May 10, 2012

What did the Iraq war give US?

US Military Saddam Hussein "most wanted&q...

Image via Wikipedia

What did the war on Iraq give the U.S? Did they discover the weapons of mass destruction. Or did they find Saddam Hussein in a hurry? Or did they by chance find Osama thinking he was hiding in Saddam’s palace?

As per public opinion the war on Iraq was a misadventure. America went to Iraq to save the world, but now it had to save its face. The shame it had brought to its people by the activities of its military were disturbing. People were not convinced by the killings of innocent people.

A lot of American lives were lost as well. Soldiers lost their lives not fulling knowing whom they’re fighting and for what purpose.
The Federal Government justified its actions stating that millions of people were freed from oppressive rule. Another thing was that a stable government was in Iraq was a stimulant for regional peace. But again, people ask, how is America concerned about peace in that region?

A lot of justifications are doing the rounds. The war on Iraq was supposedly looked at with great need by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Both countries have a cordial relationship with the U.S. Now given the penchant of U.S. to support its allies, this was no surprise. But would U.S do it without a purpose? Why is the U.S. not getting the scruff of rogue Pakistan which is snapping at the heels of America’s good friend India?

A lot of questions have to be answered, and a lot of questions are yet to be raised.

Will America lose its Economic Prominence


Image by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

Different countries have taken dominance over different phases of time in the history of the world. Once the Roman empire reigned supreme. Later the Ottoman empire took over control. After the fall of the Ottoman empire there were lot of European countries vying for this position. Which eventually led to the World War 1.

The U.S came in then. Charged with liberated economic practices, and robust industrial growth, it was automatically the next heir. When building its economy, America made sure that a culture of innovation was embedded in the core consciousness of every citizen. It was like an ultimatum – You innovate or lose out.

Somehow people feel that the age of America is drawing to a close. As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United States is only years away from losing its economic power status to America. By the next presidential elections, the president of the United States would have to listen to the Chinese president.

IMF published its findings in the World Economic Outlook journal. 2016 is the year when China will start to come into prominence. At this time, the U.S GDP line will come close to China’s growth line – graphically speaking.

By the year 2016, China’s GDP would have touched nineteen trillion dollars. And the U.S would trail behind by a couple of trillion dollars. Thus making China the economic superpower. But industry analysts say statistics are of no use when it cannot even predict a recession. Although all is not lost for the U.S the indications are clear. The U.S has to act.




A casual understanding of the Af-Pak policy

Map of Afghanistan with flag.

Image via Wikipedia

Af-Pak is something that has been created by the U.S. You could say it is a neologism. Over the years much of America’s problems have been coming from this region. America has recognized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are areas that have come under focus during the past terrorist events.

The U.S has a special policy for Af-Pak. Under the Obama administration this policy is developing every day. The main aim of the policy is to disable the infrastructure and resources with which the terrorists operate.

As per Obama, the future of Pakistan is somehow linked to the future of Afghanistan. Since 9/11, Afghanistan-based terror organizations have permeated into Pakistan. This has given rise to a regional-stability issue. Pakistan has a potent nuclear arsenal. And with the terrorists close-by, all hell can break loose.

Obama has categorically stated that even if it were not an American problem, it is a threat to international peace. Very soon even America could become a victim to it. The issue is not national, it is global. Just like global warming.

Another aspect of Af-Pak policy is to bring stability to Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan as per the U.S. are not ready for a Taliban rule again. A Taliban rule means getting the country back to brutality. The U.S does not want this to happen.

Obama made it clear that the Af-Pak policy is not to control Afghanistan or Pakistan. It is designed to control the situation in the world, before it becomes a global threat.



Exposed Units Lead to Soldier Deaths

Chinook helicopter above Combat Outpost Keatin...

Image via Wikipedia

A U.S. military probe into the deaths of eight American soldiers that died during an attack in northeastern Afghanistan concluded that the deaths could have been prevented if commanding officers had heeded warnings and not left the troops exposed. In addition to the eight deaths, 22 of the other 45 soldiers stationed at the remote outpost of Combat Outpost Keating were injured in the attack when more than 200 Afghan insurgents advanced on the vulnerable troops with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and guns in October 2009.

It took more than 18 months for U.S. Central Command to complete the investigation report, which recommended that four officers - a captain, a major, a lieutenant colonel, and a colonel – be punished with official letters of admonition or reprimand for their part in putting soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry in a “tactically indefensible position” with an “unclear mission.” The names of the officers were rescinded in a public copy of the investigation report.

