Veterans Day 2013 passed with traditional fanfare, but the headlines of the day centered on the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Philippines. Ironically, US Marines landed in heavily hit areas on this day when we are celebrating our veterans. The third category five storm to hit the nation of islands since 2010 and the fourth typhoon this year, Typhoon Haiyan may well be responsible for the death of over ten thousand individuals while it certainly has overwhelmed the capacity of its government to cope. As such, an absence of US military intervention, along with the UN and the numerous non-governmental organizations of the world, would turn devastating crises of these natures into hopeless catastrophes.
In this age of our American-led International Community, our military’s mission is to suppress military threats, police terrorism, and address humanitarian crises. Although the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars represent major conflicts, progress throughout the global community has significantly diminished this traditional role for all the militaries of the world. I am reminded of the scene in “Star Trek: Into the Darkness” when Scotty refused to accept the delivery of advanced weapons over his concerns that they may be undertaking a military mission. As Star Fleet is the military of the Star Trek world, this is quite ironic. Looking at current trends, we may see a point in the future when the traditional military role disappears. Furthermore, where US military intervention generates divisiveness and anti-American sentiments, US military intervention for the sake of humanitarian aid does not. In fact, it reminds the world that it is best served by a strong America. The best offensive strategy is a good defensive strategy, thus the United States pursues war when we see a threat and work to build a stable International Community. Without strong US leadership since the 1940s, if others had headed the International Community in terms of military strength, nations like the Philippines could not expect much foreign aid, if any. Without a strong US military serving as a global deterrent and stabilizer, there is a lot of good that would go undone. Traditional militaries serve the interests of a nation, not the interests of other nations and peoples; American leadership drives a world where it is in the interests of all nations to support the human needs of all people throughout the world. Today, the rest of the world embraces this responsibility to our fellow man, because America has led the way.
Comments
Since the Federal government shutdown ended, America’s political class has struggled to accomplish something of consequence, let alone something bipartisan. Thanks to the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, individuals dealing with mental health and behavioral issues will see greater access to treatment. Dysfunctional behavior, which stems from mental health and behavioral issues, undermines health, decision-making, relationships, community, financial responsibility, job performance, etc., thus increased treatment for these disorders is a win for everyone. As such, mental health parity is a bipartisan goal that should be fully supported by everyone.
That said, treating psychological issues equivalent to health issues will put a greater strain on an insufficient mental health system. Consequently, it will be years before the healthcare industry can actually turn mental health parity into reality. In all likelihood, it will require mental health professionals of differing levels of education to restructure how they interact with patients experiencing varying degrees of dysfunction. Meanwhile, they also need to work diligently to develop more effective treatment methods that can more directly address the root causes of mental health issues with improved efficiencies for all income levels. Fortunately, addressing the ill-effects of dysfunctional behavior will help decrease the burden on the healthcare system and other social institutions as unhealthy behavior often results in health issues and socially destructive behavior. Moreover, the public policies that allow for mental health parity are moving into place, yet it will take time and additional cooperation to ensure parity is reached. Politicians should look to help speed up this transition by working to build on the policies that now exist. Details on an agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear program appear to be forthcoming while the Obama Administration wants a deal in place as soon as possible. Establishing a dialog on the subject and halting any progress on a nuclear weapon are important steps, but a treaty is only useful so long as it addresses the interests of the relevant parties. Due to our global interests, this includes the US and the rest of the West; however, countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have even more immediate interests when it comes to a nuclear Iran. Speed only guarantees political credit is given to those who started negotiations, yet a nuclear deal must focus on minimizing the future potential of Iran building a nuclear weapon. The most apparent means of accomplishing this goal would be for Iran to give up its ability to enrich nuclear material.
With the Obama Administration struggling to bypass domestic gridlock in order to accomplish something and the Middle East in a period of chaotic flux, it would be nice to get the nuclear Iran issue out of the way. Doing so might help prevent even greater political instability. That said, a superficial deal with Iran will do nothing to stabilize the region. It is also important to remember there is a revolutionary movement inside Iran that was brutally suppressed by the Iranian government just before the Arab Spring began. As such, the US must tread softly. Relieving political and economic pressure on the Iranian government is equivalent to empowering the Iranian government. Fitting this latest development into the overall dialog of recent US engagement in the Middle East, it seems America is simply looking out for its interests as was perceived when the US agreed to ignore the Syrian People’s most pressing needs in favor of destroying Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles, i.e. we failed to take action against Assad’s military in order to address the International Community’s concerns. This is a problem, because America needs to show the Peoples of the Middle East that the United States is a legitimate authority looking to build partnerships capable of serving our interests and their interests. As such, the US needs to get a really good deal or walk away, because any deal with come with a hefty price in terms of PR. This does not mean the United States must take an all or nothing approach. It means the interest of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon must eventually be served by guaranteeing Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the future. It also means the US should seek concessions that would allow opposition groups to operate more freely in Iran. Iran needs to reform; otherwise, a nuclear deal that can be undone in a few months or less will be worthless. Because Iran has bluntly refused to dismantle its ability to enrich, the best possible deal at this time is likely one that keeps a dialog open between the West and Iran while halting Iran’s progress on its nuclear program. Consequently, easing sanctions at this time does not make sense, thus this opening deal should focus on alternative solutions, trust building objectives, and securing ongoing talks. Election Day 2013 passed like most off-year election days, barely noticed by American voters. There were, however, some interesting ballot measures, including one that would raise minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour in the Washington town of SeaTac. In many respects, the numerous airport support jobs of SeaTac represent many of the overall job problems of the US economy. Where in the ‘70s and ‘80s, SeaTac workers could expect to earn 16 or more dollars an hour, unadjusted for inflation, they are now barely paid minimum wage, even after years of service, while sick days and other fringe benefits are essentially nonexistent, according to SEIU 775NW Healthcare President David Rolf (PBSNEWS HOUR, 11/5/2013).
