ThePoliticalReview

In 2007, the Nobel Prize winning UN Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body that reviews and assesses studies related to climate change, released a report that stated, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Despite this scientific consensus, the media’s coverage of climate change continues to focus on the “debate” between climate change deniers and mainstream scientists instead of transitioning to the crucial discussion about what to do about climate change. As a result of the media’s skewed coverage, policymakers have to persuade people of the existence and adverse effects of climate change instead of being able to craft practical, necessary solutions to the problem.

The media’s focus on controversy and debate surrounding the issue of climate change is obscuring the scientific consensus. For example, this fall thousands of emails from a prominent British climate research center were hacked. Skeptics of climate change alleged that these emails showed that scientists had exaggerated the affects of climate change by manipulating data and withholding information from being published. The media, including respected sources such as the New York Times, called this controversy “Climategate” and reported on it in great detail. A government panel recently investigated these allegations and found that the scientists did not distort their data but should have been more transparent about publishing their results. It also found no details in the emails that challenged the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.” This story was reported on in the weeks leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.  Reports of the controversy may have distracted lawmakers from crafting a strong, binding international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions and represent one reason why no such treaty emerged.

Although there is scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change, many broadcast meteorologists are climate change deniers. An Emory University study found that 29% of TV meteorologists believed that global warming was “a scam.” There are several reasons for this trend. First, broadcast meteorologists are not climate scientists, and their training is to predict short-term weather patterns, not to analyze long-term climate trends. It can be difficult for them to acknowledge that scientists can predict weather patterns years down the road. However, this position fails to acknowledge the distinction between weather and climate. While meteorologists predict the temperature and precipitation events that will occur at a specific point in time, climate scientists predict the overall trends and patterns that will occur as a result of increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Therefore, the long-term trends that indicate climate change are outside of a meteorologist’s area of expertise. Meteorologists have no more authority to evaluate the legitimacy of climate change science than a dentist has to evaluate the severity of a worldwide flu pandemic. The fact that so many meteorologists do not accept climate change science is alarming because 56% of Americans trust weathercasters more than they trust other news media or public figures to tell them about global warming, according to a Yale and George Mason study.

A study by University of Colorado professor Maxwell Boykoff found that the majority of informed scientists believe that the effects of climate change will have a “substantial cost” or a be a “catastrophe.” However, the media covers the climate change “debate” between a small number of right-wing think tanks that believe that climate change will have a “neutral” effect and the much larger number of scientists who believe it will have a “substantial cost.” The IPCC lies at the lower end of this “substantial cost” threshold; any prediction that climate change will have more severe costs than IPCC prediction is considered unreasonable and is not reported on in the popular media, even though far more scientists hold this “extreme” view than the view that climate change will have a neutral impact.

This skewed representation of climate change by the media has major implications for policymakers. Since the popular press does not adequately explain the severity of climate change and the scientific consensus that humans are causing it, many people believe that we do not need to take action to stop climate change. Therefore, constituents do not press their representatives to pass legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and the issue of climate change takes a backseat to the economy, healthcare, and numerous other issues. When climate change does get discussed, policymakers are less likely to support the ambitious proposals that we need to cap greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy, because these are seen as extreme “liberal” solutions in contrast to the conservative approach of doing nothing and denying that humans are causing climate change – an approach that most scientists would object to but that the media has made legitimate.

Climate change is a complex issue that is difficult to fully explain in the short sound bites and newscasts that characterize the modern mainstream media. However, journalists should take responsibility to cover the issue with as much scientific integrity as possible and not succumb to the sensationalized “debate” between scientists and climate change deniers. Most Americans learn about climate change from the mainstream media, and therefore the media has a responsibility to present the issue accurately.

Amy Plovnick can be contacted at amyplovnick [at] wustl.edu

Dear Readers,

After four years with WUPR, we’re finally ready to say goodbye.  It’s crazy to think how much of our college careers are wrapped up in this magazine, but all good things must come to an end.

Neither of us had any experience in publishing when we got to Wash U, but we had a real taste for politics and an undeniable love for expressing our opinions and ideas.  So when we heard about the Washington University Political Review, it was an easy decision to get involved; the people were warm, inviting, and, as you’d expect, always happy to talk politics.  The magazine was a much smaller operation back then.  We printed in black and white and usually only 16 pages long.  The then-editors had all been present at WUPR’s founding back in 2004, and they were worried the group wasn’t going to survive after they graduated.  Still, it was a neat place to work.  (Plus, it’s always cool the first time you see your name in print.)  So we stuck with it and rose through the ranks as positions opened up.  One of the first things WUPR taught us was how valuable it is to have dependable people willing to give you their time and effort.  All the Editors-in-Chief we worked for - Mike Bowers, Meredith Davis, Ben Jackson and Sam Levine - never let us forget how grateful they were for anything and everything we did for the magazine.  It was a valuable lesson, and we hope that we’ve kept alive that same atmosphere of earnest gratitude that they established.  In that spirit, we want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made being Editors-in-Chief worthwhile.

Taking over as Editors-in-Chief was as terrifying as it was exhilarating.  There was so much we wanted to change, and yet just maintaining what we had was an overwhelming task.  Since so many people had graduated, it wasn’t really clear who was willing or able to make the magazine a reality.  At first we had to tackle that the hard way, doing far too much on our own. But, as the magazine got better, we picked up a bunch of great people who were eager to help out.  So to Brittany Parker, Mike Brodsky, Josh Truppman, Nick Wilbar and everyone else who believed in us when there wasn’t always much worth believing in, thanks so much.  You made more possible than you could possibly know.

