Dickinson ROTC urges for productive dialogue

My friend, a member of Dickinson ROTC posted this video in response to both a YouTube video posted against ROTC and the Osama death rallies as well as in response to having his house (the ROTC house) broken into and scattered with hurtful and accusatory signs. I think he states the problem and the need for dialogue very well. I wish it was more videos like this that represented Dickinson, rather than the unfortunate footage of the celebrations.

I would sincerely urge anyone who has been angered or upset by the reactions to Osama bin Laden's death to talk to him and other members of ROTC. I think open dialogue (truly open, not just pretending to be open) is important on both sides of this issue. I think this video reaches out in a very respectful way.

Those in the opposition who posted the original video have removed it. I kind of wish it were still up so I could see that statement as well, but perhaps in retrospect, the makers of the video were not proud of its content.

I myself feel fairly middle of the road on this event. I was not out there screaming or celebrating, though I understood it, and I also was not one to angrily voice my disgust, though I felt some of that as well. I have friends on both side.

I have been more impressed by the conversations I've had in all my classes about the event on Sunday May 1st than by the event itself. I have heard people with dissenting opinions speak so eloquently about their position rather than spewing hateful rhetoric (which I mentioned in my last post). I wish these conversations could be the videos and images that represent us. People have become more reflective since the event and I am proud to see a true dialogue taking place. I hope it continues and I am able to take part in it further. It is a great chance for our campus to grow and I am seeing people take advantage of that. Please be one of the helpers, not an agitator, it does not mean you have to give up any of your beliefs, just to listen.

I could do well in following my own advice as well.

Spoke too soon

I seem to have spoken too quickly. At Dickinson college alone, people have fractured into the celebrators and those disgusted, hurt and embarrassed by the celebrating. I do not fall clearly into either category. While I find fault with the drunken, shirtless boys running around using this as an excuse to party and celebrate, I also find fault with people throwing the words "riot" and "fascist" around. First of all, fascism as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary online as:  


"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". 


Anyone who calls this act against Bin Laden a result of fascism in the US is simply wrong. I do not come down hard on many reasonable opinions, but calling celebrators fascist is utterly incorrect. Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. By doing that and by killing thousands, he became an enemy and a target for the U.S. His killing in a military operation is, by the law, legitimate. That being said, there is still a reason I am unable to celebrate death, but lets not get issues confused here.


Ironically, I found most of the people yelling "go home fascists" to the celebrators were people who (let's face it) probably voted for Obama. Obama gave the order to take Bin Laden down, and now republicans, who may not have supported him in the past, respect him for those orders. If you love Obama so much and would never call him a fascist, how are those who celebrate an action he ordered be?


I hate to come off harsh, but I kinda have the feeling no one reads this anyway. Anyway, clearly its a whirlwind of emotion for everyone involved, but the two extreme groups I am finding coming out scare me more than anyone who is simply happy that Bin Laden is dead...

Osama Bin Laden... Dead

So by now, I'm sure everyone has heard, but as was just confirmed by our president a couple minutes ago, Osama Bin Laden is dead.

He had been hiding in a mansion in Pakistan and today an operation was undertaken to storm this residence and Osama Bin Laden was killed after enduring a fire fight and his body was seized by U.S. military operatives. His death is confirmed and the country has heaved more than just a sigh of relief and now raises their voice in celebration. It is a day many have been waiting for.

I struggle a bit, perhaps it's the religious side of me, in celebrating. I must first disclaim and say that I am whole-heartedly glad, relieved and feel as though justice has been done with Bin Laden's most deserved death. That being said the concept of celebrating a death, even of the most evil, and horrific man ever is difficult for me. I also completely understand the instinct to celebrate, people need something concrete, some real justice or hope to hold on to in this world that we live in, and that I support. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that I am saddened by his life, and gladdened by his death. He caused so much death and destructive in his life and it is better for all that it is over, but the life he lived was truly sad and pathetic.

Now the concern is that his supporters will strike back, naming him a martyr and retaliating against the U.S. It is a legitimate concern, but what does comfort me is the fact that the Pakistani government offered the U.S. support in this operation. In the next few days, more information will begin to emerge I'm sure, and the best part of Obama's speech was in calling for America to unite again as it did after 9/11. Perhaps that kind of unity can stick beyond events such as great tragedies and great successes in our country. On this night, Conservatives and Liberals and all those in between and beyond have come together in relief and in the celebration of justice.


I am curious to see how the rest of the world, especially the Middle Eastern and Arab world responds and reacts to this. Not the extremists, but the true people.

We will learn a lot in the coming days I'm sure. Keeping my eyes and ears open.

