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.