There are some days in which it is hard for people to envision a positive future, let alone a sustainable one at all and we stop moving forward or caring. That's why it's important to read books that remind us of the continuing value of what humanity could be and how we could possibly get there from our present moment. Michio Kaku's 2018 book The Future of Humanity: Terraforming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth to me is one of those books that inspires in that very important way. In The Future of Humanity, the professor of theoretical physics lays out for the general reader his optimism for humanity's interstellar future in logical steps, describing how humanity could use continuously improving technologies to leapfrog first to the moon, Mars, and beyond.
While it seems like in the present moment that a multiplanetary, even galactic civilization is impossible science fiction fantasy, Kaku makes a good case for why it can and could be otherwise. Like any good author, he early on gives us context on our present moment and how we arrived at that point, in order to build a case for how we could progress even further forward. In the introductory chapters, he shows how humanity got to where it is today by progressing through various "waves" of scientific and technological development, starting in the 19th century with the development of theories surrounding mechanics and thermodynamics that enabled the Industrial Revolution (Kaku, 2018, p.12). Moving through the 20th century, scientists discovered the laws of electricity and magnetism, allowing electrical devices to become the norm and allowing us to develop the first space programs. Currently, Kaku sees us in the third wave of the Internet, supercomputer and highly developed forms of telecommunications underwritten by advances involving the transistor and laser. What is next for humanity?
Kaku here intertwines popular culture and science fiction and utilizes it to better envision our possible futures. In the first part of The Future of Humanity, Kaku sees humanity as first colonizing our solar system before moving even further out into the stars and galaxy by utilizing technologies of the fourth wave, or the infant technologies of the present moment seen in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnologies. Assuming technological progress continues at the rapid pace it has to the present, Kaku believes these technologies should be ready for us by the next century and will able to help us to build a moon base and terraform Mars through self-replicating, autonomous robots and specially engineered crops and building materials to create our first settlements and waystations to the stars (such as on Jupiter and the asteroids as well). Even farther into the future, Kaku sees fifth wave technologies (akin to those in most science fiction novels and movies, like Star Trek) like antimatter engines, nanoships, laser sails, and ramjet fusion machines further aiding our expansion into the galaxy at large for our descendants, who may have at this point have built starships that are equipped to travel swiftly and protect their perhaps genetically-engineered travelers.
While most of these latter projects and technologies have barely emerged from the enterprising minds of science fiction writers, scientists, and even entrepreneurs onto drawing boards and into laboratories at NASA or private companies like SpaceX, Kaku shows readers how present trends bode well for our continued development: the declining cost of sending materials into space (partially due to private companies incentivized to profit from potential moon bases, asteroid mining and space tourism by developing cheaper and easier modes of travel that involve less fuel and travel time without compromising safety too much), the potential of ultra-strong carbon nanotubes as building materials for a space elevator and bases and for robotic assembly of machines in orbit, and an emerging space race among nations that has begun to renew interest in space programs. (For example, Kaku cites President Trump's announcement that he has asked NASA to accelerate the current time-table for putting American astronauts on Mars and China is looking past launching satellites to its own landing on the moon or Mars, with national pride at stake as much as scientific advancement.)
But...there are of course obstacles to humanity's progression from a uniplanetary to a multiplanetary and galactic species: the pesky laws of physics. The two most handy classifications/scales of civilization are Kardashev's three-rung typology of civilizations based on energy consumption and A-Z scale based on informational consumption conceived by the late astronomer Carl Sagan. Kardashev sees a Type I society as one that uses energy that reaches the planet from its home star, a Type II as directly utilizing all the energy its sun produces, and a Type III as having outstripped these energy needs and instead uses the entire galaxy as an energy source. Sagan's classification also sees considerable energy needs to sustain a civilization's consumption of information undergirding its continued scientific, cultural, social, political and economic development, but allows for progression up the scale without using more energy via the continued development of more efficient, sophisticated and miniaturized computers and similar devices. However, the magnitudes are staggering for moving up on each scale, anywhere from a factor of ten billion and one hundred billion. (Yikes!) At the present moment, we are a 0.7 civilization on the Kardashev scale, as we have not deployed technologies like space-based solar or fusion to produce and consume the energy of a Type I civilization, for other physics-and-biologically based of continued issues like nuclear proliferation, climate change, and bioterrorism. Yet Kaku is optimistic that we will find ways to continuously meet our changing energy needs and even rise to the level in the far future where we can draw energy from our universe and other universes, such as machines like a Dyson sphere (which harvest star energy) to even technologies that transmit our consciousnesses rather than our physical bodies across vast distances.
