Reflection #6- Hanna

The topic of Foreign Policy in the presidential debates really bothered me. I don't think that either of these candidates are in a position to speak about foreign policy. This isn't to say that they are idiots, because I certainly am not in a position to speak about foreign policy either. It is just too much information for them to retain with everything else they have to know about too. In my Dad's job, he advises on Af-Pak special operations and Pacific special operations. Panetta will be on his way to a meeting and as he walks, people walk with him and speak very quickly about what is going on in the world and what they think the course of actions should be. This week the under Secretary of Defense has my Dad with him in Afghanistan because he doesn't know as much about the area and the people as my Dad knows. He will often rely on my Dad's opinion and other's opinions to come to a conclusion about a topic or solution. It isn't that He doesn't know anything, he just has a lot to know and can't know everything-- He also hasn't spent a majority of the past 11 years on the ground. I guess it is kind of like a...'Trickle Up Effect'?? The Civilian and Military positions in the office are all experts in the field they are in charge of...they give the information to Panetta (or an Under Secretary) and he kind of just gets a blurb of everything....so if the Secretary of Defense doesn't have time to know in depth about the concerns of the world around him, then why would the President or a Presidential candidate over this past year have a good understanding of where our Foreign Policy should be heading? We as voters need to be aware that although the role of the President is important, the course of actions that we take globally and militarily are more so in the hands of the Civilian and Military workers. We have all these politically appointed positions throughout government and the state department, but they spend all of their time trying to keep their job. This makes me feel a little weird about some of the people we go to school with because they are more than likely to end up in the political side of the state department than in an Intel. role.

The frustrations with the Presidential candidates acting like what they think of Foreign Policy isn't just something they have been briefed on all week, is just blowing hot air. Same for any frustrations felt about leadership positions in the State Department being politically appointed rather than being earned through being the hardest worker who cares the most about getting shit done. Hot air. It's annoying and a little cracked up but there really isn't much that we can do about it.

Structured Response #6

Traditionally a warrior people, the Pathans of the Northwest Frontier formed “the Servants of God” under Khan Abdul Ghaffir Khan or the “frontier Gandhi.” The group played a large role, especially in the early 1930s, in the Pakistani independence movement. However, this intifada had a direct result on developments throughout the Middle East, specifically Israel and Palestine. It brought the world’s attention to the region and forced Israel to address specifically the issue of its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, the unsuccessful violent approach of Palestinians began to shift to forms of non-violent struggle. Liberation groups began to use tactics of the Intifada. Peaceful protests, boycotts, strikes, tax refusals occupations and blockades were all employed nonviolently. Even after decades of violence, the Palestinian Liberation Organization formally renounced the use of violence in 1988. Almost instantly, results were seen. Countries such as Jordan acknowledged the Palestinian state, giving up their authority of the West Bank, and exerting pressure on other countries to do the same.  A Declaration of Independence was drawn up, and it became much easier for the Palestinian people to mobilize in a more organized fashion. Palestine created a list of objectives. The country needed to mobilize its majority against the Israeli state, making it less appealing to both parties to continue the occupation as well as increasing international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Calculated decisions and organized protest replaced senseless violence and produced far better and more widespread results.

The results were not all good, however. The intifada turns out to be a bit of a double edged sword. With each small success comes a small sense of hopelessness. It calls to mind the fact that years of struggle still lie ahead for the nation. Maintaining cohesion within their communities proves to be challenging, as it is not easy to remain nonviolent in such a frustrating struggle. It seemed that Palestine, rather than wagging its own nonviolent war, was simply responding to the acts of Israel, constantly on the defensive.  

Though the Israeli government has not adopted nonviolent methods, the people of Israel protest their government peacefully. Over a tenth of the country’s population demonstrated against their government’s occupation of Lebanon in 1982. Israeli intellectuals routinely risk arrest for secretly meeting with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Israeli soldiers join movements in which they refuse to serve in occupied areas. Although the government receives widespread criticism from within its country, the overarching support of the United States government allows the country to side step the full effects of its violations of human rights and international law. The fight is ongoing, however, and great strides continue to be made by nonviolent protesters within the nation. 