According to survivors, many of the Afghan soldiers that were stationed at Combat Outpost Keating with American troops ran or hid during the attacks, which may have led to an worse loss. Other contributions to the attack included too few soldiers stationed at the outpost and the lack of barriers and other defenses built there. The outpost had been scheduled to close previously.

The eight soldiers who died in the attack were: Sgt. Justin T. Gallegos, Spc. Christopher T. Griffin, Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson, Spc. Michael P. Scusa, Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, Spc. Stephen L. Mace, Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk and Sgt. Joshua M. Hardt.

Pentagon Papers Finally Released

A U.S. riverboat deploying napalm during the V...

Image via Wikipedia

Forty years after a leak brought parts of the Pentagon Papers to light in the New York Times, the papers, officially called “United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense,” were declassified and released by the National Archives in June 2011. At the time they were leaked, the Pentagon Papers became a catalyst for both general knowledge of U.S. political and military involvement in the Vietnam War and a coup in the legal matter of burden of proof for prior injunction.

The Pentagon Papers showed that the Johnson administration, the Kennedy administration and even prior administrations had been involved in escalating the conflict in Vietnam without alerting the U.S. Congress, the American public or even U.S. military allies.

While many of the secret details that are within the papers are already known because of the eventual publication by dozens of newspapers of the most interesting details, the release of the 7,000 page document is historic because of both the legal and cultural ramifications the original leak and subsequent attempt to stop the press from publishing it had on the American landscape. A little more than 30 percent of the report was never published or released anywhere else but can be read now.

The Pentagon Papers leak back in 1971 was considered the Wikileaks of its time. Daniel Ellsberg, a private foreign policy analyst, had copied pages of the report that he removed from a safe each night and then replaced in the mornings until he had enough to hand over to the New York Times. Now everyone has access to the papers.



Steps to Form a Peaceful Protest

The purpose of a protest is to bring attention to a cause. The first amendment gives us the right for peaceful protest. Here are the steps you need to take to form a peaceful protest.

1. Get People on Your Team

Gather people who are interested about your cause and willing to sacrifice a moment of their time to bring public awareness. A good place to recruit for protesters are at universities.

2. Plan a Route Schedule

Once you have your group together, the next step is to plan a route for your protest. This involves the day, time and locations you plan on covering during your march. The most ideal route would be high traffic areas where your group can get the most visibility.

3. Get Legal Permission

Most cities will require you to obtain a permit for protest. Getting the permit will involve you filling out an application that list your expected number of protesters, the time, date and routes you will be taking. A fee is usually charged for this permit.

4. Notify Police

Once you are granted a permit, you must notify your local police department and provide the time, date and route for your protest. The police can assist your group by setting up blockades at certain sections along your route. Notifying the police ensures that you are not trespassing on certain properties and blocking entrances of business buildings and traffic.

5. Advertise & Notify the Media

Advertisement is the best way to get large numbers of people to show up for your protest. Another way to get more attention is to notify your local news station.

Follow these steps and your peaceful protest can make a change.

How To Go To War With Yourself To Silence Inner Protests

Keeping one’s sense of sanity and peace of mind in an insane world. Can sometimes be difficult to achieve. However, the only way to attaining balance and calm, must happen by applying one thing. You must go to war with yourself and be determined to silence any existing inner protests. These inner protests must be brought to the outside and expelled. As it is these very internal protests that can bring negativity.

How to go to war with yourself to silence inner protests. Is something that happens this way. What is this way? Well, the first step is to declare war with the inner protests, and part of doing this right out. Is to confront whatever it is. Which is causing you conflict. People need to move away from the anger and drama. It is better to have harmony and love. The world is a troubled place and part of the trouble is the discord that abounds. It is the thing that propels individuals to violence and hatred. People create this turbulence. The only way to purge yourself of it. Is to free up the negativity and replace it with positive.

You can be a difference to the world and yourself. Minus the drama. So apply only the best you have to give and be happy to live. Living and being in a continued state of crisis will only damn your life. It will not compliment it in any form. Destroy the panic and diffuse the alarm.

There are good protests. But there are also bad ones. The only way to separate the good from the bad. Is to take it within yourself and see what it does. If it brings a positive reaction. All is well. Nevertheless, if it brings the opposite, time to give it the boot from your human system. Go to war within yourself. Only when prompted to do so. As confronting yourself on the battlefield will be the last stand.