The latter reasons of energy and informational consumption barriers are ones where I became admittedly skeptical that we'd reach the Type I level any time soon that would allow us to sustainably invest in a spacefaring civilization. Our current society is hard-pressed to be sustainable and one that requires increasingly vast spaces and energy needs (from one planet and star to solar systems, galaxies and even universes) seems similarly problematic. There's also the omnipresent issues surrounding the energy needs and physics behind ships that are sub-light or faster-than-light traveling and if they are possible to develop at all (like the Star Trek warp drive). That's not even considering the various ways in which humanity can self-destruct before we settle other planets and moons, like climate change, bioterrorism, nuclear holocaust, or even the continued rise of dangerous political attitudes and movements. The seeds for all of the technologies that Kaku speculates as guiding our space-faring future are all there, it's ultimately a matter of continuing to survive through the latter obstacles so that we have a chance to develop them.
Notwithstanding the various obstacles to humanity's future in space that Kaku very elegantly lays out for the general reader, nonetheless one has to commend his grand, big-picture thinking and guarded optimism in The Future of Humanity. Without digging too deep into cliches, Kaku's enthusiasm and vision reminds us all that despite many harrowing obstacles, there is probably a way forward if we care to look for it.
Works Cited:
Kaku, Michio. (2018). The Future of Humanity: Terraforming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday Publishing Group.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Friday, May 11, 2018
Book Review: Pankaj Mishra's "Age of Anger"
I'm sure this will be a review of one of many books that have emerged to explain 2016, but none of the ones I've considered seem to dig too as far back in history to explain the present as Pankaj Mishra's 2017 entry Age of Anger. Mishra's book goes back to the intellectuals of the tumultuous 18th-19th centuries, whose various theories of how to adapt to the tumult of the onset of modernity, of many nation-states centered on individualist commercialism built upon the premise of equal opportunity, in order to explain today's populist backlash against globalization. Ultimately, Mishra sets out to make the case to the reader that while history does not repeat itself exactly, history rhymes. And quite eerily.
What is the most intriguing and different from many other books that seek to explain 2016 in the context of largely political, cultural, and economic factors is Age of Anger's attempts to probe the spiritual and cultural consequences of today's modern age. From the conception of the traditions of secularism and self-interested, rational individuals in a materialist society that emerged with the Enlightenment in the 18th century, there have been considerable opposing forces that rose with the modernist tide from those excluded from the promise of prosperity. These intellectual and spiritual traditions that arose in opposition to the minority of powerful bourgeoisie (i.e. elites) included the demagogic and revolutionary cults of anarchism, messianism, nationalism and nihilism. {Notwithstanding the fact that nationalism has many positive aspects, like many other ideologies, it can be weaponized to serve more nefarious rather than positive, unifying purposes.} Mishra's main argument for the rise of these opposing forces (both one to two centuries ago to the present) is the persistent inequalities of modernity, in which a small minority accrues the most benefits-economically, politically, culturally and socially-to the detriment of the masses whose labor helps to fuel the system.
These revolutionary minds-from Rousseau, Nietzsche, Fichte, Weber, Herzen, Pushkin and more-pushed an often hyper-masculine, heroic, militant, misogynist and totalitarian ideology on the masses disoriented spiritually and culturally by the universal tide of modern civilization, where "all social, political and economic forces determining their lives seem opaque" and the masses are beset by "a competitive fever" and an accompanying sense of the possibility of the system being rigged against them (Mishra, 2017, p. 19). These toxic conditions of persistent inequality and anxiety not only extend to the masses but their leaders as well, making scapegoating of enemies like immigrants, Muslims, and, often, women, very easy, giving a convenient face to those shadowy forces seeking to keep them down despite the promises of equal opportunity enshrined by most democratic, secularist societies. Having a target to direct their built up frustration, humiliation and anger, masses often reacted militarily against their enemies, bringing great destruction and suffering upon humanity.
In other words, demagogues preceding today's Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Jong-un (and many more) benefited tremendously from their predecessors in Germany, India, and Iran (the prominent cases studied by Mishra), whose economic and spiritual malaise were blamed on myriad enemies (Others against which to redefine themselves in a world of unmoored identity): the imperialist (yet secular) West, a decadent France, Westernized natives, feminists, immigrants (often theorized to be there to drag wages down for everyone), and the financial elites. These enemies were often blamed for the unattainable ideal of continuous expansion and progress that modernity promised for all individuals and the failures of both capitalist and socialist systems to take hold and bring mass benefits. Their resulting wrath was cultivated by demagogues and unleashed in the forms of ethnic cleansing (directed against the Jews in the Holocaust and the Armenians by the Turks in the Armenian Genocide) and two absolutely devastating world wars.