Syrian Media Project

“International organizations have described the human rights status in Syria as being one of the worst in the world, with security forces having a long history of harassing and imprisoning rights activists and critics of the government.” ---Al Jazeera


When our group chose Syria, it was really because most of us knew very little about their media system. Now I understand why. Although protests and death tolls in Syria have been flooding the international news as of late, media within the country is very difficult to follow.


This is because censorship in the Syrian media is one of the most severe in the world. The government imposes serious restrictions on the state press. Journalists have to apply for licenses from the government in order to write anything, and even then, that license can be revoked at anytime due to controversy in its content. This is allowed under emergency laws that have been in since 1963. If any information is deemed 'a threat to public safety and security' it will be removed at the will of government officials such as the Minister of Information or Minister of Culture.


Not only does state-imposed censorship occur, but cultural and social censorship as well. Many independent TV stations will not show programs which they find unfit for the public. This may be due to fear or a strong feeling of responsibility to protect social, cultural and religious integrity.


The problem with the movement in Syria right now (despite social media and access to information being severely restricted) is that, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, the movement is highly fractured. The entire populace is not in support of the protests, in fact there are Assad loyalists that are working to undermine the effectiveness of social media. For example, loyalists are flooding Twitter with the common hashtags #Syria, #Daraa and #Mar15 that have been used by protestors, in order to draw attention away from the protestor's point of view and get more of the loyalist perspective out there.


I find it really interesting that since Twitter and Facebook have come to represent a great tool for dissenters and protestors now the opposition is adjusting to combat this. Since censorship and restrictions can only go so far, now enemies of the revolution are working within social media to gain support for their cause. 


It's amazing how quickly people have learned to adapt to such a situation. This project has truly opened my eyes about Syria specifically and I really can't wait to compare our findings with the other group's findings about their countries in the same region.


Big things to look out for. Things are not always as they seem. We used to think we could get an accurate perspective of people just by reading Twitter, now we must look deeper in what we thought was so honest to stuff below the surface, such as flooding Twitter to manipulate hashtag searches and represent a small loyalist group on a larger scale so they appear bigger than they are.


Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if the common public is blocked from Twitter, how do you think these loyalists are getting their Tweets out? 


Food for thought.

The Gay Identity in the Middle East

Video about Gay Palestinians in Israel:

We were presented with this really interesting video in class which explores how young homosexual Palestinians living in and around Israel are trying to find their place in society. The challenge to their identity is multi-faceted. Not only do these people feel condemned by the Islamic religion which is predominant in most Arab countries for being gay, but they also feel condemned in Israel for being Palestinians. Their many identities seem to contradict each other which leaves many people feeling lost. The issue of sexuality aside, I'm sure any Arab who is also Israeli or any Jewish person in parts of the Arab world feel uncomfortable and as though the everyday identity they display does not reflect who they truly are. This is because one feels they must hold back truths, whether they are religious, political or sexual.

The idea of exploring a more progressive approach to sexuality in the Middle East sadly seems to be a long-shot. Although America prides itself on equality, I'm sure every American homosexual has still experienced social injustice or prejudice and that is in a place where individual rights and preferences are not outlawed. In much of the Middle East any homosexual PDA is actually illegal. It has taken us a long time to come to a place of better understanding and acceptance and even we have a long way to go. I can't imagine how must young people feel if their entire society actually outlaws what they feel in their hearts. This can be true for any difficult identity one tries to accept about themselves, but I really sympathize for those who could never imagine a life without keeping that part of you a secret. This will be an interesting issue to watch develop and hopefully videos like this will at the very least raise awareness about the issue itself. Thoughts?

Libya and International Support

This is a video posted by another student in my MENA class which I wanted to share with any readers outside of my Dickinson classmates. It's really interesting and good at displaying the kind of support the rebels have been given as well as giving the situation of politicians and newspapers a face on the ground. So many people are continuing to die, but the spirits of the people still seem fairly high.

U.S. and Libyan Relations

I just finished a briefing paper for my American Foreign Policy class which chronicled the history of U.S. relations with Libya under both King Idris I and now leader Muammar Gadhafi. The paper called for a policy recommendation section at the end which really forced me to look at what the U.S. should do/continue doing. The U.S's past with Gadhafi has been extremely tumultuous, and the more research I did, reading interviews given by Gadhafi himself from the 1980s through 2002, the more I realized what a great opportunity this is for Libya as well as a great opportunity to redeem better relations between the two countries.

After imposing economic sanctions, bombing Tripoli and Benghazi under Reagan and enduring situations like the Libyan bombing of flight Pan Am 103 which killed nearly 200 Americans, the U.S. completely isolated Libya, isolating practices which was later endorsed by UNSC resolutions. The country has gone through a lot and now with the gross human rights violations committed by Gadhafi, this revolution offers great hope for future generations of both Libyans and Americans and their relationship together.