This year especially has been incredible for us and for WUPR.  We started with two big goals: a bigger and better magazine and making the organization a closer-knit group of friends working together.  The results on both fronts have exceeded our wildest expectations.  The staff has exploded in size, and the quality of the magazine has grown to match.  We’ve also finally gotten our long prophesized website, wupr.org.  That achievement is something we cannot take any credit for.  All thanks go to the dynamic duo of Bryan Baird and Will Johnson.  They created a website almost out of thin air that started out fantastic and continues to get better every time we look at it.

All together, WUPR has a much stronger presence on campus than it did when we arrived in 2006. The sight of students reading WUPR in Whispers, the DUC, or during their less-than-captivating lectures never ceases to amaze or delight.   No small part of that bolstered reputation is due to our top-notch art staff, who have put out magazine covers and an ever increasing number of editorial illustrations that are jaw-droppingly impressive.  Really, the artists that work for WUPR are the best at Wash U, and we’ll fight anyone who disagrees.

The graphic design of the magazine has also grown by leaps and bounds this year.  A huge amount of that improvement can be laid on the shoulders of one person, Tyler Trussell, who is more talented than he knows what to do with.  The guy works like a mule, too.  We couldn’t have done it without him.

Also topping the list of people that we could not have done without is Lauren Weiss, our lead copy editor.  Literally, no one in the world is more willing to work long hours on short notice, and if anyone thinks she or he is better than her at detecting comma errors, we’ll be happy to provide a detailed (and properly punctuated) list of reasons why she or he is sorely mistaken.

Finally, thank you to our readers.  Running this organization has been just about the coolest and most enjoyable thing we’ve ever done.  There’s just some things you learn about yourself and what you’re capable of when it’s 3 a.m. and the issue is due to the publisher in six hours that you can’t learn any other way.  Thanks for caring about what we do and for taking our best efforts seriously.  Your continued interest and support make it all worthwhile.

Sincerely,

Greg Allen

&

Jake Laperruque

WUPR can be contacted at WebEditor [at] wupr.org

Neutral, unbiased, nonpartisan news is dead.  It’s just not a good business model anymore.  MSNBC and Fox News have proven this by kicking CNN around in the ratings more and more each year.  However, this isn’t really a new problem.  Media has taken sides and chosen favorites since the beginning of U.S. history; one of the most famous goes all the way back to America’s origins, in which a pro-Federalist paper declared Thomas Jefferson to be dead in the hope of detracting support from him.  It puts the current harms of media bias in perspective; at least when Fox pushes the Obama-is-a-Muslim conspiracy they acknowledge that he’s alive.

The real danger of today’s media is not the bias, but rather the way we access it.  With resources like Google, Twitter, Tivo, and Hulu, we now have the ability to watch whatever we want, whenever we want.  As the success of Fox News and MSNBC makes clear, individuals consume media sources that advocate viewpoints they already agree with.  In essence, the internet age, often claimed to herald a new age of communication and information- sharing, has also provided us with the means to construct our own personal, impenetrable echo chamber.

How do we save ourselves from this bubble?  Since a nonpartisan media seems  beyond hope, perhaps we can strive for the next best thing:  bias with a basis.  If we are going to give up news that is actually fair and balanced in favor of coverage that is “fair and balanced,” we should at least seek to have that coverage be based in fact and reason.  The result may be a public that is partisan and political, but in the end it will at least be informed.  However, contemporary news faces a dichotomy between this bias based in reason and bias based in bull, and no media personalities personify that divide better than Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck.

Despite his self-appointed label of “fake news host,” Stewart dishes out a heavy dose of real journalism in his reports.  For years, a staple of his style has been to catch politicians, commentators, and members of the media contradicting themselves by playing conflicting quotes in succession.  It’s hard to pick a single program that doesn’t contain at least one of these “gotcha!” moments.  The coverage is undeniably liberal; President Bush was a far more frequent victim than President Obama is today.  However, Stewart is at least giving his audience an argument that is based in facts.

Contrast this approach with Beck’s.  Each and every day, Beck constructs the narrative of his show around conjecture and speculation.  Instead of looking to facts, figures, quotes, and clips, he instead relies on his magic blackboard of truthiness, which allows him to chalk out whatever line of reasoning he wants, evidence be damned.  The Glenn Beck Show strives to achieve the lowest common denominator:  speculation itself is the end goal.

Perhaps even more important is the difference in how the two hosts value discourse.  It is a fair critique to say that Jon Stewart vehemently pushes liberal beliefs.  But no one could ever argue that he refuses to engage the other side.  On a regular basis, Stewart will host guests who are highly conservative.  And he won’t just bring on fringe Republicans for the sake of knocking them down; he takes appearances from individuals such as Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and other leading conservative figures.

Beck, on the other hand, is averse to ever hosting liberals or having someone appear to advocate for their viewpoints.  The most prominent Democrat he ever brought onto his show was recently resigned Congressman Eric Massa, but this was only because he thought Massa would accuse Democratic leadership of forcing him out of office because of his stance against healthcare reform.  When Massa took personal responsibility for his resignation and instead used his airtime to critique the Tea Party Movement, Beck grew irritated and ended his show by declaring to his audience, “I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time.”

