Reflection - Week Ten

5:30 AM - phone alarm goes off.  I whisper to Ari that it was just my alarm, and he still has a half hour.

5:45 AM - I'm almost done getting ready and get back into bed, waiting for Ari's alarm to go off.

5:55 AM - five minutes before his alarm, Ari decides that we're going to mobilize.  Uncharacteristic of him, but something I really appreciated.

We get breakfast, get snacks, and get the first Metro out, that's already packed with people.  On a Saturday morning.  Why?  For the greatest Saturday I've had yet out here in DC!!

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/ or Fear was full of funny signs, people, and some awesome acts.  Colbert and Stewart really inspired me to vote (which I already did) and to tell my congresspeople what I think.  It was also inspiring to stand around the people I did and to get the true rally experience, something I think everyone should have at least once.  After all, "those who stand for nothing fall for anything" (Alexander Hamilton)

Reflection: Week Ten

While I was squeezing through the crowd on my way out of the National Mall on Saturday, my mind was marveling at the significance of The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. With the optimistic and celebratory crowds, it had felt eerily similar to Barack Obama’s inauguration. However, there was something distinctly different in the air that day. I have yet to identify the element.

A major purpose of the rally was to publicly recognize the true demographics of America. As Jon Stewart mentioned, when the political, religious, and ideological minorities monopolize the media, the voices of the moderate eighty percent are minimized. But for the day of the rally, "for one moment, the moderates will be the news." The comedic ways that Stewart and Colbert demonstrated this irony were pure genius. In Stewart’s speech, he poignantly reminded the crowds of the difference between healthy concern and irrational fear. At the end of Stewart’s quasi-serious or “sincere” speech, he said that he merely needed our presence to restore his sanity. However, I would argue that it did much more than restore our sense of sanity. The sheer number of diverse average “moderately concerned” Americans gathered on the National Mall to poke fun at ourselves is EXACTLY the image of America I want to be presented to the international community. Like Jon Stewart said, “We are living in hard times, not end times.” Our political rhetoric and our national image should reflect this reality. Given our class discussions on the relationship between irrational fear and national security, the significance of the Rally to Restore Sanity could go even further than sanity and affect Americans’ sense of security as well.

Week 10 reflection:

This week while we were talking about the terrorist threats and security measures we could take against them the TSA and other airport security measures were brought up and deemed pretty much useless. We said that most terrorist attacks are uncoiled by our intelligence agencies before they reach airport security. In that case do we still need airport security measures?

We absolutely need them. Do you want to take the chance? What if someone was going crazy and acted on his or her own accord and decided that they wanted to bring a gun or homemade bomb on a plane. How would you stop them if you had minimal or no security? That’s right you wouldn’t, and you’d have 200+ dead civilians on your hands. Having the massive security measures with the full body scanners and the somewhat impatient TSA agents do cause some fear in people, there would be a lot more fear if you could just walk onto a plane without going through security. Some say that we are legitimizing terrorists with having security check points. I think that they are legitimate to an extent. We take what they say seriously, for example if they say we are going to bomb the Eiffel tower then there is a lot more security at the Eiffel tower. Others think that since we upgraded security at airports after 9/11 we forced the terrorist to upgrade in their attacks and threats. If we didn’t upgrade and the terrorists didn’t try to adapt they would commit the same attacks as we sat back and watched. We’re in a war where we are constantly trying to be more clever than the terrorists the vice versa. The only way to stay secure is to make sure you always have the biggest stick and that you’re swinging it.

Back to the security check points. They are necessary, we need to do everything in our power to try and stop attacks on our country and this is just one step we could take. If the people think that security at airports is getting to extreme and the government takes a step back on it. If an attack happens everyone will look at the government and say “well you should have known better and not listened to us”.

If we are diseased we aren't secure

The greatest threat to security both internationally and nationally other than terrorism and the effects of it, has got to be the spread of diseases. If a disease breaks out in a country and that country has trouble containing and/or fighting it then they could be in for some trouble. Countries bordering them will most likely shut down their borders and if the sickness becomes severe they may possibly militarize their borders as well.

For the country or countries that have this disease this would be horrible. Their government would lose credibility in the eyes of the world for not having adequate health care systems or clean water. Their government wouldn’t just lose credibility; they would lose control of their country if the international community didn’t step in and donate a vaccine or step in with peace keeping troops because there would most likely be looting on a massive scale.