So there is good news and bad news to this situation:

The good news is that the U.S. has played it smart in offering technical assistance, training and air support but has kept their objectives limited without deploying ground troops and on March 30th relinquished the responsibility of leading the international coalition to NATO. The fact that such multi-lateral efforts are being employed on the behalf of the Libyan rebels is very encouraging. A sense of Arab unity over this conflict has swept the region as the Arab League and many individual Arab countries have actively come out in support of the Rebels. Among these main supporters are Egypt, who have supplied arms, and Qatar and the UAE who have both taking leading roles in enforcing the UN sanctioned "no-fly" zone. Just recently Abdul-Ati al-Obeidi, former Libyan prime minister is rumored to be in talks with the UN and the West in order to put an end to air strikes.

Now for the bad news.
Gadhafi has adapted his military tactics now, bringing his strikes to the ground since the "no-fly" zone has made air strikes more difficult. In this way, it is almost as if he is daring the U.S. and UN to send in ground troops, which was rejected as a possibility even before these parties engaged. The struggle between the rebels, who are based out of Benghazi (a city that has undergone heavy bombing of civilians), and Gadhafi military and loyalists is constantly in flux. It is hard to tell who has the upper hand from one day to the next. Unfortunately, despite U.S. efforts to offer support, the Libyan rebels have criticized the U.S. NATO, and the UN for not being active enough in their fight. Just 3 days ago Obama released an Op-Ed with other Western leaders reiterating the objectives of their support but more strongly emphasizing the necessity for Gadhafi to disappear.

So here we are. We are presented with a challenge. My personal feeling is that no ground troops should be deployed because the integrity of the revolution being a Libyan "bottom-up" revolution must be preserved. That being said, I would hope other countries who are a part of the international coalition might step up in more of a leading role as the U.S. is unable to offer that at this time due to involvement in two other costly conflicts. Interests are there, and I'm not just talking about oil. Interests in the people being able to take back their country and instill a democracy that may endure independent from U.S. construction. I think that is the only way democracy can endure. I would urge Israel, who has offered some support to the rebels to continue to support them as not only is it the right thing to do, but it improves Israel's image in the region and may open the door for a future alliance with Libyan leaders who will be decided after this conflict if Gadhafi is ousted.

One things for sure, Gadhafi must go, and the entire international community, the Arab world and Libyan people are in agreement on that.

Now what happens next to ensure this outcome? I wish I knew.

Virtual Reality As A Tool For Diverse Dialogue

Today in class we had a Skype conversation with two people who had conducted a study on how the virtual world "second life" (SL) offered a great forum for dialogue and expression in the Middle East. It is a fascinating subject. Exploring the virtual world as a way of connecting with people of different beliefs transcending challenges like geography, finances (to an extent), and opportunity is something very valuable and has been looked into as a tool by the CIA as well. While all of this is good stuff, I tend to be skeptical of the reach it has as of now.

For one thing, virtual reality has a bad connotation with many people who think about others pretending to be something other than themselves. Now with all the fears of internet predation, obsessive users and a closer connection to fantasy than reality many are left with a bad taste in their mouth. This is not my main problem. Using virtual reality as a tool is limited. One of the conductors of the study mentioned how on a virtual hajj (pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca) she spoke with a man and was able to converse with him and ask questions about Islam, a dialogue that would not have taken place had she actually been there. While this is great for that experience, I am forced to question if it is truly a representation of the Middle Eastern and a way of reaching out to those who don't understand each other? And what about a language barrier for an average user?

In many places, internet is unreliable (let alone not containing the bandwidth necessary for such virtual forums), having the technology can be expensive and anyone who chooses to go on something like SL is thus volunteering for such a dialogue and must be open-minded to begin with. If the goal is to reach the masses, than we are not there yet. There are many open minded people in the ME as there are in the US. Those people are not the problem. It is the ones who refuse to put themselves out there to learn and clarify misunderstandings in places all over the world that present the problem of not seeing eye to eye. As of now, I cannot imagine these people are using forums like SL as a tool for dialogue. Those who currently use it must be of an elite group, be it education, financial, or political. This elite does not represent the masses for either Westerners or Arabs.

I will say this, the idea is good and should definitely be pursued, but through our conversation with these specialists, I did not feel they understood the reality of the limitations in their virtual reality. I felt the value of the project was trying to be sold to me rather than presenting the information to be taken as it is. Certain examples were too played up in importance and I felt necessary questions and doubts were being excluded from mention.