For perhaps the only time ever, Beck was right.  He did waste everyone’s time: he ignored a genuine opportunity to engage someone who disagreed with him.  Jon Stewart never does, and it is that type of discourse that makes Jon Stewart’s programming, biased as it is, still a highly valuable source of journalism.  He is confident enough in his views to put them up against a capable adversary who wants to argue against them.  In doing so, he challenges not just himself, but also his viewers, to put substance behind their stances.  He forces his liberal-loving audience to question why they think they are correct and conservative principles are flawed.  And quite often he is forced to concede that it is not possible to do so, and that all we have is our own opinions.  It is the ability to provide that reasoning – on both the right and the left – that makes even a biased media one worth having.

Jake Laperruque can be contacted at editor [at] wupr.org

H. Clinton: Dude, how drunk was I last night?
Emanuel: You went up to Medvedev and told him to take the training Putins off of his presidency.
H. Clinton: LOL! What’d he do?
Emanuel: He cried a little. It was awesome.

-----------

B. Obama: I’ve got it: next Supreme Court Justice will be Beyonce. Imagine how great her ass would look in a judicial robe.
M. Obama: I think that text was meant for Biden. Also, we need to talk.

-----------

Steele: Hey, are you going to the teabagging rally later?
Pawlenty: You know, I think it’s time you went online and looked up what that word really means.
Steele: What? Which word?
Steele: OMG. It all makes sense now!

-----------

B. Clinton: Just scored some sweet weed. This time, I totally inhaled. Now my wife sounds like an evil Mickey Mouse.

-----------

Kucinich: So between Levi Johnston and Scott Brown, I think there’s a serious trend toward posing nude.
Reid: Oh god, please don’t tell me you’re getting ideas.
Kucinich: Check out this week’s AARP newsletter.
Reid: WTF?!?! Now I know how you got such a hot wife.

-----------

Bernanke: Hey, we’re playing Monopoly with real Wall Street banks. You want in?
Geithner: Nah, man, I’m taking it easy tonight.
Bernanke: We also have hookers.
Geithner: I’ll be there in five.

-----------

J. McCain: …---… …---… …---… …---…
C. McCain: Dammit John, it’s texting. You can type words. Also, you’re fine.

-----------

Palin: Just read through all of my old Twitter posts. I must have been drunk, because I have no idea what the hell I was talking about.

Bryan Baird can be contacted at bryanbaird [at] wustl.edu

Depending on where you get your news, this upcoming Congressional election is, well, up in the air. CNN Headline News, after showing a number of highly relevant YouTube videos, will likely give a BREAKING NEWS update about how the election looks like a potential disaster. Glenn Beck of Fox News will probably pull out his chalkboard and show how ACORN and Karl Marx prove that this election spells the ultimate demise of the Democrats. Rachel Maddow from MSNBC might even concede that the election is looking problematic.

Now, whether this uncertainty has been generated solely by the news media or whether it represents a genuine trend among voters is a difficult question to answer, but one worth considering. Since the Democrats relinquished their “supermajority” of 60 votes in Congress with the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to the GOP, the pressing question seems to be whether this shift was simply an anomaly or whether the Democratic stronghold of our government has already collapsed.

In defense of the punditry, the cause for alarm does not solely stem from Scott Brown’s winning the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. This year, 12 senators will retire: a potentially frightening number, especially since many of the retirements came with glib remarks about how “discouraging” it is that “politics as usual” has come to “halt efforts at bipartisanship,” among other currently marketable political sound bites. Especially since the advent of a new generation of political figures like Sarah Palin, it has become popular to rail against Washington, and these retirees have taken that idea to heart.. However, the idea that these resignations are indicative of a real trend immediately falls apart when one considers the data. It was only 14 years ago, in 1996, when an even greater number of Senators retired. Of the 13 retirements in that year’s election, only three resulted in the win of a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent, despite the general trend of GOP gains since 1994. In fact, in 1996, the GOP actually lost seats in the House. Retirements are not the end of the world.



Moreover, the furor created by the loss of a single seat in the Senate belies another, greater reality: namely, the fact that the Democrats’ “filibuster-proof” majority in the Senate was an illusion. In 2008, when the Democrats achieved a sweeping victory, images of a new era of Democratic control appeared. Progressive reform seemed imminent, and the majority of the country was swept up in excitement. But what followed? Sweeping progressive reform? Not a chance. Even with 60 Senators caucusing with the Democrats, they were basically incapable of voting as a bloc. Today’s Democratic Party, for better or worse, is comprised of too diverse a set of ideologies to agree on a platform, let alone an issue as contentious as health care reform. So for practical purposes, little has changed now that the Democrats hold 59 seats instead of the precious 60. Unless the GOP picks up another nine Senators and 40 Congressmen, little else is likely to change. Granted, every additional vote is helpful, but the holy grail of 60 seats really was never that holy. A truly unbeatable bloc would require a much larger, much more unified majority, which is not in the Democrats’ cards.

So what about the Republican dream for this election? Is it a likely prospect? In the House, the answer is simply no. Polling overwhelmingly suggests that even if the Democrats were forced to cede several seats, the Democratic majority in the House is there to stay for the time being. The currently pushed message is one of populist anger, but if that is the case, everyone is angry at the vague notions of “Washington” and “politics as usual.” Trust in the Democratic Party has declined somewhat, but the Republicans have not met with corresponding gains. Nobody has been able to genuinely capitalize on whatever fervor there may be.

