JoshOfSophia's Xanga

A thing I do

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:38:55 GMT

It's a blog.

Surprise, surprise.

I don't know. You may be interested.

Here I am,

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:37:40 GMT

Going back on my promise.

Next year, election year

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:45:04 GMT

I am simultaneously exited and loathsome of the approaching election year, as we breathe and take in more of the same from two lineups of politicians masquerading as leaders.

Unlike the 2004 election, I am no longer firmly engrained in the Democratic Party's doctrine, but I am not so far removed to call myself a Republican either -- and I don't imagine I ever will be. I have lately found it difficult to really decide just what I believe, and I find this at once terrifying, since I am no longer 16 but 22.

At 15, I was a carbon-copy of my father's beliefs, and by 18, I had completely transformed, hence why I cast my vote for John Kerry in the 2004 election.

I can say that I probably would do the same given a new opportunity -- as George W. Bush has continued to be a below average President, perhaps an understatement. But as we have long tired of Bush I have likewise tired of the same recycled Blame Bush logic (or lack thereof) I see and experience daily from news media, politicians, college professors, and everyday people. No one is interested in solving problems, only finding people to blame for them. A lack of leadership -- from elected officials, namely -- magnifies this dilemma. I harbor a border-line hatred for both of our political parties as they squander fortunes, opportunities too many to count. And a part of me at the same time exclaims: This is Politics. This is the Way of our world.

I do not agree with most tenets of Communist thought, but in some of its early leaders, I see a genuine and idealistic effort to change the world. Capitalism, quite differently, accepts the world as it is, accepts people as they are and doesn't seek to change them, and consequently has been much more successful. I wonder, often, if it is worth the effort to try and change the world, or if it is better to simply accept humankind, take the good with the bad, watch a few football games, and try to live a content and comfortable life. Perhaps the solution is somewhere towards the middle. If life were a football game, for instance, perhaps we would be talking about the difference between the Hail Mary throw and the short-passing game -- we all know which is more likely to be successful in the end. But, as they say, we only live once, sometimes we only get one chance to do something, to change something, or to be something -- and who's to say we shouldn't aim for the sky each and every time?

Yet, in other times it's better to regroup, return to the basics, your principles, your foundation -- to rediscover who you are all over again, to rebuild and fight another day. It's difficult sometimes to balance the lessons of your father and those of your professor -- impossible, even -- but in the end, we all have to make a decision.

I've decided to begin writing again.

V-Tech tragedy

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:18:16 GMT

How terrible. Keep them in your thoughts.

Is the 'Surge' working?

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:25:05 GMT

We won't really know for some time yet, but since I am trying (very hard) to support the surge (even though I thought a change of tactics was all that was needed), I wanted to make note of (at least) two positive signs thus far that have come out of Iraq since the President began implementing his new strategy.

The U.S. military has announced that the radical cleric Al Sadr, who heads the Mehdi army, has fled to Iran. This is both positive and negative. For one, it shows that operations in and around Baghdad have been at least somewhat effective, since Al Sadr no longer feels safe in Iraq. The negatives are obvious: He cannot be definitively captured or killed, or tried for ordering ethnic cleansing in Baghdad neighborhoods. Also, he can continue to funnel propoganda into Iraq from his safehaven in Iran.

The second positive sign: The Mehdi army is re-integrating back into the public life amidst crackdowns by both the Iraqi and U.S. forces. A top aide to Al Sadr was recently captured in these crackdowns. The militia's weapons are being hidden and its members are returning to their homes to ride out the renewed American furvor. In the mean time, we can use this as an opportunity to capture them and perhaps find their weapons caches, in a situation where they should become increasingly vulnerable as the crackdowns continue. Iraqis recently arrested 400 Mehdi army members, which shows the government in Iraq is now committed to crossing ethnic lines in order to bring about general peace within Iraq. All of this signals that at least the change in tactics, if not the surge itself, is helping to bring about initial change in Iraq. Let's hope these positive signs continue.

What do we do about Iraq?