This will be a really interesting tool to watch develop as the potential may be great, but as of now there are too many limitations in place to make it accessible and widespread to achieve the intended result. Of course, who knew blogging, Twitter and Facebook could become such an influential tool?

Glenn Beck's Rant on Jared Cohen (Cont. of last post)

Clip I refer to in my former post before this one...

For reference.

Just found the exact clip that I had read about and now I'm even more irate.

Just look how he attempts to frame these events and make connections between Cohen and radical groups. With his poster and screen and pointer, he is making it seem so academic but they are such vague and misconstrued connections. This is a certified conspiracy theorist spinning his wheels and injuring the hard work of others as well as putting them at risk for things they have no conscious connection with. Oh and Beck says "who is Jared Cohen" well sir, in 2007 you had him as a guest on your show and praised him for his book Children of Jihad. Could you really have forgotten him that fast or just need someone's head on a stick? Plus a couple of the groups he links with Cohen's organization in questioning its ties to terrorism are charities that stand for social justice like Invisible Children which works to abolish the use of child soldiers in Uganda, to name but one which I know to be honorable. Yes Mr. Beck, I have done my research, have you?

One other thing, I was in Egypt, and before all of the internet was cut out by a dictator tyrant (Mubarak), Google was fully accessible. In fact I'm fairly sure you can get it in most countries, especially ones that foster democracy which is something you have always spoken for isn't it Mr. Beck. Good ol' American values of Democracy, Freedom and God's granted rights.

I am sickened...

YouTube of Beck's Interview with Cohen back in 2007

 

Transcript of Beck's interview with Cohen

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/2725/

Instigators of the Revolutions?

So now, as if it is important to look for abstract people to blame for the "facebook" revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and other areas of the greater Middle East, Glenn Beck has pointed his ever so "self-righteous" finger at a one, Jared Cohen. Jared Cohen is one of the youngest members of the State Department who worked under both Secretary Rice and Clinton. He is a graduate of Stanford and a Rhodes Scholar and author of the book Children of Jihad in which he illuminates the processes that turn some of the Muslim youth to radicalism. He recently left the State Department to work for Google, and has been credited (and blamed) for bringing social media into politics and governments. Obviously this is one smart guy and brought fresh technological ideas to the State Department. He utilized Twitter as a resource for spreading information more quickly and bringing people together over commonalities.

Much as he should be credited for the spread of such a valuable resource, Glenn Beck, who calls him out as someone to be blamed for the spreading revolutions is completely off the mark. The scary thing is, people LISTEN to this man. Now, I am a moderate and not biased against conservatives but this is not the first completely out of the world of reason comment that Mr. Beck has made. He makes republicans look bad. In a former post I mentioned how he criticized Hilary Clinton for promoting Al Jazeera as a legitimate news source and urging our news networks to step up our game in the information wars.

It truly saddens and angers me that Glenn Beck is such a influential figure to a substantial American audience. He seems to be completely bent on US supremacy. While we must continue to protect our interests and maintain our personal sovereignty and security, it is really important to realize that this is a new era for the Middle East in which they have a chance at everything our values stand for. Constitutions, human rights, democracy, etc. The idea that this is about us is so selfish. We must play it carefully and monitor where threats could be, but it is insulting and angering for a figure like Mr. Beck to accuse a US civil servant who has worked tirelessly for this country and peace in others of conspiring against his own country. Beck has always been out for blood it seems, and I am ashamed to have his words broadcasted around the world as an "American" opinion. I am so thankful even that Glenn Beck and I can freely express what it is we believe. Give others a chance for that, be it Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and any other type of media!

One last point, then I promise, I'm done.

Revolutions, though aided by social media, are not invented by them. It is the modern version of underground newspapers and publicly distributed fliers. This is nothing new, just faster and more accessible now. Its the next logical step towards using these tools.

Jared Cohen's Blog/Twitter

Old Blog
http://jaredcohen.wordpress.com/
New Blog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-cohen
Twitter
http://twitter.com/jaredcohen


It was Mr. Cohen who asked Twitter to stay up foregoing scheduled maintenance so Iranians could continue to utilize it during their public uprisings.


"On Monday afternoon, a 27-year-old State Department official, Jared Cohen, e-mailed the social-networking site Twitter with an unusual request: delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran.

The request, made to a Twitter co-founder, Jack Dorsey, is yet another new-media milestone: the recognition by the United States government that an Internet blogging service that did not exist four years ago has the potential to change history in an ancient Islamic country. ...