Do you guys remember the swine-flu? It jump and make it to countries like the United States and China but thankfully it kind of died away, but it is still around though so get your flu shot. The swine-flu accomplished what any terrorist group would want to do kill a few, injure some and scare millions. It caused a good amount of panic across the world. I remember someone in China had the swine flu so the government shut down the hotel and locked down everyone in there until the guests were healthy, with Chinas massive population I’m surprised they didn’t have a massive outbreak.

We can't focus on preventing terrorist attacks if we are trying to contain a disease.

What is the next big national security threat after terrorism?

When asked to identify the next big national security threat after terrorism, I would propose that the issue of U.S. education and its lack of investment in science and mathematics looms as an insidious threat to the future of our security as a nation. In class on Monday, several variations of the definition of national security were invoked. When considering a more broad interpretation of the concept of national security, consistent with the Obama Administration’s 2009 national security agenda, it is important to look at the issue that will be most detrimental to our security in the long-term.

American national security and prosperity relies heavily on a steady trend of American scientific and technological innovations. New international challenges in the 21 century such as global warming and energy dependence will require creative solutions from citizens of the world. For the U.S. to maintain its global hegemonic power, our citizens must be at the forefront of this struggle with new science and fresh solutions. As stated in the 2009 White House National Security strategy, “American’s long-term leadership depends on educating and producing future scientists and innovators.” This is precisely why the Obama White House has invested in the STEM program (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) to encourage young Americans pursuing these fields of study.

The statistics on U.S. science and mathematics education are alarming. An international educational assessment in 2006 ranked U.S. students 21st out of 30 nations in science literacy and 25^th in math literacy. Students in other developed nations are very clearly outperforming American students in these fields. If we truly want to look towards future security and prosperity, America should be investing in science and mathematics education for the next generation who will inherit the new international threats of the century.

Other than terrorism, what is the greatest threat to global peace and security?

I think the greatest threat depends on the country.  In my opinion, a threat is a danger to the security of an individual nation.  World security and peace can only be achieved if individual nations are secure.

I think disease is the biggest threat to global security and peace.  If people in one country are diseased, that can affect other nations itself.  It also means they can't join an army, or if they're in an army they will not fight effectively.  The disease can also affect people in other nations as it spreads.  Look at the plague, HIV/ AIDS, cancer, and other infectious diseases society at large has dealt with.  The diseases become an epidemic, and soon a pandemic, as they continue to spread uncontrollably.

While disease can be a huge threat to national and international security, it can also help international peace and communication.  If everyone is forced to pool scientific knowledge to fight disease, it may be beneficial for others by way of getting along for something.

Reflection - Week Nine

I know this isn't exactly relevant to our topic of security this week, but in helping Ari, Ari, and Jose study for their world politics midterm I came up with this creative analogy for the major theories of IR:

The World Is Like Middle School.

Realism: everyone knows about "those girls" - yeah, the popular ones, not a hair out of place, perfect clothes, perfect lives (or so we think).  Their interests are clearly the only ones that matter to them.  This attitude is not only defensive and realist, it can also be constructivist if everyone else acknowledges their standing in the school (see below).  Really everyone in middle school is looking out for their best interests.  It's just a matter of how much you want to do that or how much you want to fit in (again, see constructivism below).

Liberalism: when I was in 7th grade, I made a deal with a couple of the popular girls that I would take a girl in my group for our Toronto trip (a girl they didn't like, nobody did, but they were making a big deal about how it was going to ruin their trip to have them) if they let me sit at their lunch table for the rest of the year.  While this may sound like a stupid trade now, remember that back then sitting at their lunch table meant a lot for me.  They get rid of the "trip ruining" girl, I get a position of power; mutual benefit at its best.

Constructivism: When the aforementioned popular girls set their standards on how to dress, work out, style their hair, etc.; they also set a norm for the rest of the community.  The community that follows them would be the group affected by the social norms they set (in my middle school at least, that meant basically everyone who wanted to be noticed by other kids and those girls, teachers, etc. or so it felt.)  If you violated the standards you were just ignored and deemed unworthy of communication.  Very constructivist.

All in all, coming up with this little model not only helped the guys understand for their midterm, but it helped me apply the concepts back to the world.  I thought you might enjoy it.

Reflection: Week Nine

This weekend I had the honor of attending the Interfaith Leadership Institute at the White House. This was truly a transformative experience for me. Through out the weekend, I couldn’t help but reflect on the close reciprocal relationship between national security and preserving our true American ideals.