Today's almost universal expansion of Western ideas of an egalitarian and entrepreneurial society post WWII has exacerbated the malaise felt by most of the world's population, while bringing the world even closer together, meaning the destructive ideologies of the (seemingly distant and irrational) past have reemerged and spread incredibly fast around the world. And destruction seems to many influenced by these ideas a legitimate way to gain revenge and a sense of authentic self-expression denied to them by the inability or unwillingness of governments to redress the grievances of economic, social, and political inequality (especially in developing countries, where recent reports by major international financial organizations like the IMF forecast a longer time period than was previously assumed for their catch-up to the West). {Don't forget that today we also have more destructive weapons than those used in the past which we can use to inflict greater harm on each other. And the looming threat of climate change, another consequence and perhaps mirror in the natural world of humanity's growing malaise and disorientation in the modern age.}
At risk of sounding like a member of the smug bourgeoisie, I believe that there must be hope enough to right the ship before humanity self destructs under the twin pressures of unachievable universal development and global climate change (despite the unease and disorientation described by Mishra that tickled at my subconscious as I read Age of Anger that made me pessimistic about humanity's chances). That must start with the recognition that the West's vision of a universal form of civilization is not feasible and that more realistic forms of societal betterment must be pursued according to conditions on the ground in various countries of the world. I don't have all the answers and neither, does it seem, does Mishra.
While many reviews have critiqued that, another symptom of Mishra's sometimes stream of consciousness style of writing in his unenviable quest of synthesizing the past and the present and their common intellectual/spiritual traditions, I believe the unambiguity is a strength. Age of Anger gives us all room to think critically and hopefully come together and work towards a solution (even if the solution is as unattainable as the promises of modernity for all). But, as they say, it's better to try than not do anything at all.
Works Cited:
Mishra, Pankaj. (2017). Age of Anger: A History of the Present. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
What is the most intriguing and different from many other books that seek to explain 2016 in the context of largely political, cultural, and economic factors is Age of Anger's attempts to probe the spiritual and cultural consequences of today's modern age. From the conception of the traditions of secularism and self-interested, rational individuals in a materialist society that emerged with the Enlightenment in the 18th century, there have been considerable opposing forces that rose with the modernist tide from those excluded from the promise of prosperity. These intellectual and spiritual traditions that arose in opposition to the minority of powerful bourgeoisie (i.e. elites) included the demagogic and revolutionary cults of anarchism, messianism, nationalism and nihilism. {Notwithstanding the fact that nationalism has many positive aspects, like many other ideologies, it can be weaponized to serve more nefarious rather than positive, unifying purposes.} Mishra's main argument for the rise of these opposing forces (both one to two centuries ago to the present) is the persistent inequalities of modernity, in which a small minority accrues the most benefits-economically, politically, culturally and socially-to the detriment of the masses whose labor helps to fuel the system.
These revolutionary minds-from Rousseau, Nietzsche, Fichte, Weber, Herzen, Pushkin and more-pushed an often hyper-masculine, heroic, militant, misogynist and totalitarian ideology on the masses disoriented spiritually and culturally by the universal tide of modern civilization, where "all social, political and economic forces determining their lives seem opaque" and the masses are beset by "a competitive fever" and an accompanying sense of the possibility of the system being rigged against them (Mishra, 2017, p. 19). These toxic conditions of persistent inequality and anxiety not only extend to the masses but their leaders as well, making scapegoating of enemies like immigrants, Muslims, and, often, women, very easy, giving a convenient face to those shadowy forces seeking to keep them down despite the promises of equal opportunity enshrined by most democratic, secularist societies. Having a target to direct their built up frustration, humiliation and anger, masses often reacted militarily against their enemies, bringing great destruction and suffering upon humanity.
In other words, demagogues preceding today's Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Jong-un (and many more) benefited tremendously from their predecessors in Germany, India, and Iran (the prominent cases studied by Mishra), whose economic and spiritual malaise were blamed on myriad enemies (Others against which to redefine themselves in a world of unmoored identity): the imperialist (yet secular) West, a decadent France, Westernized natives, feminists, immigrants (often theorized to be there to drag wages down for everyone), and the financial elites. These enemies were often blamed for the unattainable ideal of continuous expansion and progress that modernity promised for all individuals and the failures of both capitalist and socialist systems to take hold and bring mass benefits. Their resulting wrath was cultivated by demagogues and unleashed in the forms of ethnic cleansing (directed against the Jews in the Holocaust and the Armenians by the Turks in the Armenian Genocide) and two absolutely devastating world wars.