Be that as it may, the Senate races will be much more complex. If we really stretch the term, there are roughly ten “toss-up” states for available seats. Of those ten, Democrats presently hold six of the seats and Republicans hold four. So even if these seats are truly for the taking, the percentage split of which party holds the toss-up seats does not trend to the left or right — the breakup is in line with the number of seats each party holds in the Senate as a whole. Furthermore, the Republicans are no more unified in their efforts to capture these seats than the Democrats. For example, in Kentucky, where some believe the Republicans may hold a slight edge, there exists a potentially dangerous divide for the GOP between the newcomer, Rand Paul (son of famous libertarian Ron Paul) and the more traditional party favorite, Trey Grayson. Ultimately, even if the GOP picks up some of these contested seats, it will be exceedingly difficult for the party to keep the four seats that it presently owns and capture another five seats from the Democrats.

All in all, if there are any legitimate trends to be found in light of recent events, it is the increasing alarmism that has colored what used to be bona fide news organizations. The reality is that bold, sweeping claims of impending doom sell more newspapers and do more for ailing ratings than more reserved, boring predictions of what is to come. Besides, “the Death of the Democratic Party” has a certain ring to it — how could anyone pass that up?

Neel Desai can be contacted at nsdesai [at] wustl.edu

Against the grim backdrop of American families trimming expenses and consumers delaying spending, the White House has released the budget for 2011. The plan features no surprises in its allocations—$1.48 trillion for national defense and social security—but in keeping with the Obama administration’s goal to stimulate economic growth, the 2011 proposal did come to a record-high total: $3.69 trillion.

The White House budgets translate to a $1.6 trillion increase to the fiscal deficit by the end 2011, which will require government to borrow one of every three dollars it spends in that year. The general consensus among political advisors is that increased government spending is necessary into order to spur consumer demand during the recession. The 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages followed this logic, as does the proposed tax break to companies who hire new employees in 2011. In short, the government is replacing private spending (weakened by a depressed economy) with public spending. Their argument runs “better to run a few years of budged deficits than risk exacerbating the recession.” This shortsighted logic fails to consider the consequences of the proposed deficit.

The American people will eventually need to bear the burden of the debt, so future tax increases are nearly inevitable. Included in Obama’s 2011 budget is $251 billion that exists merely to make interest payments on past deficits, which will make up 15% of the total budget. In the past, government debt was less problematic since the debt was financed by American investors who receive future returns in the form of interest payment (and would thereafter reinvest in American businesses or banks). Today, on the other hand, international investors and governments fund a much larger proportion of our debt. Interest is paid for with American tax dollars but flows to the pockets of international entities.

The domestic and international political consequences associated with a large deficit are imposing and numerous. Taxpayers are already facing increases as Obama is forced to phase out the Bush tax cuts (in part) to counter-balance spending increases. In addition, China, as the single largest holder of U.S. government debt, will wield economic influence over U.S. fiscal policy as it continues pick up still more of the tab.  Deficit spending also reduces U.S. credit, limiting the government’s ability to raise money from both foreign and domestic investors. Prospects for deficit spending in the future, even for necessities, are limited.

Of even greater concern, the proposed increase to government spending and borrowing could slow economic recovery. The United States could face the “crowding-out effect,” in which the government competes for the same money as private firms. Investors choose either to loan to the government or to invest privately. As the government offers more bonds, fewer investments will be funneled to private economic actors. The interest rate that the Fed has worked hard to keep low could also increase as a product of increased government demand for money, which would raise the price of loans for businesses and consumers. This results in fewer factories built, fewer workers hired, and persistent, high mortgage rates–-all of which Obama is trying to prevent by increasing government spending.

The prevailing political logic leans toward spending as the policy prescription for an ailing economy, and spending is precisely what the White House has proposed to remedy high unemployment rates. This proposition overlooks the penalties that large budget deficits deal to the American people and U.S. influence abroad. Although job creation is a popular and worthy goal in the short-run, long-term economic stability should remain our ultimate target.

Kirsten Miller can be contacted at k.miller [at] wustl.edu

When President George W. Bush first declared the War on Terror, he famously promised the American people “boots on the ground” to decisively bring those responsible for terrorism to justice. Yet in a January 5, 2009 interview with Foreign Policy, General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, stated that the United States “cannot kill [its] way to victory” in the War on Terror. This war has undeniably different challenges from previous U.S. conflicts: a decade of military action has yet to stop terrorist attacks that continue to maim and murder military personel and  civilians alike. As Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, son of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, stated to CNN on November 16, 2009, if the United States and its allies kill 100 terrorists, 1,000 more will enlist in Al-Qaeda’s ranks. Al-Qaeda’s greatest strength is its essentially boundless population base that it can manipulate and radicalize into jihadists; the organization continues to draw support from fundamentalists worldwide. Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations are built entirely upon a narrow, radical interpretation of Islam and the Qur’an that promises salvation for those who die as martyrs. This is the bait that draws misled Muslims, from educated clerics to misguided teenagers, into the deadly embrace of radicalism.

Therefore, the United States must strike at the core of Al-Qaeda by winning the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of these potential recruits. If the United States is able to significantly reduce the number of new recruits to jihadist organizations, it can fatally weaken the worldwide terrorist network. This requires ammunition made not from lead and steel, but from words. The United States could benefit most from attacks on Al-Qaeda’s core ideology in order to blunt the force of the extremists’ impassioned rhetoric. Surprisingly enough, these attacks are coming from areas often considered hotbeds of Islamic radicalism, Egypt and Libya.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is an organization notorious for their close cooperation with Al-Qaeda and worldwide terrorist activity. Although LIFG and Al-Qaeda have historically maintained close ties, the LIFG has been growing increasingly disillusioned with Al-Qaeda’s “indiscriminate” bombings such as those in London and Madrid. LIFG’s leaders were concerned that Al-Qaeda was diverging from its original mission of securing Muslim nations’ sovereignty. In 2007, the Libyan government jailed almost every member of the organization in a security crackdown. Amid the brutal suppression of a subsequent prison riot, 1,200 incarcerated radicals were killed. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, son of Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi, decided to take a different approach in handling the captured terrorists. He stressed the importance of reconciling with the LIFG and engaged in lengthy dialogue with its leaders. By offering small incentives such as allowing family visits in prison and better living conditions, the younger Qaddafi was able to convince hundreds of incarcerated LIFG jihadists to lay out their complaints in an orderly, nonviolent manner.