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:38:44 GMT

Do we “get big and go long or get small and go home,” as those who want to simplify the conflict suggest? Do we increase troop levels to decrease the violence or do we decrease troop levels in a sort of “sink or swim” signal to the Iraqi people with an impending full-withdrawal in the near-future? Let’s take a look at both suggestions, as I attempt to analyze:

Increasing our presence in Iraq is said to be the solution to mounting violence between Sunni and Shiite groups, and their foreign instigators. With more troops, the commanders there will have more flexibility to protect the borders, and patrol hot-spots in areas surrounding Baghdad. Arguments against this include the notion that Iraqis will become dependent on our services and entrap themselves in a sort of welfare-subject state. In the meantime, our soldiers will continue to fall victim to sporadic ambushes and roadside bombs in their attempts to secure the public order.

The “sink or swim” measure would present the Iraqi people with two options: fight or falter. This notion assumes that Iraqis are in the driver’s seat at the helm of their own future, and have not been displaced by ambitious Iranian and Syrian powers fighting to expand their spheres of influence. Ahmadinejad has already called for a “weekend summit” between the Syrian, Iranian, and Iraqi presidents, an offer which Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has since accepted. This comes amidst rumors in Washington that the responsibility of sustaining the Iraqi republic does not only burden the United States, but must include Syria and Iran as well.

It is well known that Syria has done little to curb the influx of foreign combatants via its border with Iraq, and sophisticated Iranian-made bombs have been found among foreign insurgents in Iraqi neighborhoods. Both countries abhor the American presence in Iraq, but have recently seen the Sunni-Shiite conflict grow to dominate the violence there, with Americans taking a back-step to a budding civil war. Neither Iranians nor Syrians really want to see an all-out war against Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq. It is quite clear, however, that the neighboring despot in Syria and the “Guardian Council” in Iran also have no interest in seeing a vibrant, liberal democracy growing in their own backyard. In their eyes, a civil war could actually be preferable to a stable American-backed government, even if the conflict threatens regional stability.

Regional instability, after all, is what has given people like Ahmadinejad opportunity to move aggressively as Iran dominates Middle Eastern politics. But with a Democratic victory in America, whispers are that the American presence is coming to an end, which must make the Iranian President grin deviously. With the Americans gone, the powers that be in the Middle East, namely the Iranians, can stop encouraging a civil war and begin moves to become the puppeteer of Iraqi regimes for years to come, hence the “weekend summit.”

Unfortunately, the current Iraqi government has set itself up for failure, and a civil war that not even Iran may be able to stop once an American withdrawal comes. The Iraqi police and military forces are divided near-exclusively down ethnic divides, with all-Sunni and all-Shiite police units patrolling the streets and all-Shiite and all-Sunni military brigades manning the heavy machinery. With this sort of division, how could we have ever hoped for a united Iraqi military or police force? This goes without mentioning the armed militias on both sides, some of which are already funded by Iranian resources, which are precipitating further violence by running death squads in ethnic cleansing campaigns. How can the Americans, much less the Iranians, tackle such a ridiculous arrangement, especially with the Iraqi president unwilling to disarm the offending militias?

If the Americans withdraw, an Iranian-backed (or controlled) Iraqi government will move to quash the Sunni insurgency through means deplorable to the Western world, through any means necessary, and all animosity over the barbarism will inevitably be directed towards Americans, who started it all by invading Iraq in the first place. Our near-autonomous and prosperous Kurdish friends will inevitably fall victim in similar ways, in their effort to maintain their newfound freedom, which they have embraced with a stability unseen in the rest of Iraq.

This sweeping Iranian storm of influence will combine to ignite the Muslim world in new fury against the “Zionist occupiers” of Israel, and their American friends, who were responsible for the brutal civil war in Iraq. All of this together will present to the world a Middle East dominated by Iran which will inevitably showdown against its rival Israel, and who knows at what consequence?