Today's almost universal expansion of Western ideas of an egalitarian and entrepreneurial society post WWII has exacerbated the malaise felt by most of the world's population, while bringing the world even closer together, meaning the destructive ideologies of the (seemingly distant and irrational) past have reemerged and spread incredibly fast around the world. And destruction seems to many influenced by these ideas a legitimate way to gain revenge and a sense of authentic self-expression denied to them by the inability or unwillingness of governments to redress the grievances of economic, social, and political inequality (especially in developing countries, where recent reports by major international financial organizations like the IMF forecast a longer time period than was previously assumed for their catch-up to the West). {Don't forget that today we also have more destructive weapons than those used in the past which we can use to inflict greater harm on each other. And the looming threat of climate change, another consequence and perhaps mirror in the natural world of humanity's growing malaise and disorientation in the modern age.}
At risk of sounding like a member of the smug bourgeoisie, I believe that there must be hope enough to right the ship before humanity self destructs under the twin pressures of unachievable universal development and global climate change (despite the unease and disorientation described by Mishra that tickled at my subconscious as I read Age of Anger that made me pessimistic about humanity's chances). That must start with the recognition that the West's vision of a universal form of civilization is not feasible and that more realistic forms of societal betterment must be pursued according to conditions on the ground in various countries of the world. I don't have all the answers and neither, does it seem, does Mishra.
While many reviews have critiqued that, another symptom of Mishra's sometimes stream of consciousness style of writing in his unenviable quest of synthesizing the past and the present and their common intellectual/spiritual traditions, I believe the unambiguity is a strength. Age of Anger gives us all room to think critically and hopefully come together and work towards a solution (even if the solution is as unattainable as the promises of modernity for all). But, as they say, it's better to try than not do anything at all.
Works Cited:
Mishra, Pankaj. (2017). Age of Anger: A History of the Present. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Case Evaluation: Syria
{Syria continues to be in the news as the Trump administration continues to mull over whether or not U.S. troops should largely be pulled from Syria, which currently is embroiled in a horrific civil war resulting from an ill-fated attempt by rebel forces to oust the current regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Not to mention U.S., British and French air strikes launched on suspected chemical weapons in Damascus and Homs in retaliation to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma by the Syrian government. This week, to provide additional context on the Syrian conflict and the thorny issues of intervention with or without military force and sovereignty that remain to this day, I flashback to an analysis I conducted of President Obama's decision to conduct air strikes on Syrian territory in 2011. How the Trump administration plans to handle the thorny situation long-term remains to be seen.}
Background:
The case of Syria demonstrates the extent to which globalization has increasingly internationalized civil wars and illustrates the complexity of international terrorism and anti-terrorism partnerships. Specifically, the outbreak of armed conflict between Russian-backed government forces of President Bashar al-Assad, United States-supported Kurdish and Syrian rebels (Free Syrian Army), and various terrorist groups is considered an outgrowth of the instability brought by the regional Arab Spring movement of 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa. The Arab Spring movement of 2011, widely seen as a popular uprising against authoritarian governments, toppled many regimes seen as oppressive. However, in Syria, this coup was not successful and the Assad regime has responded by cracking down against his opposition, seen as a loose coalition of rebels and terrorist groups such as the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS). The country is presently in a state of civil war, as terrorist groups took advantage of power vacuums in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East after the 2011 protests.
Adding to the complexity of the civil-war situation was the use of sarin nerve gas, one of many internationally-banned chemical weapons underneath the 1925 Geneva Convention, against civilians in the Syrian capital, Damascus, on August 21st, 2013, by the Syrian government, in which 1,423 people were believed by U.S. intelligence to have been killed. The use of chemical weapons put additional pressure on President Obama to take decisive action in Syria, as use of chemical weapons against civilians was a “red line” for possible United States military action in the country considered to be a state-sponsor of terrorism. Additionally, the president was also constrained by a deadlocked UN Security Council in terms of action on Syria. Previously, the United States had maintained an indirect approach to Syria that involved maintenance and expansion of joint US-EU-Turkey-Arab League economic sanctions on Syria, support of a UN weapons-inspection regime, and support of the rebels in the form of humanitarian aid to achieve possible democracy in the country; prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); and fight terrorism as part of the larger international “War on Terror.”