After two and a half years, a four-hundred page manuscript, titled The Recantation or Corrective Studies, was produced. It emphasizes that jihad, or defense of the faith, differs from the warfare of nonbelievers; it is for the sake of their religion and comes attached with moral obligations. The Recantation states that Muslims are encouraged to fight for Allah only when a Muslim country is invaded, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Even in such cases, it states that it is illegal for jihadists to kill civilians. This groundbreaking manuscript goes even further, definitively banning the killing of nonrelated parties, including unbelievers and foreigners. These claims are not only based on traditional standards of morality but on hundreds of diligently cited verses from the Qur’an. This ideological hammer blow to Al-Qaeda’s core values has brought a flood of condemnations against Qaddafi and the LIFG, declaring them to be traitors and infidels. The leader of the LIFG responded to these challenges by demanding thst others to come up with their own counterargument with textual support from the Qur’an.

Another powerful voice against Al-Qaeda’s ideological juggernaut comes from Libya’s neighbor, Egypt. Egyptian Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, known as Dr. Fadl, has released a book titled Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and in the World. This scathing criticism of Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam is notable because of who Dr. Fadl is. He is respected and revered in jihadist circles as “the godfather of modern jihad,” having helped draw up the framework for Al-Qaeda and similar organizations throughout the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. The fact that al-Sharif’s work justified Al-Qaeda’s actions for the last thirty years gives legitimacy and weight to his criticism of the organization he helped found.

Reflecting the author’s personal history, Rationalizing Jihad does not touch upon how Allah stresses compassion and forgiveness like in The Recantation, nor does it renounce terrorist warfare as a means to protect the Islamic faith. On the other hand, it follows a more logical route in arguing against Al-Qaeda’s recent operations. The book asserts that Al-Qaeda has become inefficient, confused in its future direction, and has been ultimately unsuccessful in achieving its goals. Al-Sharif emphasizes that after the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the vast majority of the victims from suicide bombers and insurgents have been fellow Muslims. In addition, he asserts that 9/11 has only served to spark a worldwide campaign against Islamic radicalism. He pointedly argues that not only do radical Islamists murder under false Islamic pretext, but that the deaths of these thousands have failed to make tangible progress towards expanding Islam or protecting it from outside attacks. With the formerly allied LIFG and the pioneer of modern jihad, al-Sharif, simultaneously turning against them, Al-Qaeda is coming under increasingly heavy ideological fire from within their own ranks.

This two-pronged attack reveals the emerging cracks in the radical Islamist movement and may lead to serious consequences for Al-Qaeda. As previously mentioned, Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations are nontraditional enemies because they can quickly replenish any casualties with fresh recruits. Jessica Stern, in her essay Mind over Martyr in the publication Foreign Affairs, emphasizes that “de-radicalization” of imprisoned and potential radicals is a priority in defeating terrorism at home and abroad.  Jihadist recruitment programs often distribute manipulative materials which claim that the only way to appease Allah is to join the extremists’ cause. Very few recruiters are legitimate Islamic scholars, but those with knowledge culled, as Stern says in Mind over Martyr, from “websites and by self-proclaimed imams from the Middle East who are barely educated themselves.” Many fall sway to the belief that Al-Qaeda is “the brave vanguard against Western oppression.” Two sources, with an overwhelming amount of Qur’anic evidence refuting this kind of radical Islam, will tarnish the radicalist image in the eyes of the budding extremist and perhaps make them think twice about joining such groups.

Reducing the number of new recruits is key to future U.S. defense policy. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi’s example shows that cooperation and dialogue with captured Islamist radicals can be extremely effective in producing results. Among the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, there is likely at least one extremist who is similarly disillusioned with Al-Qaeda. In return for cooperation and ideological ammunition against Al-Qaeda, the United States can simultaneously attack Al-Qaeda’s dogma while helping to wash away the stains of its previously heavy-handed approaches. By showing the compassion that the terrorists do not offer to their victims, the United States can embark on the admittedly long and uphill climb in repairing its image among Muslim populations, one of President Obama’s key declared goals. This will serve to reduce the effectiveness of Al-Qaeda recruiters. The fact that the radical school of thought represents an esoteric and reactionary branch of Islam suggests that once Al-Qaeda’s ideology is discredited, their firebrand leaders will have no one to support them. The ultimate measure of success for the War on Terror will be when the extremists’ caustic speeches proclaiming the United States as an enemy of Allah fall on deaf ears.

Only by relentlessly attacking the ideological framework of Al-Qaeda can the United States hope to emerge the victor in the War on Terror. The United States must capitalize on ideological dissent within Al-Qaeda, such as the two works by the LIFG and al-Sharif, to fundamentally discount its narrow interpretation of Islam. By targeting Al-Qaeda’s ideology, its most vulnerable and divisive aspect, the Untied States can destroy the organization’s capacity to rapidly field new recruits. Extremism may linger as an idea, but it would be stripped of its capacity to senselessly destroy lives.