Twitter complied with the request, saying in a blog post on Monday that it put off the upgrade until late Tuesday afternoon — 1:30 a.m. Wednesday in Tehran — because its partners recognized “the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran.” The network was working normally again by Tuesday evening."
- Taken from JTA Blogs 

President Obama Addresses the Nation Concerning Action in Libya

Tonight at 7:30 pm President Obama addressed the nation in defend of the actions the US has taken in Libya. There has been much criticism of Obama, especially from the more conservative senators who either believe no military action should be taken or that we must act more directly. Obama, who in my opinion is playing the situation intelligently as it unfolds, has offered aid to NATO and the UN in support of the UNSC resolution 1973 which places a "no-fly zone" over Libya. This aims to protect the rebels from air strikes ordered by the Libyan leader Gaddafi. The best point of Obama's speech, was his emphasis on how this operation will be a limited engagement and he even said "to be blunt, this will not follow the same mistakes as were taken in Iraq." By acting with other international agencies, the US will be able to shift power over to them and not bear the entire burden of protection, and later reconstruction. Obama says this shift is already happening and US involvement is being directly transfered over to NATO starting on wednesday. To the skeptics of why we should be involved, Obama addressed that it is in line with our interests to support those attempting to gain rights and democracy that we already enjoy, but that we need not take over the situation. It is far less risky to US lives and pocketbooks to offer aid and support without taking over the entire situation.

These tumultuous events in Libya are fluid and will continue to change so it is important to stay informed  on these changes as they happen. That being said, I was impressed with Obama's directness about this mission and it's limited scope. I just hope it is effective and does stay as limited as we intend for it to be. A multilateral approach in this context is the only smart move and it is good to see others jumping in.

I hope to work out more of my own opinions on this situation as now, like most Americans with an interest in foreign affairs, I am overwhelmed and lost in trying to find my balance. This balance teeters between wanting to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but also not wanting to become too involved and risk our own military person's lives.

Blogging about Twitter...

So this week's assignment is to blog about Twitter, which I suppose gets into the idea of inter-media or co-promotion. So here it goes... (sorry Professor Webb)

I don't get the whole Twitter thing. Trust me, I have tried and aside from whatever stupid celebrity gossip may be on it, I do recognize the value it has for spreading valuable information lightning fast. It is a very important aspect of social media and as we have seen in the uprisings throughout the Middle East, Twitter has aided the organization of people in protests. This I do understand, but yet I have no desire to take part in it. However silly some may find this, I find Twitter slightly invasive on personal space if I were to join. The idea that I could report on anything that happened at anytime from anywhere and get an immediate response from people is astonishing and, for me, an added pressure and complication to life.

You know the peace of when your cell phone dies and there's nothing you can do about it? or (God forbid) someone turns their cell off, voluntarily?!? And that is only to avoid the world that has my cell phone number, what about a Twitter world where virtually anyone could respond. To me it feels like another way to be bombarded with information constantly, and unlike some, I need to set boundaries for when and what I am exposed to or I would truly go insane.

The quickness of it may be a blessing in some ways, but I have grown to curse what it means socially. It now allows people to immediately report and respond to what is happening around them taking no time for reflection to gather their thoughts and really decide how they feel about something before they just send it out into the world again. At least with blogging one must take a moment to compose a full thought or sentence, not simply 160 characters. Andy Carvin who re-tweets information offers a great service in filtering the relative information and hashtags but, like I've said before, although I recognize the value, I still have no desire to take part.

There you have it. sorry again Professor Webb, but my mind is open and I will keep trying to understand.

Queen Noor Writes for the Huffington Post

My mother sent me this article written by Queen Noor in the Huffington post, its really interesting and also shows how such a respected and active member of the Arab world, not to mention of Royalty, uses new media like twitter and writing online articles. Enjoy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/her-majesty-queen-noor/arab-women_b_832718.html

WooHoo Al Jazeera

In a blog by the Guardian UK writer Michael Tomasky, he cites how Hilary Clinton recently gave Al Jazeera praise for offering "real news," and exclaimed how the US is seriously losing the "information wars." She says that even if one does not agree with it, its 24 hour news cycle is not filled with commercials and fluff the way most American networks are. My hope is that this can help boost Al Jazeera's American audience and perhaps help it shed its title as the "Terrorist Network". The blog cites that the audience in America is already growing and hopefully soon providers will start offering Al Jazeera English (and Arabic perhaps) in the US. This is encouraging news and I commend Secretary Clinton for speaking on their behalf despite the opinion being outspoken to those who are less informed (which sadly is quite a lot of people in America when it comes to understanding Al Jazeera).

It seems tapping into AJE's already 50 million Arab viewers and working with them is a huge benefit to the US in terms of being able to respond to rumors. It's amazing people are opposed to this!
Like the saying goes, and I apply it here to news and media, though it may not be a fair or fine game, its good to have a seat at the table. Or something like that, don't quote me directly.