In the wake of the August incident, President Obama announced his updated strategy of targeting Syrian government military positions, but stopped short of a commitment of ground troops, no doubt in part due to the war weariness induced by previous unsuccessful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan taken in response to terrorism. Additionally, President Obama announced his seeking of formal support from Congress to authorize the Syria military operation at a time in which public skepticism over Middle East-interventionism was mirrored in the divided legislature, especially among Republican lawmakers critical of the president’s response to the Syrian crisis. Around the same time, a similar vote in Britain’s parliament to authorize the use of military force in Syria failed. Thus, to assuage a skeptical Congress, the American public, American allies abroad, and the United Nations (with both domestic and international actors retaining varying degrees of isolationist or internationalist sentiment), President Obama announced the limited military operation (purposefully not terming the operation a “war”) in a strings-attached manner, seeking to toe the line regarding international law and the US War Powers Act (1973).
Evaluation:
To explain the president’s decision-making on the Syria case, in which he supported limited military strikes against the Assad regime, I will utilize the realist and emotional/cognitive perspectives to enumerate the security interests at play and the contrasts in perspective in Congress and the Obama administration.
In the context of international anti-terrorism efforts, securing Syria by attempting to oust an oppressive regime along with maintaining progress towards reducing the amount of land (and potential WMDs) held by terrorist groups such as IS reflects a realist national-security interest on behalf of the United States. This strategic prerogative was passed on to the Obama administration through the “War on Terror.” Moreover, in terms of the post-9/11 foreign policy strategy of democratization in the Middle East, reflected in the United States’ support of the Free Syrian Army, lack of response to the crisis (especially the chemical weapons attack) would indicate the United States was not only unwilling to back up its democratic ideals, but also would allow a dictator (supported by rival Russia) to get away with violating international law. This in turn, it was reasoned by some in the administration and Congress, could embolden Syria, Iran, North Korea and various non-state groups in their proliferation of WMDs and thus threaten America and its allies. However, not all saw the situation the same.
For example, President Obama, in his advocation of a limited military strike in Syria seems to recall the failure of U.S. ground missions in Afghanistan and Iraq that ultimately ended up contributing to the instability of the Middle East in concert with the Arab Spring. In his public announcement, Obama hints that past interventions in the Middle East of a preemptive nature produced greater security threats to the United States. Additionally, the President seems to have intertwined matters of national security with matters of morality, citing similarly to Congress that American nonintervention against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians not only would embolden America’s enemies, but also would send a message that the United States no longer committed itself to its ideals and the upholding of international law. Therefore, inaction would produce greater national security consequences in the undermining of U.S. credibility abroad. Yet, the president continued to hope for a diplomatic solution to prevail on Syria.
Meanwhile, in Congress, conflicting analogical reasoning among prominent individuals seemed to have also played a great role in President Obama’s decision-making. Many members of Congress across party-lines largely echoed public concerns about the degree to which national security was threatened and the wisdom of committing U.S. ground troops. Seeming to similarly recall the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which security arguments were put forward in regards to needing to act against unstable dictators with WMD-development aspirations to garner support, many members of Congress thus expressed doubts about the proposed military plan. A sizable majority of Congress seemed to advocate the further use of diplomacy alone or as part of a more comprehensive Syria strategy rather than resorting to potentially unilateral military force on its own to confront the Assad regime. Thus, to preserve political flexibility while seeking to still act on his principles and the security interests in Syria, President Obama thus made a tentative military commitment dependent on Congressional approval.
Ultimately, while many government actors seemed to grasp the national security concerns at play in Syria, the conflicted analogical reasoning of key parts of the legislative and executive branches towards Syria (and the resulting tentativeness on the foreign policy front) seem to have played an equal or greater role in the president’s decision-making to carry out the limited air strikes versus choosing inaction or a wholesale commitment of boots on the ground.
Works Cited:
BBC News (2013, September 24). “Syria Chemical Attack: What We Know.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399.
BBC News (2016, December 5). “Syria Profile: Timeline.” Retrieved December 5, 2016 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995.
BBC News (2018, April 17). Syria Air Strikes: Theresa May Says Action 'Moral and Legal'. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43775728?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cme1yzdkllxt/syria-air-strikes&link_location=live-reporting-story.
Blanchard, C. M., & Sharp, J. M. (2013, September 12). “Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43201.pdf.
CIA World Factbook (2016). “Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html.
Hayden, C. (2013, August 31). “President Obama's Decision on Syria.” Retrieved November 15, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/31/president-obamas-decision-syria.
Slack, M. (2013, September 3). “President Obama Meets with Congressional Leaders to Discuss the Situation in Syria.” Retrieved November 15, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/03/president-obama-meets-congressional-leaders-syria.
The New York Times (2013, August 31). “Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria. Retrieved December 1, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html.