Taka Yamaguchi can be contacted at tyama2891 [at] gmail.com

“At This Moment” is an advertisement for the National Guard. Both a promotional and a recruitment tool, it is playing in movie theaters across the country. At first glance, the trailer is shocking in its blatantly militaristic depiction of the National Guard. In contrast, a previous National Guard promotional video featured a song called “Citizen Solider” by 3 Doors Down, with lyrics that focused on the citizen rather than the solider. That trailer had countless images of the National Guard helping in the aftermath of natural disasters, reuniting families, and responding to domestic emergencies. Interspersed throughout the video were shots of National Guard participation in historical battles, but not many of the National Guard on active service. Yet this new trailer appears almost solely concerned with active military service. It is quite telling that the song for the new promotional trailer is titled “National Guard – Call of the Warrior."

So is this new trailer promoting new and different values for the National Guard? Clearly, it is targeting a specific audience, namely the kind of person who would not be averse to joining the Army, Navy or Marines. This new direction indicates an emphasis on active military duty for members of the National Guard, a concept quite different from the traditional “one weekend a month, two weeks a year” slogan of the organization. Perhaps the most interesting question this new trailer raises is whether the video is encouraging a trend toward the militarization of the National Guard or responding to a change that has already occurred.

The National Guard as it is known today was officially created by the National Defense Act of 1916. This law called for the organization of various state militias, which are overseen by their respective state governors. The governors are the leaders of the state National Guard and may call up the members of these militias for active service in response to domestic emergencies and disasters. Inactive service traditionally includes drills and training several times a month. The members of the state National Guard may also be called up for service at a federal level in the case of a national emergency, to fend off invasion, or for duty during times of war. This federal branch of the National Guard is known formally as the National Guard of the United States.

However, local militias existed in the United States in as far back as the 17th century. In 1636 the Massachusetts Bay Colony formed groups of roaming militias to protect themselves against attacks from the Native American tribes in the area. These early groups eventually evolved into the presence of state militias when the United States gained its independence in the late 18th century. The term “National Guard” arose when a New York regiment honored the Marquis de Lafayette by adopting the name of his celebrated French force, the Garde Nationale de Paris. In the 20th century the Guard provided 140,000 men during the Korean War, 180,000 men to aid West Berlin in the 1961 Berlin Crisis, and more than 63,000 soldiers for Operation Desert Storm.

In recent years the number of National Guardsmen called up to federal service has increased dramatically. According to the National Guard website, in 2005 “half of the U.S. combat brigades in Iraq were composed of Guard Soldiers.” Indeed, according to the Department of Defense, 698,100 members of the National Guard have been activated to federal service since September 11. This is an astonishing increase relative to National Guard participation in U.S. wars in the past.

The increasing militarization of the National Guard reflects the strange nature of U.S. fighting forces in general. The National Guard was created partially as a concession to states’ rights and partially as a force that could respond quickly and efficiently to individual states’ emergencies. The units are supposed to be used as a federal force only as a last reserve. Yet the distinction between the Guard and the U.S. Army, Navy and Marines is blurring. Without a draft, military-trained personnel are scarce and volunteers are difficult to come by. However, the source of recruits for the National Guard usually comes from a slightly different pool of applicants, who want less of a commitment than serving in the other military branches would require of them. This provides a ripe opportunity to gain more soldiers for combat, especially with recent increases in troops in Afghanistan. The National Guard trailer, with its blunt promotion of military service, is an especially potent indicator of that fact. And until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, it seems unlikely that this militaristic approach will cease. Members of the National Guard, grab your guns.

(Article by Anna Applebaum. She can be reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu)

WUPR can be contacted at WebEditor [at] wupr.org

Nelson Mandela once remarked, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” While this Nobel Laureate’s words ring true, it is important to remember that the definition of “education” is two-fold. Not only does it encompass knowledge of social history, the sciences, and economics, but also an understanding of the pervasive issues facing our world today. It is our responsibility, as citizens of a democratic nation, to make informed decisions when we cast votes for representative officials. But perhaps of even greater consequence is the cultural progress that we can all influence—individually as well as collectively—when we are well-versed in the matters at hand.

So the question necessarily arises: where should we turn to educate ourselves? What sources can we trust to present factual, balanced news?

It is essential to stay up to date with current events, but I prefer not to invest most of my time in raw news accounts, regardless of the newspaper or media outlet from which they come. It is undoubtedly important to skim the headlines and to delve deeper into stories of significance; however, aside from presenting factual news, most articles offer scant analysis. Your time would be better spent reading relevant op-eds (an abbreviation of ‘opposite the editorial pages, although often confused for ‘opinion-editorial’). Such articles offer both insight and analysis, presenting the writer’s perspective on a given issue. I suggest that you read columns of both conservative and liberal persuasions in order to better acquaint yourself with arguments of both political persuasions. Read these articles critically: consider the arguments they make, the evidence they cite, and the tone in which their opinion is presented.

One caveat: make sure that the article stems from a respectable source. A brief Google or Wikipedia search of the author can provide invaluable information about his/her reliability, background and experience with the topic.

My favorite Website is RealClearPolitics.com, an non-partisan U.S. political news website that aggregates the best articles, polling data, speeches, blogs and think tank-based research available. The site is updated twice a day and sports both morning and afternoon editions. For those whose interest lies primarily in foreign affairs, there is a complementary site called RealClearWorld.com. Both do a terrific job of amassing well-written articles that fall on both ends of the political spectrum.

