The Reemergence of Real Leadership

Tuesday evening at 8pm President Obama took a great step in his evolution toward becoming one of the greatest leaders our country has ever seen. Like many presidents before him, Obama argued his case for war, this time against against Al Qaeda. Unlike others however, he did so standing in front of West Point students—many of whom will see deployment in Afghanistan and may indeed lose their lives.

In his address to the American people, the President carefully outlined a point by point strategy for attacking the al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made it crystal clear that victory would happen with the support of NATO forces, with the United States acting as a beacon of hope and liberty. This was what many people, myself included, hoped to hear former President Bush say after 9/11, but that unity was squandered amongst endless vendettas against Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically. In his speech, President Obama pledged to finally unite the world under the flag of liberty and security.

The additional 30,000 United States troops will not stand on the front lines alone, that the President made abundantly clear. Obama meant two things through that promise. First, the troops will be standing side by side with our allies, in particular Pakistani soldiers who have seldom cooperated with United States peace efforts. Secondly, and most importantly the President made a plea to the American people to support the troops and this effort to preserve peace and democracy.

Some people watched this address with immediate skepticism. Some said that Obama made a critical error by setting a firm deadline for troop withdrawal from the area (2011). For those interested in that argument, tune into C-Span or CNN and listen to Senator McCain argue against the preservation of liberty and safety of America. The majority of Republicans support Obama on this issue however.

Democrats are now the ones rushing to oppose military action. To these Senators and Congressmen, all I can say is that the damage has already been done. Obama is simply willing and able to stop the bloodshed in a very volatile and dangerous area of the world. Is the United States responsible for much of the current turmoil? Yes. But Obama opposed every single measure which led us to this point. Make no mistake, the President’s actions in this situation is that of a Commander and Chief and not of a timid little man who somehow weaseled his way out of serving in Vietnam in order to become this Nation’s worst president of the modern era.

President Obama has acted decisively and prudently. He is arguing for peace, standing up for the rights of all Afghans and even those Taliban forces that are willing to accept that freedom is the correct course for the Afghan people.

Numerous times I have stated that the President is arguing for something. This implies that he somehow needs to persuade the American public as well as the legislative branch to support his effort; all the while our troops look westward and see nothing but political squabbling and citizen unrest. This is unacceptable.

The truth is simple: President Obama is doing exactly what he was elected to do. Our Commander and Chief is bringing an end to open-ended war, unifying the world’s countries, and in the process repairing America’s image abroad. He is also fulfilling a greater promise to the American people, which is that he will do what is necessary to preserve our safety even against popular opposition. This is what America has lacked for eight long years; real leadership in the face of adversity.

Enslaved Journalists, Nuclear Proliferation: The Fight Betwean Values in the Conflict With North Korea

Several intriguing and disturbing events have been reported on over the past twenty-hour hours, each raising questions regarding the United States willingness to uphold human rights of its citizens and its overall commitment to promoting just acts world-wide.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists and citizens of the United States were sentenced to twelve years in a North Korean labor camp by the North Korean High Court. The basis for this decision is that these two women committed crimes against the North Korean state simply be being close to its borders; Officials also claim that they entered North Korean territory illegally (a questionable charge at the very least).

Being held prisoner since March 17^th, the United States government has done surprisingly little to secure the freedom of their citizens, except to say that their capture and subsequent sentencing is against human rights standards. As reported by the New York Times, Ian C.  Kelly, a state department representative, the United States government has all but acknowledged this sentencing as a political move meant to provide the North Korean government leverage in negotiations and hostilities with the United States.

This understanding is accompanied with the knowledge of the harsh conditions of the labor camps and that horrible things could (and with all likelihood will) happen to these journalists.

In an era where terrorism is the talk of the day, no one seems to consider the unjust and terrible torture being conducted by North Korea an act of terrorism, even if it is against one of its enemies. Such an oversight is wrong. The imprisonment of Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee is an act of terrorism and cannot be tolerated any more than nuclear proliferation.

Of course, in the midst of this humanitarian travesty, the United States continues to lobby the United Nations Security Council to sanction an embargo on all North Korean exports, claiming that they are in the business of promoting terrorism and possibly enticing a massive arms race in Northern Asia through nuclear proliferation.