The New York Times (2013, September 5). “Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/politics/syria-vote-tracker.html?_r=1&.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on the Middle East North Africa, author. (2013). Breaking the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nexus: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, April 11, 2013. (United States. Congress. House of Representatives. HR hrg.; 1-89). Retrieved December 3, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80364/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg80364.pdf.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, author. (2014). The Authorization of Use of Force in Syria: Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, September 3, 2013. (United States. Congress. Senate. S. hrg.; 113-479). Retrieved December 3, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg91222/html/CHRG-113shrg91222.htm.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, author. (2014). U.S. Policy Toward Syria: Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, April 11, 2013. (United States. Congress. Senate. S. hrg.; 113-197). Retrieved December 4, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg86861/pdf/CHRG-113shrg86861.pdf.
United States Department of State (2014, March 20). “U.S. Relations with Syria.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm.
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2013, August 30). “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21.
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2013, August 31). “Statement by the President on Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria.
Background:
The case of Syria demonstrates the extent to which globalization has increasingly internationalized civil wars and illustrates the complexity of international terrorism and anti-terrorism partnerships. Specifically, the outbreak of armed conflict between Russian-backed government forces of President Bashar al-Assad, United States-supported Kurdish and Syrian rebels (Free Syrian Army), and various terrorist groups is considered an outgrowth of the instability brought by the regional Arab Spring movement of 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa. The Arab Spring movement of 2011, widely seen as a popular uprising against authoritarian governments, toppled many regimes seen as oppressive. However, in Syria, this coup was not successful and the Assad regime has responded by cracking down against his opposition, seen as a loose coalition of rebels and terrorist groups such as the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS). The country is presently in a state of civil war, as terrorist groups took advantage of power vacuums in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East after the 2011 protests.
Adding to the complexity of the civil-war situation was the use of sarin nerve gas, one of many internationally-banned chemical weapons underneath the 1925 Geneva Convention, against civilians in the Syrian capital, Damascus, on August 21st, 2013, by the Syrian government, in which 1,423 people were believed by U.S. intelligence to have been killed. The use of chemical weapons put additional pressure on President Obama to take decisive action in Syria, as use of chemical weapons against civilians was a “red line” for possible United States military action in the country considered to be a state-sponsor of terrorism. Additionally, the president was also constrained by a deadlocked UN Security Council in terms of action on Syria. Previously, the United States had maintained an indirect approach to Syria that involved maintenance and expansion of joint US-EU-Turkey-Arab League economic sanctions on Syria, support of a UN weapons-inspection regime, and support of the rebels in the form of humanitarian aid to achieve possible democracy in the country; prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); and fight terrorism as part of the larger international “War on Terror.”
In the wake of the August incident, President Obama announced his updated strategy of targeting Syrian government military positions, but stopped short of a commitment of ground troops, no doubt in part due to the war weariness induced by previous unsuccessful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan taken in response to terrorism. Additionally, President Obama announced his seeking of formal support from Congress to authorize the Syria military operation at a time in which public skepticism over Middle East-interventionism was mirrored in the divided legislature, especially among Republican lawmakers critical of the president’s response to the Syrian crisis. Around the same time, a similar vote in Britain’s parliament to authorize the use of military force in Syria failed. Thus, to assuage a skeptical Congress, the American public, American allies abroad, and the United Nations (with both domestic and international actors retaining varying degrees of isolationist or internationalist sentiment), President Obama announced the limited military operation (purposefully not terming the operation a “war”) in a strings-attached manner, seeking to toe the line regarding international law and the US War Powers Act (1973).
Evaluation:
To explain the president’s decision-making on the Syria case, in which he supported limited military strikes against the Assad regime, I will utilize the realist and emotional/cognitive perspectives to enumerate the security interests at play and the contrasts in perspective in Congress and the Obama administration.
In the context of international anti-terrorism efforts, securing Syria by attempting to oust an oppressive regime along with maintaining progress towards reducing the amount of land (and potential WMDs) held by terrorist groups such as IS reflects a realist national-security interest on behalf of the United States. This strategic prerogative was passed on to the Obama administration through the “War on Terror.” Moreover, in terms of the post-9/11 foreign policy strategy of democratization in the Middle East, reflected in the United States’ support of the Free Syrian Army, lack of response to the crisis (especially the chemical weapons attack) would indicate the United States was not only unwilling to back up its democratic ideals, but also would allow a dictator (supported by rival Russia) to get away with violating international law. This in turn, it was reasoned by some in the administration and Congress, could embolden Syria, Iran, North Korea and various non-state groups in their proliferation of WMDs and thus threaten America and its allies. However, not all saw the situation the same.