Glenn Beck says "You have the Secretary of State of the United States of America saying you cannot get real news here in America," he said. "You can only get it from Al Jazeera and everybody knows it. This is insanity." Sadly, he has a large influence as well :(

Blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/mar/07/usa-hillaryclinton

Libya, continued.

It is now thought that the revolts in Libya have claimed over 1000 lives, probably far more. As the rebels become more and more active in taking cities, the government has continued its draconian stance on the protests, resulting in the continued bombing and killing of protestors. The US has still not officially called for implementing a "no fly zone" over Libya for reasons explained as, unrealistic to put into action and too much involvement in an internal conflict. Although this would not be actively joining the fight with our persons, any kind of sanctions and limitations such as a no fly zone, would be perceived as very aggressive from an foreign policy standpoint. As we discussed in my US foreign policy class today, there are accounts of US weapons being supplied to the Egyptian protestors which are in turn be provided to the Libyan rebels. There has also been some active Egyptian support on the ground in Libya, and most of those officials were US trained. In that sense, the US has indirectly aided the movement, but is that enough?

I do not presume to understand all the intricacies in terms of policy decisions, and I certainly don't support putting troops on the ground for two reasons I will go into bellow, but I do believe something should be done as it seems only words have been coming out of the white house and State Department as of late. They urge "regime adjustments" in the greater Middle East area, and although Obama has called for Gadhafi to leave, nothing is being done to back up that statement. People are dying, but I guess that is the sad reality of every form of revolts or revolution if it can be termed that already (unfortunately the public is fractured on the issue of support as far as I understand).

Why we shouldn't put in ground troops:
Two reasons:

Reason one: This is a great time for the people of Libya to see that they can create real change in their country and it must come from within. The international concern should be aimed at the human rights violations in place, in which case it would be NATO or the UN that should take action. Sadly this either will not happen, or will happen too slowly.

Reason two: As harsh as it sounds, we cannot afford it, but in more ways than one. There is of course the economic and loss of American lives to be concerned with, but also, our image in the ME cannot afford how that action might be misconstrued. Fidel Castro, who is close with Gadhafi, has already issued statements praising the government on "pushing out their colonial masters and becoming an independent nation apart from the west" (found at a Latin America blog site: http://latinamerica.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/02/25/latin-america-speaks-to-libya-a-contradiction-of-policy/). An invasion by the US could be perceived as an attempt to control the country in some form of "neo-colonialism". Given the support we need from our ME allies, we cannot afford to have that image. Plus that would make us responsible for the aftermath of taking down the Gadhafi regime.

So what do we do? We can't do nothing, but we have to play it smart. This is not just for our interests and benefit, but also for those of the people of Libya who need to do this on their own for the most part, or at least without the west. I really don't know what that means we should do. I personally support economic sanctions and a no fly zone as a way of showing the government that we will withdraw all support for them because of these heinous acts. It makes them an outlaw of the international community and I would urge other nations to do the same. The UN has not been sought after for aid as of yet by the people of Libya, but if they ask, that would be the best case scenario. If the UN is able to accomplish anything at all that is.

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this, because I am torn between the humanitarian in me that says "they need help" and the studier of political science that says "we cannot become involved too much." How do we play it smart?

Control Room

In class last week we watched the documentary Control Room which follows the rise of the news network Al Jazeera during the beginning of the Iraq war. It was truly fascinating, scary, informative and enlightening. I highly recommend anyone who is interested in the nature of media and/or the Middle East and American foreign policy to check it out. Rather than summarize it for those of you readers who have not seen it, I will just express elements that I found most enlightening. I was truly shocked to hear (and see on tape) that the U.S military had, in fact, bombed an Al Jazeera office building in Baghdad, killing an Arab news correspondent. I am no conspiracy theorist and I am definitely a supporter of the military, but seeing this act of violence against a CIVILIAN news source (yes, independently run from Qatar, and non-governmental) was truly a despicable act by America. I understand that stuff happens during war but the excuse used by the U.S government was that it was located in a war zone and maybe they shouldn't be there, does not fly with me... Located in a war zone, yes, but is it acceptable to become a target for very specifically directed missiles, no. This was no accident, no case of a misguided missile, as earlier in the film they speak about the accuracy of their missiles and targets to help avoid collateral damage despite it being more expensive because they care. Clearly there was, and I'm sure still is, a fear of spin being put on any Arab media that vilifies America. This is a legitimate concern, but, running the risk of sounding more liberal than I tend to swing, I say maybe if we had better reasons for being there in the first place we wouldn't be so scared of what was shown. There would be less to hide.