I became heavily involved in interfaith youth service organizing in high school through my interest in Middle Eastern politics and U.S. foreign policy. Through studying terrorism tactics, I learned that these small non-state actors can compromise our national security largely because we allow them to divide our society. By planting horrifying, fear-inducing attacks, terrorists force national governments to react strongly by cracking down on individuals in this same marginalized group. Knowing that the government will react in this harsh manner, terrorists can then generate more sympathy for their cause and increase their recruitment pool. Through getting young Muslims, Jews, Christians and many other religious youth involved in high profile projects and fostering mutually beneficial relationships, we are seeking to change the narrative about religious division and anti-Islamic sentiment in America. In this way, we seek to strengthen our national security by refusing to allow our nation to compromise our principles and our long history of religious cooperation and multiculturalism.

With all the anti-Islamic and divisive religious rhetoric in the media lately, there is a serious need for an alternative narrative about not just religious toleration but religious cooperation in our generation. We need to start making the connections between these small movements and their ability to strengthen the security of our nation. Look out for an interfaith campaign coming your way in the next few months. The White House and the Obama administration has asked for our involvement, and I will be making sure that AU is one of the first campuses to answer this call to action.

Reflection week 9: what is security?

What is security? The actual definition of security is freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety, but what does it mean for a nation to possess security? Having the strongest or one of the strongest militaries in the world is definitely a key component to having a secure country before 9/11. Now to have a secure country means not only having one of the best militaries and intelligence agencies like it did last century, but also having a strong economy and base of citizens that support it. This was proven how by the rise of America and the fall of the Soviet Union going into the 1990’s. America had a stronger economy and a population that supported its government, neither of which the Soviet Union had which is why they crumbled.

Today I would like to think that we are completely secure, but I know we aren’t, even though we have the strongest military and economy. The difference is that the people aren’t completely behind this war. The terrorists have done their job well, as every night on CNN and ABC nightly news there are new reports of terrorists attacks all over the world. We are at war with terrorism and sometimes it’s hard to tell who’s winning.

Fighting terrorists is different than fighting a country because they don’t have a home base or a diplomatic status. Now the focus is fighting and containing the spread of terrorism instead of communism, terrorism is harder to fight because no one knows where it’s going to come from compared to the Soviet Union and communism which you knew was coming from the kremlin. Times are changing and to stay or become secure we must adapt to those changes. So are we secure? In my opinion we aren’t, because we are not free from danger, but if we keep up the offensive I think we will get there.

How do you win war?

In the card game we played as kids, winning war meant getting all the cards.  In Risk, winning meant different things to different people.  But what does it mean in the real thing?

In the real world, much like our Risk board, we all have different objectives.  We can all win by a liberal perspective - if all of us accomplishes our different goals, we all can win!  However, some of our goals are conflicting.  Only by compromise can we all "win."  This seems to be less-than-achievable in this world.  It's not as easy as saying who wins and who doesn't - there are centuries-old rivalries and religious fundamentalism to contend with, among other things.  Then there are the people who want to hold all the cards.  We can't all win if we give all of our cards to this nation, so we won't!  But that in itself also means that we can't all win.

Is it even possible to win?  It truly doesn't seem like we can all win, but perhaps one day when one group's objectives are clear enough, someone may.  For now, there doesn't seem to be a way to truly win and keep relations with the rest of the world.

RISK vs Reward in real life

In our game of risk the hegemons groups victory meant that the people in their group were put into a good mood and if they weren’t already a better mood for the rest of the day. Since the red, brown and yellow groups ended with fewer territories than they started with and farther from their goals than they started with as well. Being the head of state of the green team I felt good about the game because we didn’t reach our goal, but we still made progress and needed only one or two more turns to reach our goal.

If our risk board was a screen to what was really happening in the world then our moods would be a bit different. The United States would be in full swing celebration mode after they got over the loss of the massive troop loss they had in China, because they took out the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. The Ukrainian ultra-nationalists wouldn’t be in the Ukraine anymore and would be very sad seeing that the United States took it. The religious movement countries would be upset seeing that they were pushed to the brink of annihilation.

In real life one countries victory can mean the total demise of another. For us in a game of risk it may be a better mood and or grade.

What would a win look like in actual world politics?