Reflection #6

Reflecting on last night's debate, not much was said about foreign politics for a debate that was supposed to center on it. The candidates, regardless of the questions asked or the moderator prompts, were determined to get out their planned talking points and respond to every attack, so it wasn't very surprising that things strayed far off topic. Honestly, the debates are just confusing me. Obama seems stressed from a long term and campaign, and I feel like his frustration is coming off as a bit weak. His tone is sarcastic and argumentative, although that's also due to the nature of the situation. Romney gave Obama some credit in this debate, but made the point that his programs need to be taken to the next step, by increasing America's influence and just generally get things done. I don't really agree with a foreign policy that strives mainly to increase America's already dominating sphere of influence. Although Romney stated he doesn't plan to be lured into anymore foreign wars, he wasn't exactly pacifistic and criticized Obama's defense cuts. I think the nation as a whole is just more concerned with domestic affairs at the moment. The public is tried of hearing about wars and killings in an area they don't understand or relate to. The candidates right now are focusing on winning the election, and focusing heavily on foreign affairs rather than plans to solve domestic crisis just aren't going to get them as many votes.

Reflection #6

I thought a good time for a reflection would be right after the foreign policy presidential debate tonight, even though both candidates got off the subject of foreign policy rather often. The first thing I noticed was that Romney mentioned the importance of civil society in the Middle East twice. I probably would not have thought twice about that phrase had I not been in this class, and it was exciting that I could really understand what the governor was talking about because we have done extensive reading and discussion on the topic.

Initial reactions from the news media and social media seem to indicate that many people think Romney didn’t diversify his positions very far from Obama. One analyst on CNN even said that it seemed like Romney was endorsing Obama during the debate, not running against him. I agree that it seemed like Romney took similar positions to Obama’s foreign policy. He agreed with the “crippling sanctions” Obama has imposed on Iran in regards to their nuclear program, and he agreed with Obama that Assad would be removed from Syria and but without military involvement from the U.S. However, Romney did differ from Obama in saying that the U.S. should identify trusted Syrian rebels and arm them. Both agreed that ousting Mubarak from Egypt was the right decision, but Romney stressed that the Obama administration should have seen the Arab Spring coming. The candidates also differed on what they saw as the greatest threat to American security. Obama stated that terrorist organizations were the greatest threat while Romney said it was Iran’s nuclear threat.

It was interesting to watch this debate given the new experiences I have had taking this class and learning so much more about the Middle East. I tended to agree with most of what President Obama said about our foreign policy, but both of the candidates had similar views on many of the issues I was interested in, so it’s hard to say who I sided closer with. Although both Obama and Romney had views I agreed with on the Middle East, I wish they had focused more on the grassroots type of reform that seems promises to me in the region. They were focused more on national security of the U.S. and politics within the Middle East, and not so much on social reform and human rights for the people there. Both candidates seemed to dismiss those issues as something that had been fought for during the Arab Spring and now solved. But the issues are far from solved; the Arab Spring was just a way that problems in the region were brought to worldwide attention. Hopefully whoever is elected will take a close look at the region and focus not only on national security and politics there, but also the wishes of the people. Both candidates talked about finding suitable replacements for dictators like Assad in Syria who must go, and civil society groups in the region have policies and members who might be helpful in creating legitimate governments in the region if the U.S. is willing to work with those types of organizations.  

Structured Response #5- Hanna

" In our current 'post-Arab Revolts' environment, why do you think Islamists in particular have yielded such successes at the ballot box?"