The United States has sought support from China in an effort to curb North Korean aggression. According to Chinese Law, military intervention against North Korea would be acceptable. However with North Korea already promising to conduct additional weapons tests of short, medium, and long-range missiles, the results of such a threat could be devastating to South Korea and even go as far as to provoke Japan into beginning its own weapons projects. Such an action would destabilize the region and spark a war that’s far less containable than what the United States has already begun in the Middle East.

President Obama should be applauded for his hard-line stance against North Korea, pledging that the United States was through “rewarding provocation.” At the same time, the President has expressed a willingness to re-open the six-party talks with North Korea in an attempt to come to a peaceful resolution to this nuclear threat.

There is however legitimate reasons to be concerned about the United States motivations in this conflict. The United States seems willing to sacrifice the safety of its own citizens trapped unjustly in North Korean prison camps in favor of military posturing. Also President Obama is treating this conflict as if he is dealing with a rationale government. All indications show that the North Korean government would rather engage in war than acquiesce to Western compromises.

Scholars of United States foreign policy should also be concerned that through its requests to intercept North Korean ships in transit via the sea is a clear violation of international law and could very well be considered a legitimate act of war. While President Kennedy got away with this act when he blockaded Cuba in the 1960s, it should be hoped that the United States could act with greater prudence in regards to this matter.

President Obama is a fair and just man who undoubtedly is acting in a manner consistent with his predecessors (even though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s involvement may prove problematic given her husband’s former military stance). The threats against South Korea and Japan are important and very real. But so is the atrocity of North Korea’s desire to harm United States citizens.

Neither nuclear development, continental threat, or the imprisonment and torture of United States citizens can be condoned here; steps must be taken to stop these dangers. The political process is ideal but the right thing to do, the just thing to do, is for President Obama to consider all options in these scenarios.

It is difficult to stomach any mistreatment or pain being inflicted on others, but having faith in one’s government is important even if it’s sometimes difficult. In the mean time all Americans should hope for quick and decisive action to preserve the well-being of every individual affected by these atrocities and not give in to hate, fear, or political propaganda.

The North Korean Quagmire: Where Patience and Understanding Must Begin a Long Road Toward Peace

Before one reads this article, please understand that this piece in no way supports North Korea’s military actions. Instead it is meant to help understand the situation and trouble shoot possible solutions.

There are some facts that political analysts seem to forget when discussing North Korea, especially when they make overt nuclear tests. The first fact is that North Korea, despite having a large foot-soldier army, it is incapable of mounting a winnable attack against South Korea—which has become a symbol for democracy in the Far East. Secondly, the simple fact is that North Korea’s missile tests, which have been conducted over the past few days, in no way directly affect the United States; aside from offering strategic intelligence and being a potential conflict mediator, the United States should leave this matter to the sovereign countries involved.

One of the countries considered involved is of course China. China’s involvement cannot be underestimated in this circumstance. While much of the international community has leveled severe economic and aid sanctions against North Korea, China has maintained a relative peace between both Koreas. It has no interest in war, despite the political posturing of North and South Korea, claiming their readiness for it. China has a tremendous economic connection to the United States and to aid North Korea would likely devastate their economy. Also, peace is a mechanism for social, economic, and industrial innovation, all of which China is investing in. War is simply not in their best interest and it’s inconceivable that, despite his sociopathic tendencies, Kim Jong Il, can’t ignore that. China’s resolve to completely condemn the nuclear and missile tests being conducted by North Korea should ring loudly in their ears. It is a far greater threat than the United States could possibly throw North Korea’s way.

A vital question must therefore be asked: what role should the United States play in this conflict? As stated before, being mediators and collecting intelligence is entirely permissible. However, the United Nation’s Security Council has seen this situation before. Led in large part by the United States, heavy sanctions were laid upon North Korea, assisting in its global isolation, increasing poverty, and in general forcing the country to take aggressive measures in order to gain attention and aid.

One possible solution is to lift the sanctions, monitor North Korea’s military actions, and introduce a free market economy. This most likely cannot be done under Kim Jong II’s rule. But if the North Korean people are put in the position to change, they very well might take it.

In the meantime, this situation should be handled delicately, as President Obama seems to understand. The North Korean government is volatile and one needs to be assertive enough to get a point across while not setting off a powder keg that’s just waiting to blow. The United States cannot go it alone here; it is imperative that other global leaders participate in any political discussions with North Korea. Theoretically common sense should prevail in this matter. Even the Bush administration believed that was true. However the larger the contingent of political leaders being willing to talk to North Korea may diffuse the tension. If the global leaders can, for the moment, look beyond the military implications of these nuclear tests, they might begin to focus on the underlying causes for them, mainly increased poverty and desperation.