After playing out various realist notions on the Risk board and writing my midterm paper in earnest defense of realist motivations, I can finally proclaim with out hesitation that I don’t believe self-interest alone should propel our country’s foreign policy agenda. When asked what would winning look like in actual world politics, I could easily spit out a convincing argument for total U.S. hegemony supported by the lovely simplistic world of realist IR theory. But that would be a disingenuous and unfortunate attempt to sidestep the challenge of advocating the more complicated liberal and constructivist IR theories. These theories are not as black and white largely because, much to the chagrin of ardent realists out there, the political world is a particularly opaque shade of grey.

If I was to rely on my own objective sheet based on my ideals and political values, “winning” would be a Risk board that accurately portrays where I think the international political world will be in a half or full century from now. Naturally, the Risk board would have a significant presence by the United States (perhaps similar to the blue team) in all areas of the world. However, this is not just because I want to sustain U.S. hegemony in the world for my own security. More importantly, this large presence is important because of the effectiveness of our nation’s democratic ideals and values. “Democratic peace liberal” theorists accurately suggest that democracies are inherently more predisposed to peaceful intentions. However, this large U.S. presence would be balanced by the rising power of the European Union in international relations. The presence of two relatively friendly large state or inter-state actors on the Risk board would be a growing “win” as both hegemonic actors share responsibility for the larger global issues of the 21^st century, namely confronting climate change, quelling terrorism by violent non-state actors, and achieving economic stability.

This ideal Risk board would be what I personally consider a win. Call me naïve but I truly think that, given good progressive leadership, the world of international relations will be heading in this direction in the next fifty to hundred years.

Reflection on week 8

This week of class was awesome! Risk was my favorite childhood board game. I remember every Thanksgiving my cousins and I would play it, also I was really excited to go to salome because I’ve never been to an opera before.

When our game of diplomatic Risk first started I never thought it was going to get as serious as it did. I thought people would only focus on it in class, but we have had a lot of little head of state meetings outside of class; discussing and planning what to do to try and meet all of our goals. I’m also glad that I got to be head of state for my team in the game because I’m a really shy person and the position puts me on the spot and forces me to make tough decisions when everyone is watching. All in all I really enjoyed this past week, other than the paper.

Reflection - Week Eight

Wow, it's already October, already midterms, and I've already been to my church weekend AND a Bar Mitzvah this month!  It was nice to kind of slow down, and what an interesting way to do so in World Politics!

I had never played Risk before this class.  I wasn't sure what to expect, other than to be able to chill.  I found myself instead really interested in the game, to the point where I joined discussions about it on the floor, trying to strike deals and work on alliances.  There was a point where Fiona and I had 5 or 6 different people in our room just talking about Risk strategy.  I was amazed at how much people got into the game.

The coolest part about this game of Risk was that everyone has different goals and different methods of accomplishing them.  I was surprised when we allied with yellow (the religious extremists/ New Guinea) because I couldn't see a value in them, but they ended up having a power that helped us tremendously.  Twists like that keep the game interesting and

Reflection: Week Eight

I was thrilled to attend the opera Salome this week at the Kennedy Center largely because I wanted to enjoy something other than politics for a day. When your life is bombarded with politic theory and general election projections, melodramatic theater is sometimes just what the doctor ordered. Ironically, even with all the majestic costumes, haunting music, and larger-than-life performances, I could not seem to shake my political analysis lenses for a night. I appreciated the pure art to be sure, but found myself fixated on one theme throughout the entire production.

Oh Salome, where do I begin with you? You are surely a show designed largely on shock value and the manifestation of hyperbole on stage. When the opera began, I instantly recognized the story of Herodias and her daughter from the Bible. I was immediately transported back in time to my small Catholic high school, where I sat in the back of my theology class rolling my eyes at this story in the Bible. In my opinion, the story of Salome and John the Baptist is a perfect example of religion and society’s preoccupation with the classic "Eve and the apple" projection. In literature, plays, and folklore, woman are often cast as the incarnation of evil, either as uncontrollably passionate young maidens or manipulative temptresses. Salome just takes the sick and twisted nature of women to a whole other level. In the opera, Salome and her mother are portrayed as manipulative and selfish even in their best moments. While Herodias and Salome are cast in this light, the pedophilic King Herod who makes sexual advances on Salome comes out looking more like a buffoon than anything else. John the Baptist of course is the saint that righteously refuses the persistent advances of Salome.

