ThePoliticalReview

Pat Robertson is one of the most powerful media moguls in the Christian entertainment sector. A graduate of Yale Law School, he has hosted of the TV program The 700 Club since 1966. The show airs on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which Robertson owns. He is well known in the popular media for his tirades against feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. He obtained particular notoriety for statements blaming the abortion policy in the United States for Hurricane Katrina. His name has appeared in the news even more recently, when he blamed the January earthquake in Haiti on a Haitian “pact with the Devil.”.

Charles Taylor, born in Liberia and educated in the United States, entered the international spotlight in 1989 when he led his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) in an attempt to overthrow the country's government, killing and displacing half the country’s population in the process. The situation deteriorated into a factionalized civil war, with different groups competing to control Liberia’s bountiful natural wealth. Taylor was eventually elected president in 1997, under the slogan "He killed my pa, he killed my ma. I'll vote for him." During his presidency, the country was racked by violence and insurgency. Under pressure from the increasing popularity of rebel groups and President Bush’s public statement against him, Taylor was forced to resign in 2003, fleeing to Nigeria in exile. Taylor was indicted for violations of international law in the same year and was arrested in 2006. He is currently on trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

What could Pat Robertson and Charles Taylor, two men who have seemingly lived two totally different lives in two totally different worlds, possibly have in common? (One might argue that) they are both certainly of questionable moral fiber. Their connection, however, is more intimate than that. The two are business partners. Robertson signed an agreement with Taylor in 1999 that guaranteed Robertson’s Freedom Gold Ltd. the right to mine gold in Liberia. During his ongoing trial, Taylor has claimed that Robertson, as his part of the bargain in this business deal, was to use his political clout to enhance Taylor’s image in the United States and influence the policy of President Clinton and Bush in regard to the situation in Liberia. While Robertson’s lobbying effort was ignored, he continued to publicly and vehemently defend Taylor. A spokesperson for Robertson claims that the business deal was done to “promote economic activity and alleviate the suffering of the people of Liberia following a terrible civil war.” This could not be farther from the truth. It is clear that this is an exploitative, neo-colonial endeavor of a businessman looking to make a profit at the expense of people of Liberia and Sierra Leone alike. Instead of alleviating suffering, Robertson’s support of Taylor only perpetuated a tyrannical regime that funded some of the worst atrocities imaginable .

Nor is this Robertson’s first involvement in Africa. He made a successful plea on The 700 Club for donations to his tax-exempt nonprofit “Operation Blessing” to airlift refugees from Rwanda in the 1994 genocide. The blessing, however, was not something the Rwandan people came to appreciate. The planes were significantly less humanitarian than advertised, bringing more diamond mining equipment for his venture company than aid to Africa. This was blatant tax evasion and fraud, but Robertson had done well for himself politically. He had strategically been the largest campaign contributor to the Attorney General of the state of Virginia whose job it was, when this information came to light, to lead the investigation against him. No charges were filed.

It is yet to be seen if Taylor will be as lucky in escaping justice. He is currently on trial for supporting the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Liberia’s neighbor Sierra Leone. The RUF is a rebel group that took its inspiration from the work of Taylor’s NPFL and was funded by diamond revenues. Taylor helped the group in their campaign to secure the diamond mines of Sierra Leone, which were used to finance the conflict. Taylor saw this is an economic opportunity, and he traded weapons with Sierra Leone for diamonds. The war in Sierra Leone lasted from 1991-2002, killing approximately 200,000 people. The RUF is accused of committing unfathomable atrocities, including enlisting child soldiers and mutilating captives. These charges have been passed onto Taylor in his tribunal. They include five counts of war crimes: terrorizing civilians, murder, outrages on personal dignity, looting, and cruel treatment; five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape, sexual slavery, mutilating and beating, and enslavement; and one count of other serious violations of international law: recruiting and using child soldiers. Taylor’s initial prosecution began in January 2008, and the prosecution rested its case a year later after 91 witnesses testified. Taylor concluded his own testimony on February 19th, 2010, claiming that the prosecution had not proven a case against him and that he had never supported the RUF in Sierra Leone. The trial will continue, with others set to testify in Taylor’s defense.

