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.

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.