Above all else, patience must prevail in this situation. North Korea is capable of political discourse and has an organized government with an established population that they can’t sweep under the rug. All of these specifics lend credence the notion that discussion can work here. President Obama promised to speak with rogue nations. Perhaps North Korea is his first challenge, as the New York Times suggests.

But Obama’s greatest role may become that of a mediator, a task which requires far greater skill than presenting military force and arguing for greater sanctions. President Obama is up to this task. And with his cool intellect, this situation can be resolved and hopefully for more than a year or two.

Pakistan and Nuclear Proliferation: A Discussion of Contradictions

“I’m not afraid of the man who wants a dozen nuclear weapons; I’m terrified of the man who only wants one.”

Nichole Kidman, The Peacekeepers

Today the NY Times presented evidence that the Pakistani government is using monetary funds supplied by the United States in order to strengthen its nuclear arsenal. In an age where countries seem to be consumed by perpetual war, it would be easy to rise up in anger and fear at the prospect of the Taliban seizing control of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However there are several key arguments refuting this notion of panic, all of which are befitting to be considered by informed Americans and indeed even President Obama. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Argument 1

Pakistan is a sovereign nation that can allocate military funds as they see fit, regardless of who supplied it to them.

Surly from the Western perspective money would be better suited in the fight against the Taliban uprising or as a means of stabilizing a volatile central government. While the need to prevent such devastating weapons such as nukes from al Qaeda or the Taliban is important, that job does not fall squarely on the United States’ shoulders. In 2003 President George W. Bush declared that any nation harboring terrorists would become a priority target for the United States. The election of President Obama signaled a supposed shift away from that policy. With that in mind, it’s important to remember that the United States cannot micromanage other countries’ efforts to counter terrorism inside their borders. To do so would be in violation of Pakistan’s sovereign independence _____________________________________________________________________________________

Argument 2

Pakistan is in the midst of a silent war between India and Israel, with none of the three countries agreeing to the non-proliferation treaty regarding nuclear weapons.

Let’s face it, the Middle East is a volatile place. While no official declarations of war have been made between countries, many of them have been shaping their militaries to match that of their rivals; on many occasions these countries have clashed in disputed areas such as Kashmir. It’s imperative to realize that India, Pakistan, nor Israel have signed the nuclear proliferation treaty. It should be no surprise then that these countries are building weapons at the same pace. The United States did this during the Cold War. No nuclear weapons were ever fired and in an ironic twist of fate, the creation of such an arsenal on both sides provided a relative sense of security and ease to the countries’ people; it is conceivable that this situation regarding Pakistan and its neighbors is not much different. Opponents will argue that this is a war on Terror and that Pakistan is simply not stable enough to protect itself and therefore should be condemned for their actions. At the height of its military power, the United States could police the world, acting as a watchdog. Such a role is ridiculous to consider at this moment. Fighting two wars and a domestic crisis has the United States wrapped up in its own problems. Pakistan’s buildup of nuclear weapons, while something to observe and monitor, it hardly merits a place on the front page of any United States newspaper. While fragile, a peace does exist in the Middle East and perhaps nuclear weapons are part of it. There is no definitive answer here, but the Middle East needs to resolve its conflicts without constant Western influence. It’s the only chance for the cultivation of any sort of lasting peace between nations. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Argument 3

Small armaments, which much of the United States’ aid was supposed to go, have proven more pervasive and deadly than nuclear weapons.