In the chapter Selling the War of his memoir Mission Al Jazeera, Marine Lieutenant Josh Rushing speaks to just this. He was the military correspondent to Al Jazeera and was the main military voice featured in Control Room. In my opinion he represents everything the U.S army is and should be about. He reflects on the shortsightedness of the common American viewpoint without discounting the legitimate reasons for being there. In the documentary, although in the beginning he came off as just another ignorant jarhead, he managed to bring balance to hearing the views of Al Jazeera workers who expressed frustration with America's tactics and defended America when the reasons given were valid. He ended up leaving the Marines after his time and joined Al Jazeera. The growth and "smart" open mindedness you see with this man is my argument against any anti-military viewpoints. They are not all brainwashed killers who are racist towards Arabs as some people will have you believe, in fact I believe Lt. Rushing represents the ideal soldier in the U.S Military and I am sure there are many more like him. I hope the Military recognizes that as well.

That isn't to say that I blindly follow what our military does, but if you watch the film, you see the struggles Rushing deals with in opening his mind and realizing that Al Jazeera has a valuable point of view and in no way is an organization dedicated to fouling the image of America in the ME. In this circumstance we were not at our best in any way and Al Jazeera spoke the truth on that more than any other news network would. Truth and free press is a value that has been promoted by the U.S. We need to put that value into practice, even if we run the risk of allowing over-exposure to events that make us look bad. The media can provide a check to keep the U.S following honorable practices, and bombing the media to scare them out of showing what's happening is anything but honorable. The Arab audience of Al Jazeera is an untapped resource of over 50 million for the U.S. By sharing information and working with Al Jazeera as they have tried to do with us, America can provide a context for the images that may be misconstrued on their own. That is honorable, a promotion of our values and is within our interests.

This whole thing may just be me rambling, but let me close on one point. I love my country. I have never felt more thankful to be an American than when I was in Egypt and watched people rally and fight for the rights I have lived with my whole life and taken for granted. I support the legitimately altruistic actions by the U.S and also those that are to protect our interests but feel it is my obligation as an American to question the authority when values and actions do not line up. Out of respect for what the U.S stands for, I believe we should all question the actions taken and if those questions are answered with legitimacy, we may support such actions, and if not, we have exposed them. It is one of the blessings that have been granted to us by our country, and these freedoms should not be squandered, nor silenced.

More On Libya

The situation in Libya is developing hourly and looks like it may be the most violent of the Middle East protests we've seen this year. Gaddafi (sometimes spelled Gadhafi, don't know which is correct), the leader of Libya is rumored to have taken even more extreme measures to silence the civilian protestors. It is thought that he has ordered the Navy and Air Force to actually drop bombs on the protests in progress as well as issuing an order to execute soldiers who disobey these orders (rumored). The fact that such heinous and drastic measures are taken in such early stages if the protests which have left over 200 people dead already and will surly kill hundreds more is insane. I am truly surprised that Gaddafi expects to get away with this as it is in such plain view for the world, and goodness knows they are trying to change that. The difference with this movement is that the protestors themselves seem to be getting more aggressively violent in response to these measures. The video I posted bellow is part of the nearly 22 minute speech Gaddafi's son issued which pretty much took the main blame off of the regime and blamed chaos and the protests attacks as well. Already all EU citizens and Americans have been ordered to leave by the Embassies and international community. This will develop quickly and I truly wonder how long it will take for international powers to intervene (US, UN, NATO, etc.) I am greatly angry and saddened by this. I believe Tunisia, Egypt and the other countries descending into protests will change the character of the Middle East in our lifetime and maybe forever. This seems to be a major turning point where it will probably only get worse before it gets better.

Libya's on board with the protests too! Gaddafi's son speaks!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12520550

This is another great video from the BBC website regarding the Libyan protests. It is Gaddafi's son making comments on the nature of this time of opposition movements in the ME as a whole. He does not take responsibility for the deaths, he says there are "mistakes" and "untrained people" that have lead to these deaths. He also says only 14 people have died while other sources have counted over 200. He calls this number imaginary. His speech is very "diplomatic" he speaks of the unity of Libya and says both sides are to blame for the violence. It is thinly veiled compassion and diplomacy in my opinion. I do not believe he is reaching out to the people at all. The reaction and speech style is very similar to those issued by Mubarak in the beginning stages of the Egyptian revolution.