I thoroughly enjoyed the melodramatic night of watching Salome rolling around the floor with John the Baptist’s bloody severed head. It certainly cured my political stupor even if my feminist tendencies surfaced from time to time. After all the tragedy of Salome will always look better on stage at the Kennedy Center than from my shabby old theology classroom back in Frederick, Maryland.

Reflection on week 7

Having no class on Monday and no lab on Wednesday this week was all about the simulation. I was in the AIAM group which represents international auto manufactures which meant we obviously wanted to abolish the tariffs and domestic content requirements. Before my group and I started researching reasons to get rid of the tariffs and content requirements, my personal viewpoint was to keep them. I never had a real reason for wanting to keep them because I didn’t know much about the issue.

Before I started researching for the simulation I thought that keeping the tariffs and content rules would help keep American jobs. After finding information for my group’s presentation my opinion started to change and I realized that getting rid of these tariffs and content rules would actually help to not only keep jobs here but also create jobs and help the economy out as well because it would lower the prices on cars sold and promote innovation which would help the environment.

Going into the project I never thought that my views would change. I thought it was really cool and am glad that a project for class could change my views on something.

Reflection: Week Seven

I was surprised by the challenge presented by the complexities of the auto-manufacturing debate simulation this Thursday. I am admittedly not very well versed in economics, especially concerning auto-manufacturing. So I enjoyed the opportunity to research something completely outside my usual political interests. After studying the issues involved in this domestic v. foreign auto-manufacturing debate, the issue’s relevance to IR theory became increasingly apparent to me. Before participating in this simulation, I would have never made this connection.

At the end of the simulation, the professor standing in as president (I am blanking on his name even though he was fantastic) made a comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned that sometimes students become frustrated with studying strictly IR theory at the beginning of their SIS major because they come in wanting to know the answers to the War in Afghanistan, the economic crisis, and global warming immediately. However, he explained, given that theory is the underlying theme seen throughout all these political issues, a complex understanding of different IR theories is essential to our progress as IR students. As a pragmatist that could study case studies and facts all day, I considered this a really helpful reminder.

Needless to say, I am very excited to move into the next section of World Politics that deals with application of IR theory. However, the recent simulation acted as an important reminder of the omnipresence of IR theory in every nook and cranny of our political discussions.

Reflection - Week Seven

The simulation was pretty fun.  I loved working with my group to develop our position and try to defend Ford.  The issue is really personal to me, as I am from Michigan, therefore most of my friends and family have ties to the auto industry.  My uncle, for example, could be laid off from Ford any day.  The industry IS Michigan's economy.  That's what we know.  It is very important to me.

Also, simulation started in our leadership gateway class this week.  Eventful things in my group, refugees, included Saudi Arabia leaving, Russia arguing to get them back, and a couple of agreements on the side.  It makes me miss model UN in high school and is very fun.

Finally, stay tuned for another post comparing the third Harry Potter movie/ characters to nations in our world.

Reflection of Week Six:

This week we talked about marginal groups and problems they could cause for the establishment. This shows us that the government needs to include everyone’s opinion in their decision and policy making. Marginal groups can become problems anytime they want to. In France and throughout the rest of Europe there have been bomb threats on tourist sites such as the Eiffel tower and other cities throughout Europe. This is thought to be a response to Frances new legislation of the banning of Burqas. There was a similar situation in Moscow Russia when a there was a terrorist attack on the subway system in the form of a bomb by a group known who want Chetznia to break away from Russia. The Chetznians would be considered a marginalized people.
Now the marginalized can become a problem whenever they want, which is a problem. They could and a lot of times do resort to violence as see today and throughout history. There will always be groups of people who will be mad at the governments of the world, but we could help make the problem smaller by keeping their interests in mind when we make our laws and policies.

Reflection - Week Six

Embassy Follow-Up:

Well, Here we are, two weeks later, and Ari and I have still not heard anything from the Israeli Embassy.  We are going to send a paragraph to PTJ so we can get the ball rolling.  We really want to go, but of course I had to pick one of the hardest countries to randomly bump into the ambassador of.  That's just my life.

Class this week and my concerns:

This week we were engaged in some fascinating discussions about IR theory and the alternatives there are. While I listened to everyone else make really bright, interesting points and raise fascinating questions, I felt oddly like I had nothing to say.  I often feel this way in discussion and it really worries me.  It just seems like everyone else is a little more... I don't know, more intelligent, more well-read, more put together than I am.  I think this has to do with some procrastination on my part, and I hope to make it better in the near future.