For example, President Obama, in his advocation of a limited military strike in Syria seems to recall the failure of U.S. ground missions in Afghanistan and Iraq that ultimately ended up contributing to the instability of the Middle East in concert with the Arab Spring. In his public announcement, Obama hints that past interventions in the Middle East of a preemptive nature produced greater security threats to the United States. Additionally, the President seems to have intertwined matters of national security with matters of morality, citing similarly to Congress that American nonintervention against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians not only would embolden America’s enemies, but also would send a message that the United States no longer committed itself to its ideals and the upholding of international law. Therefore, inaction would produce greater national security consequences in the undermining of U.S. credibility abroad. Yet, the president continued to hope for a diplomatic solution to prevail on Syria.
Meanwhile, in Congress, conflicting analogical reasoning among prominent individuals seemed to have also played a great role in President Obama’s decision-making. Many members of Congress across party-lines largely echoed public concerns about the degree to which national security was threatened and the wisdom of committing U.S. ground troops. Seeming to similarly recall the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which security arguments were put forward in regards to needing to act against unstable dictators with WMD-development aspirations to garner support, many members of Congress thus expressed doubts about the proposed military plan. A sizable majority of Congress seemed to advocate the further use of diplomacy alone or as part of a more comprehensive Syria strategy rather than resorting to potentially unilateral military force on its own to confront the Assad regime. Thus, to preserve political flexibility while seeking to still act on his principles and the security interests in Syria, President Obama thus made a tentative military commitment dependent on Congressional approval.
Ultimately, while many government actors seemed to grasp the national security concerns at play in Syria, the conflicted analogical reasoning of key parts of the legislative and executive branches towards Syria (and the resulting tentativeness on the foreign policy front) seem to have played an equal or greater role in the president’s decision-making to carry out the limited air strikes versus choosing inaction or a wholesale commitment of boots on the ground.
Works Cited:
BBC News (2013, September 24). “Syria Chemical Attack: What We Know.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399.
BBC News (2016, December 5). “Syria Profile: Timeline.” Retrieved December 5, 2016 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995.
BBC News (2018, April 17). Syria Air Strikes: Theresa May Says Action 'Moral and Legal'. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43775728?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cme1yzdkllxt/syria-air-strikes&link_location=live-reporting-story.
Blanchard, C. M., & Sharp, J. M. (2013, September 12). “Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43201.pdf.
CIA World Factbook (2016). “Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html.
Hayden, C. (2013, August 31). “President Obama's Decision on Syria.” Retrieved November 15, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/31/president-obamas-decision-syria.
Slack, M. (2013, September 3). “President Obama Meets with Congressional Leaders to Discuss the Situation in Syria.” Retrieved November 15, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/03/president-obama-meets-congressional-leaders-syria.
The New York Times (2013, August 31). “Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria. Retrieved December 1, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html.
The New York Times (2013, September 5). “Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/politics/syria-vote-tracker.html?_r=1&.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on the Middle East North Africa, author. (2013). Breaking the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nexus: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, April 11, 2013. (United States. Congress. House of Representatives. HR hrg.; 1-89). Retrieved December 3, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80364/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg80364.pdf.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, author. (2014). The Authorization of Use of Force in Syria: Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, September 3, 2013. (United States. Congress. Senate. S. hrg.; 113-479). Retrieved December 3, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg91222/html/CHRG-113shrg91222.htm.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, author. (2014). U.S. Policy Toward Syria: Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first session, April 11, 2013. (United States. Congress. Senate. S. hrg.; 113-197). Retrieved December 4, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg86861/pdf/CHRG-113shrg86861.pdf.
United States Department of State (2014, March 20). “U.S. Relations with Syria.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm.
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2013, August 30). “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21.
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2013, August 31). “Statement by the President on Syria.” Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria.
Book Review: Jennifer Palmieri's "Dear Madam President"
The ghost of the 2016 election seems to be still with us, with various media covering its aftermath almost ad nauseam, a new book coming out it seems every week trying to explain this highly unlikely outcome. It's enough to make us want to scream at these various authors for rehashing 2016 yet again and also hide away and try to proceed with life as normally as possible. Nevertheless, it remains important to resist the impulse to hide away without compromising one's psychological well-being. This seems to be the overall message of former White House (under President Obama) and Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri's 2018 open-letter style memoir of the 2016 election Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World.