The final argument for the public’s consideration is one that Americans continue to struggle with on their own soil. The simple fact is that hand guns cause more death than large scale bombs. The $7.5 billion that the United States is still planning on supplying to Pakistan for defense purposes would have been used to create and train soldiers to use such weapons. It is sheer ignorance to believe that Pakistanis would only use these weapons against the Taliban. If anything, given the country’s history, it is likely that civilians or covert military units would use these weapons to harm Indians or Israelis. And who is to say that these very same weapons would not fall in to the hands of the Taliban and be used to destroy the Pakistani government, which is a far more logical assessment than thinking a nuclear bomb would be the country’s downfall. From 2002 until the end of his tenure as President, George W. Bush authorized a continuous, covert flow of weapons and technology into Pakistan. This was reported by the NY Times in 2006 only after the paper lost patience with the government insisting that such information would be a breach in national security. The technology was benign, defensive technologies, tracking systems, and on occasions small armaments. Of course the thought that such technology could be reengineered for offensive purposes or at least that remains the former administration’s position on the matter. There is no telling how many lives, whether they be Pakistani, Iraqi, Indian, or Israeli, lives have been taken by the weapons provided by the United States, just as it remains unknown how much of that technology has fallen into the hands of terrorist networks. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Keeping all of this in mind, it seems a bit odd that the United States would be so interested in what has become such a common practice in the Middle East. Since 9/11 and perhaps before then, the Middle East has been synonymous with death and violence. The potential truth of the matter is that this image was cultivated by the West, the Peacekeepers of the world. As tempting as it may be for the United States to focus on nuclear proliferation and point out those who do not abide by the United Nations voluntary accords, it may be better to focus on its own domestic problems and the wars it is fighting. President Obama should be praised for his attempts to curb nuclear proliferation; the same could be said regarding his decision to end torture and bring some humility back into Washington. But that humility, that understanding compassion and respect must extend beyond the United States to include the sovereignty of all nations.

Cashman Unveils Yankee Decadence

I never thought that a sports franchise could personify all of the things wrong with American culture; that is to say before I saw Brian Cashman, the GM of the New York Yankees, speak at a lecture at Southern Connecticut State this past week. Here is a man who helped usher in a distinct new era: the opening of a $1.5 billion stadium (which might as well be called a cathedral), spending over $420 million in the free agent market, while somehow managing to reduce, in Peter Gammon’s words, “a people’s game,” into one of statistics and arm angles coupled with bat speeds. If one were to look at the current Yankees and nothing else, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that it was still the 1990s, where the budget was balanced and people weren’t being forced from their homes and losing their jobs at a record pace.

At this lecture, Cashman frequently joked about how the Yankees spent money, saying , “the New York Yankees are America’s team and America expects to win. The have the highest payroll for that reason; America and tradition will not accept anything less and that’s never going to change.” He even joked that he had the prefect name for being the GM for the Yanks in “Cash-Man.”

Neither Peter Gammons, who was conducting this lecture/interview, or anyone else in the audience bothered to remind Cashman that The United States was founded by immigrants, the underdogs of the world. The average American is not about money; they cannot spend over $2,000 on a seat to Yankee stadium to see them lose 22-4.  It’s also worth noting that even Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball has taken notice of the Yankees actions and is beginning to step in, speaking with Team Officials regarding ticket costs.

At this point you might be wondering why I am writing about the New York Yankees in a blog specifically tailored to domestic and international political affairs. I mention this because this is the way much of the world is still viewing America, especially with the failing bailouts and recently with Chrysler filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Even in times of great economic stress, 5% of the US is still living overly-lavish lifestyles, oblivious to those suffering. A country run by such narcissistic men and women cannot be expected to lead fairly and it would be a terrible disservice to the international community, which looks up to the United States, to even consider following the United States’ path, which is apparently one consistent with looking back on more stable times and longing for it instead of taking steps to fix the current economic issues and status world-wide.

Since the late 1990s, the Yankees have been known as an evil empire. Now it seems the United States is accepting this label willingly.

Welcome to the new Empire.

Pirates Underscore American Ambivalence

Many of my blog entries thus far have hit upon the issue of America’s reluctance to enter conflicts unless their own self interest is compromised. This is especially true in regards to the hostage situation along Somalia’scoast, where pirates are holding an American captain hostage and attempting to get to shore and negociate a ransom. The hope is that a blockade of warships, all carrying warheads and some with aircraft at their disposal, will be sufficient to scare off the pirates.

Of course this might be the first instance the American people are even hearing about modern-day pirates, and sadly they are not like Johnny Depp’s character in Pirates of the Caribbean.

For over a year now, pirates have been ravaging the African, South American, and even some Central American coast lines. The most prominent victims have been cargo ships, cruse lines, and even fishing boats. The pirates do seem to be working in consort with one another, organizing a fleet of ships and weapons. And while I, under no uncertain terms, advocate that the United States should act as a global policeman, this is one of the exceptions.