There are two main points to take away from this situation. First, it is often revenues from natural resources (diamonds, gold, oil, and timber, among others) that fund and create military conflicts, as well as propping up oppressive regimes across the world. These goods are exported to Western countries, in this particular instance the United States and France, where consumers often have no understanding of the link between the goods they purchase and the violence which so often surrounds their production. Efforts at creating accountability, such as “conflict free diamonds,” while a step in the right direction, have proven to be ineffective overall as the global flow of diamonds is nearly impossible to monitor. Second, the connection between oppressive rulers like Taylor and fully informed American businessmen might be more intimate than American citizens would like. The Pat Robertsons of the world have as much of a role to play in these conflicts as the Charles Taylors do, but they seem to have a knack for escaping punishment. The precedent should be set that intentionally disregarding the consequences of exploitive behavior in order to obtain a profit will not be tolerated. Perhaps it is time for Robertson to take a seat next to Taylor and be put on trial for the crimes against humanity that he has committed.

Tripp Brockway can be contacted at dhbrockw [at] wustl.edu

Geert Wilders is in a quandary at the moment. The only internationally known Dutch parliamentarian is on trial for “group insult of Muslims, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims due to their religion and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants” as the official court summons states. He is currently being kept in the Hague on trumped up charges, and partly for his own safety, since he’s been under 24 hour bodyguard protection, has had to sleep in a different location each night for over five years, and can see his wife and kids only once a week. He is reviled by rival politicians and the press in his country, and by critics around the world who accuse him of being a fearmonger, racist, and troublemaker. These days, his very name conjures up images of hatred and paranoia, and rile people up to argue and protest.

Yet in some ways, Wilders couldn’t have it better. His once struggling Party for Freedom (the Dutch acronym is PVV, Partij voor Vrijheid) is now a major contender, having earned an unprecedented 4 seats in the European Parliament and 9 seats in the lower house of the Dutch parliament in the past year, astounding larger and more established parties. After being prevented from setting foot in Great Britain last year for no apparent reason, Wilders finally got to visit the British parliament and present his short film "Fitna" to the House of Lords this past week. The crowds of Dutch who came to cheer on Wilders outside the courtroom are as large as the ones decrying him. After being unable to agree on whether to extend or terminate Dutch military involvement in Afghanistan, the Dutch government recently collapsed, and major Wilders rival Wouter Bos resigned as Labor Party head. Talk that Wilders may become Dutch prime minister soon are no longer just hushed whispers or speculation; they’re becoming an ever more imaginable possibility.

Wilders still has quite a few challenges facing him, to put it lightly. Because he is one the few people with enough guts to take action on illegal immigration to Europe and enough influence to make a difference, he’s faced countless death threats from Islamic terrorists, and the endless contempt of the media and political establishment. The PVV is still in its nascent state, and may not have as much clout as it seems to possess. Yet there is still much more hope compared to just several years ago, when the PVV first started in 2006. More and more Dutch and Europeans are beginning to listen to and support what Wilders has to say, and that’s a good thing not only Europe, but America.

Many Americans may have never even heard of his name, but this is unfortunate, because Geert Wilders is proving himself to be a valuable ally for America, a consistently strong supporter of Israel, and an assertive enemy of terrorism. On all of these points, Wilders differs radically from most European politicians, who regularly condemn America and blame it for a myriad of international problems, and are less than supportive of Israel. Anyone who accuses Wilders of being a far right lunatic and racist needs only to look at the fact that he’s visited Israel 40 times in the past 25 years and glowingly praises Israel as “a democracy…it’s everything we stand for”, as well as the fact that various far-right parties and neo-Nazis frequently denounce Wilders as a “Zionist pig” for being a friend of Israel and a friend to scholars like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Dutch parliament member and Somali immigrant.

Wilders has made a career and reputation for himself by one of the very few voices arguing that all is not well in Europe today, particularly due to immigration, and particularly due to Muslim immigration. While critics claim Wilders merely hates nonwhites and is simply playing on voters’ fears to gain votes and power, Wilders is sadly not mistaken. Studies consistently show over the years increasing crime rates, violence, anti-Semitic attacks, and racially segregated communities occurring all over Europe, and notable news stories over the previous decade include terrorist bombings in London and Madrid, the killings of Dutchmen Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. All of these events are rooted in a growing radical Islamic presence in Europe, brought about by unfiltered immigration from the Middle East and collective failure of European society to assimilate immigrants successfully. Vastly different values, languages, and cultures are causing Muslims to hate and act against Western society, and the disastrous results include more terrorism, more societal breakdown, and more chaos.