Protests in Tehran

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12459970 

This is a video I found at the BBC News website which is amateur footage of the protests in Tehran. Obviously protests and riots may have a pattern but they are not all alike. That being said, this protest looks very much like the ones seen in Egypt and chants even reference the Egyptian Revolution and use Mubarak as an example of the type of regime they wish to oust. They chant his name followed by claiming Saed Ali to be the supreme leader of Iran. It seems that many Middle Eastern dictatorships are all sweating a bit now since Tunisia and Egypt as the smell of revolts and protests are really in the air. Riot police are at the ready in Tehran and things have already gotten violent. This footage is from last week, but it seems to illustrates the situation with raw accuracy. I am curious to see what other dictators in the region will do as things escalate as I am sure they will continue to do. We can ask ourselves what the international reaction would be if one of the other most stable countries and allies to the US in the ME, Saudi Arabia (Egypt was the first) were to fall into revolts. It is sad to think that that conflict would have more of an economic incentive to silence, but I believe the US would. In Professor Wolff's U.S Foreign Policy class he talked about the potential implications of this and how important it would be to keep the current powers in charge even if it meant committing hypocrisy on our values. What are your thoughts?

CBS journalist attacked in Tahrir

CBS News' Lara Logan recuperating after Cairo attack

CBS News said 'a dangerous element' surrounded Lara Logan and her crew in Egypt's Tahrir Square the day of President Hosni Mubarak's resignation, beating and sexually assaulting the journalist. Logan is recovering in a U.S. hospital.

CBS news reporter Lara Logan in Tahrir Square moments before she was assaulted last week. (CBS News / February16, 2011)

This is just the headline taken from the LA times website: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-0216-lara-logan-20110216,0,7874593.story 

It's quite shocking to think that even in a moment of celebration (which is what she was covering) something so horrendous could happen. She was apparently brutalized and sexually assualted. This woman was no new-comer to places of conflict. As stated in the article, she had reported from Afghanistan and was a big proponent of telling the stories perhaps a government, like Mubarak's regime, might not want told. This is a perfect example of a type of "censorship" of the media (in the most heinous form). Logan had been asked to leave the country earlier this month after being accused of being an Israeli spy, but after returning to the US she re-entered Egypt to cover the protests. Although the perpetrators, thought to be a mob of frenzied men, are unknown to the public, Logan was saved by Egyptian soldiers and women who observed her attack.

Personally, as with most of these events concerning Egypt, this hits very close to home. The element of it being a white, American woman just adds another degree of connection for me. While I was in Egypt, I never once felt threatened or targeted as an American. As a woman, we all receive certain degrees of verbal harassment, but never physical in my experience. Even when I was taking pictures and working to quietly document what I saw I did not feel threatened. Obviously I think this was more about her being a reporter than an American, as journalists from all over the world have experienced similar attacks. I can't help but wonder if the men who attacked her, either felt an anger towards her for being an outsider in their fight or if they were former supporters of Mubarak or even if they were just opportunistic awful men spurred on by mob mentality. I am curious to follow the development in this story and others like it. Any thoughts? Which profile do you expect her attackers to be? What is sad is that we may never know as it all happened in a crowd.

I know there are larger issues at hand in terms of the Egyptian people themselves and their suffering, but clearly, an American victim will get a lot of attention her in America, is this justified? I wonder if these kind of attacks have happened to Egyptian women in the crowds or if it was a specific target for journalists and especially a woman. I don't know the answer to this question and I'm curious to see what people think. I know this is a sensitive issue as emotions run high when it comes to physical attacks of one of our own. I guess I'm blabbing now. Tell me your thoughts.

Egypt Blog

I don't know if anyone is interested, but I had a blog for while I was in Egypt and have posted some of the pictures I took on the streets from when the chaos began to start. I continue to update it with what I learn and such. Check it out if you like: www.flowerincairo.tumblr.com  

What is a blog?

Blogging is a new thing for me. I started a blog for when I was leaving for my semester abroad in Cairo, Egypt to keep my friends and family updated on my whereabouts. I've learned blogging can become much more than simply updating whereabouts. They can be a great tool for the spread of information and thoughts. What initially was a personal journal of mine for everyone to read soon became a forum for me to make people around me aware about the turmoil going on in Egypt during the beginnings of their revolution. I valued the ability for my blog to show the human side of a political conflict because that is what I feel most connected with now. I am looking forward to exploring what blogging can provide for the sharing of an important dialogue on both a person and political level. It has and will continue to become (in my opinion) one of the most important means of social media in our society. Now news and information is not a monopoly of the studios, papers and networks, it can be brought back to the people. There are both great benefits as well as downfalls to this. A benefit is that it offers a faster spread of info from the people to the people but a serious downfall is the spread of uneducated or assumed information. These are things to be wary of when one reads and chooses to believe a blogger's post. Regardless, I look forward to exploring this medium of dialogue more within this course as well as in my own interests in the world.