When looking to identify why Islamists are so successful at the ballot box, we can look back at the revolutions and also look over to other countries like Syria and Libya. In all of these environments, Fundamental Islam is on the rise. No, this does not mean that being a more strict Muslim means that you are more inclined to revolt. It just helps paint a picture of the importance of the religion throughout the region and a movement away from the secular regimes. In these communities their social lives are built around their churches. In the country of Algeria their social life is entirely within their own neighborhood because of a distrust of those they are not familiar with and the suspicions they have of their government and police force. If the social life of these other countries reflect Algeria in any way, than people meet around neighborhood mosques. Given the social structure of these states a revolution or social movement would not be possible without a national identity, such as Islam. These revolutions were made possible given the use of Islam as a mobilizing factor. In the same way that a bloody revolution often leads to a bloody regime, a revolution mobilized through Islam will now visually lead into regimes that will be lead by Islamists. An argument to this may be that Christian's too took part in these revolutions. Who could forget the pictures of the prayer chain in Tahrir Square? Christians make up a very small minority in any Islamic State. It is also seen as a religion that is most popular in the west. This does not mean that Christian people are seen as an enemy. They are just not in the scope of mind as a possible leader. In the same way that the Serbs needed a man with an anti-American thought, a Christian being voted into power would not have been appealing to the people. Revolution often brings about a Nationalist pride and coming from Islamic States- this pride and identity as a Nation is that of Islam. If the National Identity is Muslim and they are in a time of National pride and excitement, then they will vote for someone who best reflects their identity...and even more so, a magnified version of identity.

Structural Response #5

In Egypt, Nassar’s achieved success was very short lived. His regime focused its efforts under the guise of growth and development for the middle class, making sweeping promises and ensuring no opposition threatened his power. However, Nassar’s true intent was to produce an unquestionable and all-powerful rule. His plan made sense, keep the country in a time of peace and relative prosperity and unrest will be manageable. To do this Nassar knew he must appeal to the majority of the population; the middle class.

The Nassar regime was able to silence its opposition and cut off the media outlets used to spread their views but identifying the groups most prone to forming opposition parties and counter-cultures. His main target was the middle class youth, and his form of defense was a solid education focusing on the areas he deemed most important. Nassar poured large amounts of money into the education system, teaching youths about Islamic and Socialist values. The government ended up covering many of the additional fees, and even guaranteed government jobs to all university graduates. His plan worked, universities shifted from places of political dissent and rebellion to campuses full of future government-employed supporters. Eventually, however, money dried up and jobs were lost. The guarantees of the government were not being met and their rhetoric falling apart.  

Opposition groups began to form. The now-educated youth had reasons to oppose the government, whose rhetoric had caught up with them, and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood gained ground. In the Middle East, Islamist opposition groups experience extreme success in rallying supporters. These groups resonate with deep-seeded cultural and religious norms within many Middle Eastern societies. It is easy to attract large numbers of people all sharing some sort of common understanding. Although not all have identical visions for the country, they can take comfort in the fact that they all share similar moral and cultural backgrounds. These groups are able to provide stability and some forms of democracy while maintaining anti-western ideals.   

Structured Response #4

Nasser silenced opposition through a combination of different types of strategic efforts. In order to ensure that he faced as little opposition as possible, he not only repressed individuals and other independent groups, but he also imposed “the social contract” in an authoritarian-populist manner. According to this weeks readings, Nasser’s Egypt saw little to no outright opposition between 1954 and 1967 – an impressive amount of time to hold such a strong governmental grip on the people. The readings describe Nasser’s government as one that banned all opposition groups and also imposed sate control over groups that had formerly been open to the public. His regime also provided goods to the public in exchange for their political support.

            Most crucially, though, Nasser’s government catered to the youth of his country. He enforced social changes to education by placing it under state control so that he could maintain control over the students through propaganda– the groups of citizens most likely to form opposition groups. His ability to seemingly reason with and understand the younger generation also placed him in a favorable position with the youth. He eased many young people by providing them with free education and guaranteed job placements.

            This ability for the government to placate the student generations of countries seems to be a major reason that Islamist groups have been so popular at the polls. These Islamist groups often promise youth just what they need – something different. Islamist groups tend to depart from the previous government, giving the citizens of its country a fresh look at government. They are able to receive people’s votes because they recognize that people want the opposite of the regimes they have just escaped.