Frankly, our economy is designed to suppress prices. Because this objective is accomplished through outsourcing, increased efficiency, and other methods of cost displacement, this means our economy is designed to suppress wages and eliminate jobs, which has been happing since long before the Great Recession accelerated the trend. Coupled with efforts to undermine the strength of unions and other representative groups, which do struggle with their own issues, the airport support workers of SeaTac are experiencing the effects of an economy build for consumers and not workers. Furthermore, these individuals work in essential jobs that support a key service, i.e. transportation; therefore, a properly functioning capitalist system should yield a living wage, if not more, for the airport support workers of SeaTac. Instead, lower-wage workers must utilize social services like Medicaid, food stamps, and food pantries to simply survive. This comes at an annual cost to taxpayers of about $20,000 per worker according to Rolf. Without these socialist programs subsidizing these and other near minimum wage jobs around the country, it is clear they would be nonviable for workers, thus our capitalist system is not working properly. Thanks to decades old efforts to undermine worker representation, i.e. give workers leverage to ensure their interests are met, and policies designed to favor the wealthy, these key market institutions have grown too weak to function as they must; henceforth, our capitalist system does not efficiently disperse wealth and the American People cannot expect capitalism to work for them. In essence, this is the reason voters of SeaTac have turned to government intervention while others, including Washington DC fast food restaurant workers have done so as well, which is an industry designed to suppress food preparer wages through efficiency. Unfortunately, these types of socialist interventions at the local level, as well as at the national level when they are done without tariff/trade reforms, are likely to push jobs away, which is what makes the situation so difficult to address. That said, it is more and more likely voters will turn to socialist interventions, unless our capitalist system is recalibrated to serve the American People’s economic interests, yet doing so will address the long growing failings of other economy at a far greater cost than is necessary. What the American People need is greater economic leverage, so we can drive money into our pockets. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s visit to Washington was met with a fair amount of backlash. Given the enormous investment America put into Iraq, it seems logical for the United States to offer increased military and intelligence aid in the wake of the Syria Civil War, which has helped fuel renewed violence in Iraq. Although intelligence sharing is a necessary element of any alliance, especially when one partner is under threat, it does not seem the US will freely provide the Maliki government with the additional military hardware it requested.
The Middle East is currently experiencing uprisings against governments that have been willing to use their military hardware to suppress revolutionaries. The United States is already seen as a hypocritical when it come to serving the interests of the Peoples of the region, thus America cannot afford to give Maliki any more tools to oppress segments of his population. Because Islam has grown more globalized in recent years, which means national borders no longer isolate Muslims of the same domination, the conflicts that have arisen from the Arab Spring revolutions are significantly defined by ethnicity. Henceforth, a failure of leaders like Maliki to serve the interests of non-Shiites contribute to ethnic tensions across the region while unfettered US support would only encourage Maliki to ignore minority interests in Iraq. Granted, the Sunni minor did brutalized the Shiite majority under Saddam Hussein, so the Prime Minister’s resistance to power sharing is understandable; however, two wrongs do not make a right and Iraq is filled with innocent Sunnis who must have the same protections as their Shiite brothers and sisters. Meanwhile, it is also important to look at Iraq as a recipient of US treasure and blood. When the United States helped restabilize Iraq, there were many individuals, including this writer, who predicted the country would eventually collapse once major US military operations ended. The reasons for this prediction stemmed from a failure to build up the civil institutions needed for proper governance and economic stability. In other words, Iraqi’s real problems were never solved; the symptoms were temporarily alleviated by accelerated US intervention, thus reengaging Iraq is a slippery slope for America that will likely end in a commitment the American People are unwilling to undertake. Ironically, it might be argued that the Arab Spring helped the Iraqi government suppress its impulse to undermine democracy and the interests of minorities, plus it made democracy a more acceptable choice thanks to regional peer pressure, thus Iraq became less likely to destabilize. Now that violence from Syria has spread to Iraq, the revolution is making it harder for Iraq to cope with its shortcomings. Consequently, Iraq needs the support of its People to survive this wave of chaos and that will only happen if the Iraqi government is a government for the People.) Furthermore, Iraq is not the only country at risk of destabilizing. If the problem is truly Syria, the US is better served by addressing the Syrian issue directly instead of building up Iraq’s defenses. After all, the outsourcing of Syrian violence is a threat to all of its neighbors while the US nor Saudi Arabia can provide the entire region with sufficient aid to compensate for the unfolding scenario. For example, Lebanon and Jordan are already overwhelmed by Syrian refugees. Throwing more money and hardware at the Iraq problem will do little, if anything, to address increasing regional instability. In fact, increased humanitarian aid to the aforementioned countries would probably do more to ease the situation. Quite frankly, the Iraqi government needs to start acting like a government and address the interests of the Peoples of its country, before the US should offer an emergency boost in aid. This is not to say, however, that the US should do nothing as we can offer increased guidance in ways to manage the increasing crisis inside Iraq. That is, if Maliki is actually trying to strengthen his society as a whole, the US can help him find a strategy to do that. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|