Composed of nine chapters, Palmieri's memoir seems to be at first glance primarily a means of psychological venting and healing (although it definitely is in part) and to its detractors a thinly concealed partisan screed against Donald Trump's election victory. However, while not devoid of criticism of Donald Trump's politics, Dear Madam President is primarily composed of advice for future women leaders, especially those that aspire to political office. There are various obstacles that have been cited in the literature about women leaders, which can be boiled down primarily to misogyny and the overwhelming pressure to suppress feminine qualities while running for office or once in office in favor of emphasizing masculine-ascribed traits of strength and decisiveness. Palmieri states this bluntly in the introduction as she reflects that the campaign reduced Hillary Clinton to a "female facsimile of the qualities we expect to see in a male president" (Palmieri, 2018, p. 9). Clearly, this is an untenable position and a new model of leadership is needed. What is this new model of leadership?
The latter is the million dollar question. How does one overcome thousands upon thousands of years of patriarchal precedent? How does one define what male or female leadership even is in the first place? It is a circular and endless wade into the intellectual, psychological and cultural morass. So, not unlike others in the past Palmieri doesn't pretend to have all the answers and just gives nine bits of sage advice based on her many years in left-leaning politics:
Works Cited:
Beard, Mary. (2017). Women & Power: A Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Palmieri, Jennifer. (2018). Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Composed of nine chapters, Palmieri's memoir seems to be at first glance primarily a means of psychological venting and healing (although it definitely is in part) and to its detractors a thinly concealed partisan screed against Donald Trump's election victory. However, while not devoid of criticism of Donald Trump's politics, Dear Madam President is primarily composed of advice for future women leaders, especially those that aspire to political office. There are various obstacles that have been cited in the literature about women leaders, which can be boiled down primarily to misogyny and the overwhelming pressure to suppress feminine qualities while running for office or once in office in favor of emphasizing masculine-ascribed traits of strength and decisiveness. Palmieri states this bluntly in the introduction as she reflects that the campaign reduced Hillary Clinton to a "female facsimile of the qualities we expect to see in a male president" (Palmieri, 2018, p. 9). Clearly, this is an untenable position and a new model of leadership is needed. What is this new model of leadership?
The latter is the million dollar question. How does one overcome thousands upon thousands of years of patriarchal precedent? How does one define what male or female leadership even is in the first place? It is a circular and endless wade into the intellectual, psychological and cultural morass. So, not unlike others in the past Palmieri doesn't pretend to have all the answers and just gives nine bits of sage advice based on her many years in left-leaning politics:
- (A bit cheesy): "Since we live in a world where the unimaginable is suddenly possible, we need to seize on that by imagining what else might be possible...that seemed unimaginable before" (Palmieri, 2018, p. 20). To me, this speaks on the need to always be flexible when things get tough and require a new approach, while holding onto the soothing of anchor of who we are personally. Palmieri relates this more specifically to staying true to one's self while reinventing the outdated rules of the game (politically and otherwise).
- Be prepared for push-back: Generally, society smiles upon women who are selfless and subsume their own needs in favor of satisfying the interests of others. It is thought that women are better in indirect supporting roles to their male counterparts rather than direct leadership. Going contrary to these expectations still is a huge political drag for many women candidates, even in the post second-wave era where women have definitely gained ground. Palmieri throws out this notion by stating bluntly that women need to be prepared for a long fight for change, but that persistence and forward-motion (and thick skin) are key.
- (Again, a bit cheesy): "Speak up" (Palmieri, 2018, p. 34). Personally, that can be very difficult for my introvert self. Nevertheless, Palmieri speaks to both introverts and extroverts in that we shouldn't be afraid to speak up with confidence in whatever you do, lest you regret your silence later.
- Be emotional rather than stoic all the time. It helps to preserve your humanity and keep one's self sane.
- A healthy balance between dry logical reasoning and emotional expression is definitely needed in a high-stress environment.
- Trying to have a perfect appearance all the time is untenable and unrealistic, despite the push-back (see #2). For women, expected to be polished all the time, it is especially important, as merit is more important and age conveys experience. Mind over matter here.
- Increasing the telling of women's stories whenever possible is also important when the dominant discourse centers around male experience (hence the term "history").
- Be graceful in your losses, but continue moving forward anyway. Definitely a mind over matter thing here.
- Last, but not least, women unite! This also tends to be a cheesy kind of trope in women's literature and public speaking, but it remains true. Trying to bridge divisions between all women and between people generally in the country rather than resort to divisive politics and rhetoric will be the key to success and true change. Who knows what women can accomplish if they can overcome these barriers? Maybe the Women's March was just a prelude.
Works Cited:
Beard, Mary. (2017). Women & Power: A Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Palmieri, Jennifer. (2018). Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)