What’s even worse is the ostracism a few courageous people like Wilders get when they try to speak the truth and find a solution. Most European politicians still deny reality, choosing to cover up the disasters their countries are facing and pursuing the same agendas that got them into this mess. Wilders correctly identifies Europe’s belief in multiculturalism, political correctness, and cultural relativism as the reasons why Europe is in socioeconomic decline, since these ideas hinder genuine integration and cooperation between different peoples. Wilders has a clear and straightforward agenda to deal with these issues; he wants to deported convicted criminals, limit immigration and reform immigration laws to separate trustworthy immigrants dedicated to really becoming integrated Europeans from terrorists, and toughen laws on crime. Wilders’s language is fiery and his plans are tough, but an assertive leader committed to new ideas and reform is exactly what Europe needs now.

Wilders already has an outline of goals he would work to achieve as prime minister, a set of ideas that would drastically change his country for the better. Unlike conventional European politicians, Wilders is determined to breathe new life into European society and economy by downsizing the welfare state and scrapping socialism in order to promote more competition, innovation and growth in the sluggish Dutch economy. These would be massive and welcome changes because for decades, Europe has seen little or no rise in its economy precisely due to socialist economic controls that inhibit business, setting Europe behind the rest of the world economically. Wilders would also push to have a law passed in the European Union that he describes as Europe’s version of the American First Amendment, in order to protect basic civil liberties that he is being denied at the moment. In addition to expanding the role of the Netherlands in the War on Terror by deporting convicted criminals and engaging in the Middle East, Wilders would also break up the influence of the EU, which limits the independence of individual European states and receives little interaction and input from ordinary European residents. Many of these proposals by Wilders make perfect sense; Europe currently suffers from economies lacking growth, rising crime rates, crumbling welfare systems that no longer seem worth the cost in taxes, a distant EU bureaucracy that generally records voter turnout no higher than 40% from European voters, and a general sense of confusion as to what Europe’s role in the world is today.

Paradoxically, Wilders also supports banning the Koran entirely in the Netherlands, similar to a ban on Mein Kampf that already exists in his nation. This is odd for a man so devoted to defending free speech, and makes Wilders hypocritical on free speech. In other certain issues, Wilders comes off as uncompromising and harsh. He favors a five year moratorium on immigration from non-Western nations, an end to dual citizenship, and some people close to him accuse him of being obsessed with Islamization to the point of being domineering controlling his entire party. But I would expect this from a successful politician; so many notable leaders were hard-hitting in order to push their goals forward, and Wilders has to play hardball in order to survive in the political arena.

For now, Wilders is stuck in the Hague, forced to be on trial just for making brutally honest statements over the years that provoke others. Even opponents of Wilders– and I for one don’t agree with Wilders entirely - should be outraged that he has to be tried for expressing his opinions and needs to sometimes sleep in jails for his own security, and that the European political establishment is bent on persecuting Wilders so severely. With luck, Wilders will emerge from the trial unscathed, and will continue his fight for rejuvenating Europe and making it safer and more prosperous. As prime minister, Wilders is sure to be a friend to America, and will work to combat terrorism with fervor.

Wilders’s stock is only getting higher at the moment, and for good reason. People across Europe are beginning to find and support their own Wilders, and hopefully, Wilders will lead a revival of Europe to make it an active member of the world economy and culture once again. Till then, we can only continue to hope for the best.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

A few weeks ago, Google stunned the world by announcing that it would consider withdrawing from China completely as an Internet server. For a number of reasons, Google’s statement was a shocker. For years, the company has steadily and firmly maintained that it would not back out of the Chinese market, one of  its largest and fastest growing areas, despite China’s heavy censorship of what people can and can’t find on the Internet. However, recent cyber-attacks against Google have finally awakened the corporation into realizing that its relationship with China is not tenable in the long run.

However, the brief period of praise human rights groups heaped upon Google for finally being the sole major company to stand up to Chinese censorship, the outpouring of “mourning” Chinese Internet users showed to Google (most notably through bouquets placed in front of Google’s Chinese headquarters), and excited speculation that the Chinese government might finally cave in to pressure and loosen its grasp on the Web, have all faded, and for good reason. From the start, it was clear that even Google, the Internet giant that took the world by storm , is not powerful enough to deliver an ultimatum to China to change their policies.

Google is certainly the most popular Internet search engine in the world today, but that thardly matters to most Chinese. Even if the search giant were to actually withdraw and close up shop completely in China, other search engines, like Baidu and Bing would just step in to fill the void, and Chinese Internet surfers wouldn’t even realize the difference. The government oligarchs in charge would care even less; in the long run, Google would suffer by missing out on business in potentially its biggest market. Google already has already lost some ground to rival Chinese search engine Baidu, as indicated in a recent study by Analysis International that showed Google with only 29.1% of the Chinese Internet market, and Baidu with 61.6%. Regardless of how many bouquets have shown up on Google China’s doorstep, Google cannot change the Chinese government alone.