These pirates are terrorists, albeit a different kind that until now has left Americans alone. The same was once said about Al Queda. While recognizing the pirates’ earlier actions as being unacceptable, America refused to take action to help protect shipping lanes, despite having maintained a significant naval presence since 2001. These pirates should have been kept under check. Now the United States is faced with either allowing the pirates to reach shore then negotiate for the captain’s release (which they seem intent on not doing, as warships have currently cut off the pirate boat’s re-enforcements and escape route) or launching a military assault. Any military attack would be nothing short of declaring war on a sea-faring terrorist network…which would make the United States a champion, at least in terms of the number of wars one can fight at a single moment. That’s not a distinction I would be proud of.

The simple fact is that stopping these pirates at an earlier juncture would have been the humanitarian thing to do. Granted there would have been no public support for military action and American soldiers on the ground in Somalia would face greater dangers. Still, by standing by and doing nothing, and consequently allowing this new terrorist network to develop, the United States has made the world less safe…a concept not seen in the best interest of America until now.

North Korea Rocket Launch a Signal for Aid & the Lifting of Ill-Advised Sanctions

So North Korea has attempted yet another failed rocket launch. This would have to be the third in recent memory and each time the international community has responded, by enlarge, with great negativity, almost as if they didn’t expect this from a nation that has willing barricaded itself from outside influence. President Barack Obama has condemned this act as an overt show of force meant to intimidate neighboring nations. My question is who is there to intimidate?

South Korea is firmly backed by the United States, Japan, and the rest of the National Security Council. In the middle of this is of course China, which has no interest in war or conflict in the region (and has the troops and resources to prevent said conflict). The Western approach to this launch is predicated on a very old notion: that it is acceptable for some nations to exercises strength as long as the United States agrees with their politics. I had hoped that President Obama would show a bit more prudence in his response.

The reality is that North Korea is an impoverished nation.Completely over-populated almost to the point of not being sustainable, North Korea has been forced to fend for themselves in terms of securing limited trading partners for food and electricity; this is because of a long standing United Nations-backed set of sanctions being levied against them. These sanctions have adversely affected the entire North Korean population. Granted the elite suffer less, but they are still accountable to their population and as a result President Kim Jong-il has been in a sense forced to develop nuclear facilities; this is the only way to sustain their population–something even the Bush administration understood. Despite President Bush’s emphatic claims of North Korea being part of an axis of evil he still allowed political envoys to broker deals with North Korea to stave off potential conflicts. Part of that deal was for North Korea to submit to nuclear inspections and to cease the development of nuclear weapons. This rocket launch does not seem to violate either of those provisions.

If one chooses to believe the public relations trickling from North Korea the rocket launch was an attempt to send a satellite into orbit–a practice that is consistent with other developing nations. And to that end, any rocket used would have to contain enough fuel to clear the distance say between North Korea and Japan. It is hard for me to believe that any intelligent government would intentionally attack Japan or think another nation, especially one that is barely hanging on domesticly, would do the same.

My take on all of this is that at the worst, North Korea is pressing the international community to acknowledge them once again, maybe even try and coerce some additional aid. If this launch was an attempt to send a satellite into orbit I would like to see evidence presented to confirm it. Still, I feel this is a mute point. North Korea poses no threat to anyone and is doing whatever it can to gain the attention of more prosperous nations, probably to lift some sanctions that are decimating their nation.

It is time the UN Security Council come to grips with what security really means, which is not just to debate weapons and their development but also to ensure that countries such as North Korea are not left to last resorts, which unfortunately tend to be military-related. Then perhaps the world powers can take a step back and see the real foes facing the world, which are a bit harder to see when stuck in a cloud of suspicion regarding nations that simply pose no direct threat to any country.

Iran Advocating Peace. Will America Listen?

Here’s an interesting question: could a member of the new Axis of Evil be right? That’s what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton need to ask themselves today. While pledging to send aid and other support to Afghanistan, Iran is taking an active role in rebuilding a crumbling Afghan infrastructure. In doing so, they are questioning the effectiveness of sending more foreign troops into the country.

President Obama, while pledging to withdraw over one hundred thousand troops from Iraq and deploy seventeen thousand or more troops in Afghanistan, should think about that statement. America’s military is depleted and morale is considerably low. There is no debate that America has its own infrastructure problems…none of which our military can solve. There is little evidence to suggest that our military, deployed on foreign ground, can accomplish this same task somewhere else.

As a democrat, i believe that President Obama will take Iran’s overture seriously. I also recognize that the outcry against supporting any agenda involving Iran is politically dangerous considering the tenuous relationship Iran has with Israel. This is a risk, no question about it. But it is exactly what the President promised he would do if elected. He will make the tough decisions inorder to preserve stability in a volitile region even if it means stomaching working with a so called enemy to do so.