Of the media outlets that RealClearPolitics draws from, my favorite domestic ones are the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Foreign Policy. Although all of these sources are fantastic, they simply aren’t enough. It is crucial to peer at every issue through a foreign lens - one that is removes your particular political perspective and offers a different point of view. I love reading articles from the Economist, Financial Times, the Guardian and the Times; in many cases I actually prefer them to national news sources. All of RealClear’s sources are fantastic, and I promise you that wading through any of them would provide a most rewarding experience.

As far as individual writers are concerned, I’m a particularly big fan of Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, who produces some great work and also keeps an interesting little blog that he updates regularly. Luigi Zingales is a young economist at the University of Chicago who also serves as a correspondent to the Financial Times. He is knowledgeable and articulate on all things economic. At the risk of parroting popular opinion, I’ll admit that I appreciate the perspectives of Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria. Both are incredibly well-informed and persuasive. Although these next two persons are not recurrent contributors to any publication, lawyer Theodore Olson and business executive David Goldhill have penned articles that I would encourage everybody to read. Olson, a lifelong conservative and prominent legal practitioner, recently wrote a compelling piece in defense of same-sex marriage. Goldhill, on the other hand, published a comprehensive exposé of the American healthcare system that not only offered a descriptive and thorough critique, but provided realistic policy solutions.

Remember - it is not important for a piece to be impartial. In fact, I’ve come to realize that the best ones usually aren’t. Though I said this once already, it merits repeating: we should expose ourselves to articles of every political persuasion and then come to an educated and well-informed conclusion on our own. In so doing, we take a critical step toward realizing Mandela’s insightful aphorism.

(Article by Michael Brodsky. He can be reached at michaelbrodsky@wustl.edu)

WUPR can be contacted at WebEditor [at] wupr.org

20) Fidel Castro hands over power

What seven assassination attempts could not do, time ultimately did.

19) Medvedev elected President of Russia

Vladimir Putin consolidated power and increased his influence in Russia and around the globe throughout his two terms as president in the 2000s.  However, when his second term was up, Putin managed to retain power.  By taking the role of Prime Minister and leading his hand-picked successor Dimitri Medvedev to an easy election win – although one that was thought to be rife with fraud – Putin has ensured that his control over Russia will continue for years to come.








18) Hu Jintao takes control of China

Since the beginning of the People’s Republic of China in 1954, power has only changed hands five times.  This in itself makes Hu Jintao’s ascension to the role of President of China and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party highly important.  The significance of the event is bolstered by the rapid rise of China as an economic power.  Under his leadership, China has been able to continue this astounding growth and expand its global influence.  At the same time China has seen an improvement in its image throughout the world and increased prosperity for its people.








17) Launch of Wikipedia


Already making strides in providing easy access to information, the Internet leapt forward in January 2001 with the launch of Wikipedia.  Providing content on everything: the Battle of Waterloo, Pulp Fiction, Toyota, Vasco da Gama, the Wilhelm Scream, Ernest Hemingway, the White Album, Constantinople, the Great Wall of China, the 2001 World Series . . . the list is never-ending and ever-expanding.  Wikipedia has caused controversy in academia, where its use is generally frowned upon, and in politics, where a “Conservapedia” alternative has emerged.  A tool to spread knowledge and share culture, Wikipedia has become a cultural icon itself.






16) London Subway Bombings

The “British 9/11” couldn’t match the U.S. terrorist disaster in terms of human destruction—only 56 people were killed—but it did have similar psychological effects.  The three successful subway bombs were detonated by cell phone, and all went off within 50 seconds of each other.  The revelation that such readily available means could lead to such coordinated and organized destruction one again let the Western world know that it had every reason to fear.





15) Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans, and its effects are still felt today.  Thousands of people died in the disaster, and the city suffered nearly $100 billion in damage.  The havoc of the hurricane was augmented by the inept government response, causing it to be not just tragic, but also one of the most shameful moments of in modern U.S. history.  Katrina marked a turning point in the presidency of George W. Bush.  While people were split on Bush during the middle of his tenure, after FEMA’s horribly mismanaged reaction to Katrina the president’s approval began a downward spiral, leaving him with little support in D.C. and across the country.





14) Beijing Olympics

In the early 1990s, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said that China’s grand strategy would be to “Hide our capacities and bide our time.”  In 2008 China announced that it would hide its power no longer. China spent more than $40 billion to host the Beijing games, which involved the construction of an airport, a stadium, and the relocation of nearly 1.5 million people.  After the games, the country took a much more aggressive posture in its foreign relations, buying up foreign corporations with valuable resources and actively suggesting the replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.







13) Google buys YouTube

The Holy Grail of procrastination, YouTube got a big boost in 2006 when Internet giant Google purchased the video mega-site for $1.65 billion.  YouTube continued to grow, becoming a cultural phenomenon.  With its easy means of uploading, embedding, and viewing video, YouTube turned the Internet into a democratic video-medium.  Now YouTube is a mass means of expression, used by millions of artists, advocates, and outspoken individuals with a world of diversity.



12) Madrid Train Attack

Whereas the attacks of 9/11 led to a surge in President Bush’s approval ratings, the 2004 Madrid train bombings resulted in the Spanish incumbent party, which had been ahead in the polls prior to the attacks, being defeated.  Upon taking office, the newly elected Socialist party quickly removed every Spanish soldier fighting in Iraq.  Though many criticized this move as “letting the terrorists win,” there is little indication that the Spanish people regret their decision.  The Spanish Socialists retain the presidency.