The problem with combating censorship in China is that the negative effects aren’t visible to most Chinese. Democracy advocates still haven’t come up with good reasons to prove to the Chinese that censorship is depriving them of vital information, like the true history of the Tiananmen Square Massacre that the communist leadership continues to keep quiet about, conflicts in Tibet and Xinjiang, and much more.

One of the major obstacles to persuading people to realize how wrong censorship is remains the booming Chinese economy, which briefly suffered in 2008 but is now back on its feet and rising again. China’s leaders have learned from past experiences in the Soviet Union and other communist countries that the economy is key; with a healthy economy, people have jobs, food on the table, money to spend, and thus can be kept satisfied and unmotivated to rebel. Secondly, the government also vigorously works to use the media to manipulate Chinese viewers into trusting the current leadership and remaining hostile to foreign nations, namely the United States. Censored and blocked media convince Chinese that it is safer and better to keep living under communism.

Perhaps the most perplexing and worst problem that keeps censorship the norm is that most Chinese are fully aware of it, but simply don’t mind. Polls indicate that 80% of Chinese Internet users know that the government places strict limits on what Web content they can and can’t see, but do not mind. Having grown up around these rules all their lives, and not knowing anything different, many Chinese simply cope with the problem, in a perfect example of ignorance as bliss in action.

If China is to ever become more democratic and stop its consistent censorship of any information deemed subversive, there will have to be enormous change within the entire CCP, something that appears unlikely in the near future. The Chinese people also have to learn that living with ignorance of the things the government doesn’t want them to know is inherently harmful, and that they need unfiltered access to knowledge in order to be truly free and lead better lives. Knowledge entails unhappiness, problems, and the like, but with knowledge also comes responsibility, efforts to solve problems, and achievement, which would make China a more respected international player and participant in the world. Unfortunately, Google isn’t enough at the moment to create such reform; it's going to take something larger than the world's largest search engine to change the world's largest country.

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

One of the most prominent automobile manufacturers in the world is now faced with a major obstacle that stands to damage it irreparably. Many experts assert that the current crisis Toyota faces as a result of severe safety shortcomings will be the most arduous challenge the company has had to deal with since its birth. Its decision to recall several brands is going to damage not only Toyota’s established "safety first" image, but also stands to jeopardize the entire Japanese economy.

Once the worst of the manufacturing problems began to come to light, Toyota Akio, a CEO of Toyota, held a press conference and publicly apologized Toyota’s technological flaws. However, this apology was not enough to alleviate customers’ anger toward the company, which has been openly criticized for not properly handling the potentially dangerous technological problems. Some have even accused Akio himself for refusing to completely bow at the conference. The sheer volume of accidents attributed to these defects has caused even the United States government to step in and offer its two cents on the growing crisis.

According to Associated Press, on February 22nd a district prosecutor’s office from Manhattan asked Toyota to submit documentations related to the recall situation. Economists are now predicting that this request implies that the prosecution might press criminal charges, as it is unusual for the legal system investigate firms undergoing safety recall. According to Financial Times, Toyota has been asked to submit documents on the accelerator pedal problem to the Securities and Exchange Commission in Los Angeles as well. Experts claim that the SEC is investigating whether Toyota has violated any safety regulation or even potentially lied under oath about the sudden acceleration problems.

Amid doubts that the United States government might be intentionally manipulating the market to resist the continuous growth of the Japanese car industry, Congress held a hearing  on February 23rd to discuss the persistent issue. Jim Lenz, President of Toyota’s operations in the U.S., Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and several victims of the faulty accelerator were present. Lenz apologized for not meeting the expectations of customers, reacting to the situation slowly, and failing to communicate with both customers and U.S. safety regulation officials. However, he was especially insistent that the ETCS (Electronic Throttle Control System) does not suffer from technological design flaw. Despite Lenz’s apology, LaHood and the victims criticized Toyota’s current attitude toward American customers, as well as the ambiguous explanation for the cause of the recent safety recall. Rhonda Smith, a resident of Tennessee who experienced problems with sudden acceleration of her Lexus in 2006, went as far as to say that Toyota should be ashamed of itself in the wake of the crisis.