There is more at stake now globally than simply reputation and ego. President Bush could not understand that and thousands of American lives were lost as two wars were fought simultaneously as a result.It’s also worth noting that Hilary Clinton was far from being supportive of such collaboration during her Presidential run.

My hope is that President Obama will listen to Secretary Clinton, but also make an overture to the Iranian government and speak directly with them. This is an important step toward peace and the preservation of freedom and American lives…if America can learn to trust Iran. I do not know whether that is wise or even possible. But such a partnership is worthy of discussion.

“Earth Hour” Signals an Interesting Approach to Global Change

How many people are aware of Earth Hour? I certainly wasn’t but apparently millions of citizens worldwide are. On March 28th, household and governments dimmed their lights for an hour as a symbol of their commitment to combating the battle against energy costs and the consequential environmental effects. This year is the third anniversary of Earth Hour.

What is of considerable interest to me is that while I was in Graduate School earning my Masters in Journalism over those years and studying the airwaves quite thoroughly I didn’t hear or see anything about this movement. And make no mistake, that is what this is, a movement. In the 1960s people discussed populace movements as relating to Peace in Vietnam. Such organized opposition to the war in Iraq, while substantial during small periods of time, simply do not compare to Vietnam activism, but this Green Movement does.

I would argue that this movemewnt, the one designed to spur unity for global benefits, not just for the present day but for generations to come, is more important than short term war protests, which actually inspire dessent.

I am optimistic that President Obama will give serious consideration to the need for environmental preservation and energy conservation, two things which President Bush simply failed to acknowledge. There is concrete evidence to support this in the way the United States government is handling the auto industry bailouts…they will be required to significantly reduce carbon emissions.

Maybe the best movements that can happen are global in nature. And I for one, can finally say I am proud that America and its president are standing up for key issues involving the future of the world, not just our nation.

A Time to Listen

It was reported by the New York Times this past week that President Obama has given the go-ahead on pursuing potential negotiations with different sects of the former Taliban Regime. This is in response to Pakistan’s truce with the terrorist network that controls a large section of Northern Pakistan. There is no question that even hinting at such a suggestion would anger countless Americans or at the very least confuse them. However this is no different than what President Clinton orchestrated during the Bosnian Conflict. Over ten years ago two factions in Bosnia were effectively committing genocide on one another. In an effort to quell the bloodshed the United States brokered a deal that ultimately led to a peace accord. Even though it remains a tenuous peace, the quality of life in the region has stabilized. That seems to be the goal again, however this time the President must choose whether or not to reach out his hand to an enemy that harbored Bin Laden.

Make no mistake, to support the Taliban is to support a regime which lacks any sort of moral compass recognized in the West.  This is a former gorverning body which preached intolerance of woman and those whom they considered non-believers. So why should the United States, which considers itself a beacon of liberty consider peace in this situation?

I believe in freedom and helping all people; it is why I am becoming a social worker. But I am not an idealist when it comes to politics. I understand that short term sacrafices can mean lasting peace. Pakistan is an important Ally to the West and civil war is not preferable, not only because we do not have the troops to spare but also because noone in modern history has ever successfully defeated Afgahns on their own land.  This isn’t even to mention the attrocities the people of Pakistan and Afganistan would suffer if an all out civil war were to occur. We cannot impose our desires on a sovereign nation. President Obama uderstands this.

Whether or not the United States supports the beliefs and actions of the Taliban are in this case irrelavent. President Obama promised to talk with our enemies, if indeed that is an appropriate term any longer. That does mean stomaching some bad feelings. But it must be noted that Bin Laden and the Taliban did not necessarily work in conjunction with the Taliban government was being assailed by President Bush even before the attacks on 9/11.

Change has always come slowly in the Middle East, if it comes at all. And if an alliance with even a fraction of the Taliban can help promote change than it is worth exploring. When i say change I mean change that comes about naturally, without political or monetary gain for the United States. Such selfless actions have happened before.

To those who would argue that to make alliances with those who harmed us, I would ask you to remember Pearl Harbor and the atom bomb. And I offer you a quote from The American President as to what it means to be an American:

“let’s see you listen to a person argue at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a life time arguing in opposition of.”

In a nutshell that is what President Obama is asking each and every American. He is asking us to listen. And as frustrating and even downright upsetting as it is, I will do just that.