Reading Log 15

I just read an article about Iraq on an independent news website. The article was very interesting because it gives a different perspective then what is being told by the US media. Although we hear about some of the violence in Iraq there is still a lot of the story left uncovered by the US media. For example the number of attacks was 24,470 in 2004 and 26,500 in 2005. More over the insurgents seam to have an unlimited supply of fighters. Quoted from the (News Defense) one of the army officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Ross Brown, a squadron commander in the 3rd armoured cavalry regiment: "I went out on an operation, I killed 27 [insurgents] in October. All they do is fill their spaces with more people; they have an infinite supply of replacements. We kill a leader or we detain a leader and there is somebody else in charge. Every time I feel good about killing or detaining this guy, there is somebody else to fill the boots, somebody is standing right behind ready to jump up."
In 2004 the Bush administration was calling these insurgent attacks as mere "remnants" that were being organized by a hand full of families and that they would soon dissolve, however now no one is saying that there are a few "remnants".

From the very begging I knew that going into Iraq was a bad idea. I remember one of the questions that my dad kept on asking was what was the plan after we won. The Bush administration had a plan, however their plan failed miserable. The strategy was was termed "'clear, hold, build' and involves clearing a city or district of insurgents, holding it with US troops with assistance from Iraqi security forces, and implementing a build strategy of reconstruction and long-term control (see "Victory in Iraq", 15 December 2005)." Unfortunately, this plan severely miscalculated the sophisticated strategy that the insurgents have developed to successful turn any order that the US army has tried to establish in Iraq. The do not know of a magic strategy that will save us, however I do know that usually when an army gets beaten badly that they usually retreat and do not stick around to take more of a pounding. If we stay in Iraq the situation is going to continue to be the same. Of course if we leave there is a good chance that the government that we have been trying to form will collapse. I think that the ultimate decider of the future of Iraq is the Iraqi people. If they want freedom and democracy they can have it, if they do not, then we don't need to try to force them into it. I think that Iraq is a lesson for the United States, the age of imperialism is over and it is becoming increasingly difficult to use military force to secure foreign interest. I think what America needs now is strong leadership. As the most powerful nation in the world we have a unique opportunity to lead the world in developing a globalized system based on capitalism and free trade.

Reading Log 14

In this reading we learned about the different views of the role of the government and the people. During the middle ages in Europe the government was a federal system. The belief was that the leaders where choosen by God to rule the people and therefore the people should obey these leaders. Because God choose the leaders it was a sin to go against them. Over the years different philosophies have been developed about how the government should best function and even today people still debate over what is the best way to rule. During the 17th and 18th centuries Thomas Hobbes and John Locke amoung others beleived that human beings originally lived in nature, and although humans may have essentially been good human nature and greed causes humans to endanger eachother by violently taking away others freedoms and possestions. Thus, government is needed to protect the people and allow them to pursue self interest in a fair environment and be treated equally. As the age of reason progressed new ideas about government developed. For example liberals during the 17th and 18th century saw the role of the goverment was to help the individual reach self defined goals by eliminate hurldes such as social privilege, blood rights, authoritarian instituations and the church. However not everyone agreed with this. Edmund Burke beleived that the individual alone could not make good decisions and that a collection of people in a large group together would make the best decisions. He saw society as an organism whose puropse was to promote the good of the whole by the individual being served by the promotion of the community. Today in the US the liberals value social services, educations, and taxing large corportions, while the conservatives beleive that individualism is a hurtle and value the whole over the individual. They do not support social services and spend more money on the military. Conservaties also beleive that individuals are responcible for there own well being and therefore the goverment should not interfere by provided aid to the poor or disadvantaged.

In my opinion so far there is no perfect political party. Like everything each party has it pros and cons. I personally tend to support the liberals because I value education and beleive that the conservatives mostly have a disregard to the environment. Although sometimes the parties overlap. For example Arnold ran for govenor as a republican, however he has put a lot of energy into finding environmental solutions to solving problems. This is different from most republicans and you would usually expect a demacrat to take on these challenges.