The unprecedented scope of the repercussions Toyota now faces in light of the recall has other automobile companies carefully reviewing their technological reports and cautiously inspecting every possible problem. As Honda and Nissan have also decided to move forward with their own safety recalls, the Japanese government is anxious about falling profits across the entirety of Japan's automotive industry. The government has taken to pressuring other Japanese car manufacturers to act swiftly before any new problems surface and further damage the nation's credibility in the eyes of the world. On the other hand, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and the American "Big Three" of GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all looking to enlarge their market share by offering incentives of up to $1,000 to customers who replace their Toyotas. For now, it remains to be seen what lasting effects this whole situation will have on the industry, and if Toyota will ever be able to win back consumer confidence.

Paul Shin can be contacted at shinh [at] wustl.edu

Back on November 29, 2009, Swiss voters turned out for a national referendum and overwhelmingly opted to ban all further construction of minarets throughout the country. 19.5 of the 23 cantons that comprise Switzerland voted for the ban, which does not apply to the four minarets already constructed and existing in Switzerland, but prohibits further building of the towers, which are central parts of Islamic mosques and are designed to alert and call Muslims to prayer. For weeks leading up to the day of voting, controversy swirled and engulfed this referendum, and even after the vote has concluded, the debate and conflict has not ended. Human rights groups, the UN and left-leaning Swiss political parties claim the ban intrudes upon freedom of religion and have vowed to fight it, while protests and criticism of the decision of Swiss voters and the parties that supported the ban have been mounting rapidly from diverse sources, from the Catholic Church to EU and UN officials to ordinary Swiss citizens. This ban is the latest in a line of laws designed to reduce religious conflict, especially conflicts involving Islam; France and the Netherlands have already seen fierce arguments over laws banning the wearing veils and burkas, and many nations have cracked down on immigration (legal or otherwise) and the refugee camps where many immigrants live.

The result of the minaret referendum is a clear and troubling sign of the serious problems Europe has been facing with immigration and integration, particularly with regards to the Muslim, Middle Eastern world. While Switzerland’s move to block all construction of minarets may be extreme and inflammatory, it is hardly a surprising development given Europe's immigration story. Switzerland's current precarious situation is a fairly common combination of a surge in strong European nationalist tendencies and the refusal of many Islamic immigrants to conform to European liberalism.

Europe did not be come an attractive location for immigrants until after the conclusion of World War II. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, most people chose to leave Europe for more opportunities in America, giving the United States ample experience in dealing with immigrants successfully, and helping give rise to the magnificent country America is today. Unfortunately, the same could not be said of Europe, where immigrants were invited soley to supply unskilled labor that increasingly fewer native Europeans were willing or able to provide. Originally assuming that the immigrants would leave after obtaining enough money, Europeans later decided to accommodate new arrivals as new citizens, but after several decades, this strategy is starting to show some major flaws. Europe’s overly generous welfare state policies are keeping unemployment rates high, discouraging innovation and work, draining taxpayers’ coffers, and hurting Europe’s overall economic and social health. While America is a nation of immigrants whose population is highly diverse and accustomed to difference, European populations have been mostly homogenous for centuries. Immigration is disrupting and sometimes even destroying this phenomenon, causing some Europeans to turn towards far-right political parties like the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) of Switzerland (a leading supporter of the minaret ban), the Northern League of Italy, the British National Party of Great Britain, Jobbik of Hungary, Vlaams Belang of Belgium, the National Front of France, the National Democratic Party of Germany, and many other groups with similar nationalist preferences.

Europeans have long been reluctant to fully integrate immigrants into their society, generally discouraging them from taking skilled jobs, learning the language or pursuing political power. As a result, many European immigrants feel isolated and detached from their new homes, contributing to high levels of apathy and even resentment toward natives. Since they are routinely marginalized in European life and generally hail from countries that are very socially conservative, many Muslim immigrants are inclined to support Islamofascist views; surveys of European Muslims reveal that apathy, ire, and mistrust of their countries are high, and that around 40% consider Western society “decadent and immoral” and deserving of hatred. (There are a number of shocking and revealing studies on this subject, chronicled and collected in books like Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept and Mark Steyn’s America Alone.)

It is evident just by examining the news of past years that Islamic extremism is a growing problem in Europe. Notable events like bombings in Madrid and London, widespread riots in Europe, and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed that provoked worldwide chaos show that this extremism is a problem that needs solving sooner rather than later. Banning minarets, however, is a counterproductive measure that will only further anger Muslims and fuel more conflict and misunderstanding. The ban does not deal with underlying problems of racism, integration, immigration, isolation and extremism. Europeans must open their eyes and get serious about developing successful immigration policy. They will need stricter controls on new immigrants, as well as better methods of assimilating newcomers to the native culture, language, and society. Muslim immigrants, for their part, must be more willing to conform to European ideas in order to avoid a surge of Islamofascism. Only when both sides revise their approaches will far-right ideas and politics like the minaret ban lose their steam and fade away.