As you see, we have very difficult decisions to make in our near-future which will have reverberating repercussions for years to come. If what we want to do is combat Islamic extremism, then the full withdrawal “sink or swim” measure is out of the question. But increasing our troop levels doesn’t seem to be any solution either. What we set out to do was to establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. If that isn’t still our goal, then what is? Do we even care if the Iraqi government, which the people of Iraq elected, survives at all? Do we care that the ensuing civil war after our exit may kill hundreds of thousands? Is there any concern that the consequences of a full withdrawal could ignite further anti-American extremism, and not curb it? Are we, quite simply, “damned if we do and damned if we don’t”?

Our goals now must include regional context. Iran is a threat, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it’s government is the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world. This is a threat not only to the United States, but to Israel, the West, and the stability of most of this planet. Our attitude should not be, “how can we get out?” but rather, “how can we win?” Naturally, winning is the best way to get out, and by winning I mean establishing a stable, secular elected government in Iraq, something that would be unprecedented in the Islamic world. To do this, we must first dismantle the militias independent of the government authority and diversify the police and military units. We hand them the responsibility of patrolling the streets, while the American forces pursue those wishing to bring instability to the government relentlessly. Also, some effort must be made to contain the passage of foreign fighters and their weapons crossing the borders. This is a simplified strategy, and would of course require many smaller-scale but not insignificant moves. Ultimately, it would yield more stability, but it would require more American lives to be sacrificed. Yet, it will pale in comparison to the lives which will be sacrificed if we must return to right our wrongs years from now, when a new Persia dominates the map, and becomes so confident that it believes it can destroy Israel once and for all. In the mean time, would we have all that we have sacrificed till this point to be wasted in terrible vanity?

Originally published here in November of 2006. I thought it may be a good idea to revisit these ideas on the eve of President Bush's big speech. In case there is any confusion, this was of course written by myself.

The Savagery of so-called "Realism"

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:56:18 GMT

I was among those cheering the sack of Donald Rumsfeld, and I am still somewhat optimistic that his replacement Robert Gates will bring a fresh perspective that can yield victory in Iraq. But as I look at Gates' history, I find myself worrying that Bush's appointment of Gates is a sign that he has given up on the dream of democracy in Iraq.

Click here to read the rest of my musing about Robert Gates, realism, and idealism.

A new blog of mine

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:56:01 GMT

RefutingSavages.blogspot.com

Check it out.

A couple of points...

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:00:41 GMT

Firstly, Oliver Stone, the famed director of films like Platoon, and most recently World Trade Center, made several striking remarks at a film festival recently about America's actions in the last 5 years. He refers to the war in Iraq as "a disaster," which is a half-truth, since we did at least accomplish two things (one of which being the removal of Saddam Hussein). Obviously, people have differing opinions on whether or not all of this is worth it. For the reason of removing a dictator from power, I think not. But, on a broader scale, a democratic Iraq could mean great reform throughout the middle east over the next several decades. Personal freedom, as well as a free-market economy, will give Iraqis opportunities they never had under Saddam because of corruption, or because of the religious or ethnic group they were associated with. It has been 3 years. We have deposed a dictator and, since then, Iraqis have voted in elections (that weren't fixed) for the first time in their history. Despite all that has gone wrong, that in itself is an accomplishment. The Iraq experiment desperately needs to succeed. People like Oliver Stone are quick to point out the problems we've had. Sure, we've had problems. We are going to continue to have problems. It's probably going to get worse before it gets better. This region has been a haven for the last gasp of a dying medieval philosophy that persecutes women, intimidates and exploits those of different religions and creeds, and glorifies martyrdom.

A professor of mine recently said, in obvious allusion to our current situation in Iraq (even though we were talking about something very different), "maybe western society should look inward at itself before being so critical of other cultures." She's right. Maybe we should. After all, western society has at different times in its history practiced at least some of what I've described above.

