depending on how you poll the american people, that the republicans are taking the blame for the shutdown.  The problem with this theory is that it is unknown whether the strategy will shift blame away from the GOP and onto the Democrats.  Right now, when it comes to the congressional seating, the Republicans are bearing the brunt of the responsibility for the crisis: A new Associated Press-GfK survey released Wednesday shows that 62 percent of adults surveyed online mainly blame Republicans for the current shutdown. About half said Mr. Obama or congressional Democrats bear the responsibility. These numbers contradict a Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday which showed 70 percent of Americans disapproving of how the GOP is handling the budget negotiations, compared to 61 percent for Democrats and 51 percent for Mr. Obama.  At the end of each article it basically said that it depends on how you look at things in order to judge the true audience cost of the situation (that's with all politics though..).  I have yet to decide who is to blame for this shutdown, even though all these sources are very convincing.  I do not believe that a single party can be held responsible.  And I do not believe this blog was created to reflect my own personal opinion on the matter, but to simply educate people on those who have done extensive research on the effects of audience costs as well as those who have related these costs to the current situation of the government shutdown, which is where all this information came from.  Sorry about the controversial topic as well, this was just the only situation that was relatable to audience costs and which party to blame is very apparent in the news these days.

Why the Mohammad the Mujaheeen aren't Concerned with Your CINC Score

Assuming the United States emerges through this internally turbulent political timeframe intact (which I believe she will), we will find ourselves embroiled in another armed conflict on some distant shore soon enough.  After participating in the post-War on Terror conflicts and observing the conflicts the US has taken part in over the last 50 or so years, I’ve come to one conclusion: Insurgents, terrorists, and guerillas rarely pay attention to the majority share of global power political scientists claim we have carved out for ourselves.  Gone are the days of uniformed US and German soldiers dug in at the Bulge, singing Christmas carols to ease the pain of war during the holidays before another day of relentless artillery shelling.  We may never see another General Umezu sign an instrument of surrender aboard a US aircraft carrier to end the onslaught of the US advance.  More likely, future conflicts will devolve into far more personal counter insurgency and counter terrorism combat as the US projects power forward.  Once the US has abandoned the old force-on-force model and is inclined or required to adopt this more intimate model, the looming question remains: Given the new model for warfare, how powerful is the United States?

At the end of the day, the ability to project military might is a massive aspect of the power of a state, and nobody can project military might like the US can… in theory.  Karl W. Eikenberry discusses the cost ofcounter insurgency operations in Afghanistan and the challenges the US continues to face placing Enduring Freedom in the win column.  

“two consecutive U.S. administrations have labored mightily to help Afghanistan create a state inhospitable to terrorist organizations with transnational aspirations and capabilities. The goal has been clear enough, but its attainment has proved vexing. Officials have struggled to define the necessary attributes of a stable post-Taliban Afghan state and to agree on the best means for achieving them.”

Despite many challenges, the US has been able to project massive warfighting capability overseas for well over 12 years.  What, in this case is more important to the definition of power: the ability to project power or the ability to accomplish military goals?  Increasingly, one has little to do with the other.  The results of massive military spending, which is often a metric used to measure power, produces war machines like the Joint Strike Fighter which have little to no effect on an individual enemy on the ground operating independently and with no large military support.  Joint Strike Fighters, Abrams Tanks, and aircraft carriers are goal-driven pieces of military equipment which don’t satisfy the goals of counter insurgency and counter terrorism, but the US continues to try and use them as if they were.  General James Mattis has discussed the needfor the US to become “superior at irregular warfare”, and the need to become a hybrid-force to stay relevant militarily.  The US continues to send sledgehammers instead of scalpels.  The only true irregular warfare option which uses the technological terrors the US has at it’s disposal is to raze the Earth, but an Economist article from 2007 summed up nicely: “Modern Western armies cannot, as the Romans did, make a wasteland and call it peace.”

A Change in Policy

On Saturday, October 5th, US forces were ordered into action in coordinated capture operations in Libya and Somalia. The US commandos targets in Libya and Somalia were members of Al Qaeda linked to the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in which over 200 people died. Normally, terrorists of this caliber would qualify for a quick and lethal salvo of Hellfire missiles courtesy of the United States' fleet of heavily armed UAVs. Instead, teams of highly trained soldiers were dispatched with orders to capture the targets; significantly, these were not orders to capture or kill..These operations could mark the beginning of a shift in US policy with regard to 'the war on terror'
.
Since their widespread introduction into the US arsenal in the mid-2000's, armed UAVs have proven themselves efficient offense weapons, and they don't require risks to US personnel. For these reasons, their appeal is obvious, so its no wonder the US has made the use of targeted killings via armed UAVs a central pillar in its counter-terrorism policy. Robert Skidelsky, who is, among other things, a member of the British House of Lords, summarizes the process well in an article discussing the futility of great power's efforts to intervene militarily in the affairs of lesser states in the modern age.

Colonel Mathieu is the unsung hero of current counter-insurgency orthodoxy, which requires a minimum military presence in the target country, mainly of intelligence agencies like the CIA and “special forces.” Through “rendition,” a captured suspect can be handed over to a friendly government to be tortured, and, on the basis of the information thus gathered, “kill lists” can be compiled.
The killing of Osama bin Laden last year required an actual hit squad to verify its success, but normally assassinations can be left to drones – unmanned aircraft, mainly used for surveillance, but which can be armed with computer-guided missiles. Not surprisingly, the US is the leading developer and user of drones, with a fleet of 7,500. An estimated 3,000 drone killings have taken place, mostly in Pakistan, but also in Yemen and Somalia.

Basically since the Bush Administration first employed kill lists and flying death machines as a solution to fighting a global war against an elusive foe, the international community has had objections, and not without merit. Barbara Lochbihler, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, raises a number of salient objections to current US policy with regard to drone strikes in an article entitled 'Drone Wars'. She discusses the psychological impact of drone strikes on soldiers and civilians at home, and the indescribable terror of innocent civilians abroad who live in fear of errant strikes and collateral damage. From a more abstract perspective, she discusses the legality of targeted killing via drone strikes.

From a legal and human-rights point of view, the US drone program is even more alarming. After all, countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia do not belong to declared war zones. Outside the context of war, in turn, state killings are legal only if they prove absolutely necessary to save lives. They must be conducted either in self-defense after an attack, or in anticipatory self-defense against an immediate threat, when taking time to discuss non-lethal alternatives is not feasible.
More than a decade after September 11, America’s drone program does not fall into the first category of reactive self-defense. Likewise, there is no evidence that any presumed terrorist who was killed outside of official war zones in the last few years represented a threat so immediate to US citizens’ lives that preventive and premeditated killing was the only option. Unless US leaders prove otherwise in every case, American UAV attacks in countries like Pakistan or Yemen should be called what they are: extrajudicial killings.

As the (currently) undisputed global hegemon, the US can manage to flout international laws and internationally recognized norms in its drone policy and in its wider 'war on terror'. This is one of the many advantages of being the 'indispensable nation'. But lets be realistic here, the US will not maintain its monopoly on armed UAV capability, nor will it retain its hegemony over the long term without real challenges. I would argue that it is America's interest to immediately conform to international laws and norms and to work multilaterally towards establishing a more concrete international framework regarding the rules of engagement and modern security threats such as terrorism and armed unmanned aerial, land, and sea vehicles. It won't be long before Putin has his own fleet of drones, and China's military capability approaches ours. A strong internationally recognized system of restraint on aggressive uses of military power would help us to meet the challenges ahead.