11) Russian Invasion of Georgia

Russia sent shockwaves across the world in August 2008 when it sent a massive military force into the country of Georgia.  The Russian military tore its way through the small, relatively defenseless nation, leaving devastation in its path.  This excessive show of force was likely done to elicit exactly the response that it received from the global community:  those who had dismissed Russia as a second-rate power since the fall of the Soviet Union discovered a newfound, if reluctant sense of respect.  Perhaps even more shocking and unsettling was the world’s inability to reign in Russia or limit the impact of its actions.







10) Reelection of Ahmadinejad

The June 2009 reelection of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became a global event when controversy quickly arose over the validity of the results. Ahmadinejad likely maintained his position through mass election fraud, thereby likely limiting his long-term ability to hold onto power. The world watched both in awe as millions of Iranians took to the streets and also in horror as peaceful protests were met with violence and government crackdowns on freedoms of speech and assembly. Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy as the nation’s leader plummeted in the global community.  The tainted election and the clerics’ backing of Ahmadinejad could alter the course of the Iranian Revolution.  The continued rule of Ahmadinejad could drastically impact the region and the globe for years to come.



9) Invasion of Afghanistan

A geopolitical point of great value since the reign of Genghis Khan, the U.S. and NATO invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 showed the impact of controlling the small nation that sits in the center of the world’s largest continent.  The United States’ overthrow of the Taliban and continued war in Afghanistan has had a seismic impact on surrounding nations, defining the international policies and positions of Pakistan, Iran, Russia, India, and many other nations.  The conflict itself continued throughout the entire decade, leaving thousands dead and the future of Afghanistan uncertain.



8) Launch of the iPhone

While the iPod changed the way people interact with music, the iPhone changed the way people interact with everything.  Ushering in the age of apps, the iPhone put the ability to do anything in a pocket-sized device.  Although the business world had been clicking away at Blackberrys for years, the iPhone, launched in 2007, set the new standard of cellular devices, starting a norm whereby everyone wants a smart phone for daily use.  The computers people hold in their hands in 2010 are more advanced than those they installed at their desks in 2000.  How this technology continues to advance and what people do with such abilities in communication and gathering information is yet unseen.





7) Facebook goes public

Once a niche college network, Facebook became a global force by opening itself to the public in September 2006, allowing everyone to create an account.  Within a year Facebook had jumped ahead of its sketchier rival MySpace, adding hundreds of millions of new users.  Now the second most visited website in the entire world, Facebook has the potential revolutionize the way individuals communicate and interact for decades to come.



6) Fall of Baghdad

It wasn’t quite the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the image of Saddam Hussein’s statue being pulled down by Iraqi citizens (now known to be a staged event) certainly seemed like another blow struck for human freedom.  Unfortunately, Colin Powell’s “pottery barn rule” of governance proved all too true, and U.S. forces remain mired in Iraq.





5) 2000 Presidential Election


The turn of the millennium campaign that pitted George W. Bush against Al Gore reflected the division Americans faced, and the diverging paths the country could take.  Bush’s razor-thin election outcome – one of four in history that did not include a win in the popular vote – took the United States toward a never-before-seen type of governing: conservatism mixed with Big Government, a combination that brought about unprecedented policy in a wide range of issues both foreign and domestic.





4) Election of Barack Obama

Hailed by the candidate as a once-in-a-generation moment to change the United States, the 2008 election came at a time of uncertainty and instability that seemed to confirm that it would mark a pivotal point in determining the direction of the country for decades to come.  While the implications of the outcome largely remain to be seen, the election itself was an event that altered the nation.  Obama’s campaign became a national movement for change, sweeping up the country in the cultural phenomenon.  At the same time, the campaign’s use of new technologies made 2008 the first “Internet Election,” permanently reshaping campaign strategy and tactics.  And at the end of it all Barack Obama shattered one of the United States’ strongest glass ceilings, becoming the first African American elected President of the United States.



3) Indian Ocean Tsunami



Of all the events of the decade, none had a more immediate impact than the Indian Ocean Tsunami.  Killing more than 230,000 people from more than 60 countries and leaving nearly 1.7 million people displaced, the earthquake-caused tsunami was a global disaster of biblical proportions and possibly the deadliest natural disaster in human history.  This tragic event stands as one of the strongest reasons that the 2000s is often described as the Decade of Disaster.







2) Financial Crisis of 2008

For a decade that seemed like it would be defined by national security concerns, 2008 was a year in which the economy was catapulted into center stage.  Brought on by a decade of irresponsible overconsumption and the housing bubble, the financial crisis brought the United States back to earth.  Meanwhile, growth in the developing world chugs along, and pundits are coalescing around the idea of a “post-American world.”











1) September 11, 2001

September 11 turned the world on its head in so many ways.  The United States’ status of strength and invulnerability was shattered.  International and diplomatic relations were drastically changed as the United States’ inevitable response in Afghanistan reshaped the policies of countries throughout the Middle East.  The coverage of the event and its aftermath brought the once-daily news cycle to a resounding end.  A War On Terrorism was launched, one that seems to be devoid of victory, defeat, or any possible end.  September 11 was not just the defining moment of the decade, but of our entire generation.  Often compared to Pearl Harbor and the JFK Assassination, September 11 is rightly labeled as the moment we lost our innocence.

This we missed anything? Let us know! Email your comments to editor@wupr.org and it could be included online, or even in the next edition of WUPR!

WUPR can be contacted at WebEditor [at] wupr.org