But today, at least in large part, we do not. Yes, homosexuals cannot get married in the United States. But, in the middle east, an openly gay couple would surely be killed for their sexual preferences. Yes, women didn't get the right to vote in this country until the early part of the 20th century. Most women in the middle east today still cannot even drive cars, and are shot if they wear shorts. Maybe we should look inward at ourselves, but at least in my opinion, what I find is that our culture is much less frightening, much more open and accepting, and overall a much more desirable place to live in. Be aware that I am not condemning all of those in the Middle East as medieval or lesser than ourselves. But, in the very least, a sizeable portion of the populace practices and believes in what I've described here. If that were not so, they would not tolerate or accept those oppressive rules, which exist in a significant number of middle eastern countries. In times of uncertainty, cultures resort to self-hating, which was common in the declining Roman empire. But we have to decide which is worse, and who we're going to support. Are we going to look inward at ourselves instead of condemning a country's people for glorifying a suicide bombing or for its disgusting anti-semitism?

The most disturbing principle used most recently to describe the United States' actions against terrorism or the Israeli action against Hezbollah is the principle of "proportion." Basically, the invasion of Lebanon for a few rocket attacks and kidnapped soldiers is not a "proportional" response. In the words of Oliver Stone, the U.S. reaction after September 11th was "out of proportion." I simply do not understand this notion. Instead of vanquishing your enemy, who aims to destroy you, you instead hit back only as hard as he managed to? If someone punches you in the face, are you only allowed to punch them back once? Or do you crush them, for your own protection, so that they will never think of attacking you again? If you only hit them once, they can continue hitting you. Hitting them with everything you have is the only way to win the fight. And, make no mistake, this is a fight. They certainly see it as such.

I do not understand the self-loathing and hatred of our own country's culture that I've seen so common among University professors and students. We are by no means perfect. But we are not terrorists. We are not Islamic fundamentalists. If these are just cultural differences, will there come a day when the persecution of women and the killing of homosexuals will be tolerated again in our own country for the sake of "multiculturalism" or "diversity"? I do think my professor is right. We do need to take a long look at ourselves and our semblence of logic.

Iraq has not gone well. That much is certain. But we have not lost yet. The question I pose is this: do you even want to win any longer? I have as many questions about the reasoning behind the invasion as anyone else. I didn't support the invasion from the beginning. But, now that we're there, and now that the relatively stabilizing force of Saddam has been removed, we cannot afford to leave Iraq in even worse shape than when we first arrived. What arises to replace Saddam would be something much more terrible, and thousands of our soldiers' lives will have been sacraficed for nothing. For those of you making Vietnam parallels, this will be when Iraq becomes what Vietnam was: when we decide that we should fail rather than press on and make Iraq and the world a better place to live in. Maybe the idealist in me is showing true, but I'd rather be an idealist than one self-loathing of my country, who wonders if the terrorists were right all along. If that's the world you would like to live in, by all means, bring the troops home now.

"I'm ashamed for my country." -Oliver Stone

On the 9/11 television movie

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:33:49 GMT

I'm not sure if the movie attributes a degree of responsibility to the other Presidents of the era in which we ignored the rise of global terrorism, i.e. the presidencies of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II's first year in office in addition to its criticism of Clinton's actions. If it does so, then I see no problem with this movie. If it fabricates situations openly known to be false for the sake of drama or political uppercut, I don't feel the movie should be aired. But most importantly, I feel that the effect and importance of a movie pales in contrast to the much more important tasks of building democracy in Iraq and containing the aggressiveness of rogue regimes like Iran. That Democrats are parading around Washington, giving interviews and arranging press conferences to condemn a TV movie is reminiscent of Christian paranoia over an also fictional movie which suggests Jesus Christ may have taken a wife, or of Republicans ignoring real problems to debate the fate of Terri Schiavo in both houses of Congress.

In our free and open society, if a one-sided slanderous movie is put on the market, it will be exposed as such in a public debate of the facts among America's populace, and not by the weak leaders in the Democratic party who claim there is a "better way" for America's security, but waste their energy on a straight to television movie that will be forgotten in six months time. Its time for Democrats to get new leadership and new direction, or be defeated in the November elections. What do the reputations of Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright mean to the American people in the present? I'm not saying they couldn't have expressed uncertainty over the legitimacy of the movie in a passing comment to the media, but to dedicate such energy to this matter is ridiculous, especially in times when that energy would be better used elsewhere. Harry Reid is the weakest leader in the Democratic party in recent memory.