(Article by Derek Sun.)

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu

President Barack Obama has just announced his plans to dispatch 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, and not a moment too soon. Many Americans are divided and skeptical over the consequences and necessity of committing more forces to Afghanistan, and whether the troop surge strategy will be as success as it has been in Iraq. Obama’s plan calls for sending 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan to bolster beleaguered troops there, while setting July 2011 as a deadline for withdrawing troops from the region. The surge aims to prepare the Afghans for self-sufficiency, empowering them to be capable of defending themselves from al-Qaeda and the Taliban; 5,000 of the 30,000 soldiers to be sent are going to be assigned to training Afghan military forces.

Afghanistan stands to be one of the most crucial issues Obama will decide on in his presidency. It was the first nation we focused our energies on after the 9/11 attacks, since Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were largely situated there, with the aid of the Taliban. After early military action by the United States greatly weakened the stranglehold of Taliban rule, Afghanistan has made some progress in becoming a stable democratic country, but still struggles in countless respects. It is still horrifically impoverished and dependent on foreign aid, it generates much of its GDP from poppy growth used to make opium and heroin, corrupt officials inhabit numerous levels of its government, and the Taliban still exist and pose a formidable threat to the Afghan people. Conventional wisdom holds that bin Laden continues to hide somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so Obama has a number of important reasons to make Afghanistan a priority on his agenda. This is especially true because he campaigned on a platform that laid Afghanistan as the center of America's ongoing War on Terror. At stake are bin Laden, the stability of Afghanistan and its people, and the whole War on Terror that has been raging on since 9/11.

Although Obama’s choice to continue the fight in Afghanistan and increase the American presence there follows the promises he made in his campaign and is the logical decision, considering the importance of Afghanistan in American foreign policy, Obama’s strategy is in a dubious position, and it remains to be seen if it will produce the desired results. So far, the chances of victory appear slim; while the Taliban are not likely to succeed in completely reconquering Afghanistan, the United States and its NATO allies that are handling missions in Afghanistan have an equally low probability of bringing significant positive change, due to Afghanistan’s history of resisting foreign intervention and the enormous challenges that persist within the nation, not the least of which is a weak and largely unreliable central government. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Great Britain, the USSR, and a number of other nations all launched invasions to subjugate Afghanistan, but all of these campaigns failed to maintain any sort of outside dominance, due mostly to the harsh desert environment of the country, and fierce resistance to foreign control. This is most clearly shown in the Taliban’s war against the USSR during the 80’s and the reputation it gave them among Afghans as liberators, facilitating their rise to power.

History is already not on the side of the US, and unfortunately, neither are current American military logistics. The US has long relied on Afghanistan’s neighbor Pakistan as a central ally in ferreting out and capturing and eliminating terrorists, but it’s still not clear whose side Pakistan is really on. Pakistan is an undemocratic and unruly country itself, with coups occurring every several years, huge religious conflicts, extensive terror networks operating within the nation, and autocratic leaders like former President Pervez Musharraf. The US and Pakistan have had disagreements over the years concerning Pakistan’s lack of searching and combating of terrorists on its own soil, and Pakistan has an inconsistent track record when it comes to being useful in the fight against terrorism. In any case, 68,000 American soldiers and additional NATO forces are already stretched thin across Afghanistan, so the best option for Obama is to move as quickly as possible and accomplish his goals in Afghanistan with all possible speed. In this way, Obama can reduce the amount of time, money and causalities in Afghanistan.

Although he is definitely unwilling to admit it, Obama’s strategy is somewhat similar to George Bush’s policy of using military force to completely defeat the Taliban, and is necessary and appropriate for the current situation in Afghanistan. Obama realizes that he must apply more pressure on the Taliban by relying on more troops and reaching out to Pakistan for more support. While both Republicans and Democrats have already voiced criticism about Obama’s choice, this is unfortunately the best option Obama currently has available. If Obama wants to improve Afghanistan so that it is able to govern itself safely and effectively, he must emphasize a massive overhaul the Afghan government to clean up corruption, get rid of the drug trade, warlords, and deep-seated social problems that span across the country. By resolving these problems, America would give Afghans more reason to commit to their own nation's productivity and safety, helping them to escape from the rut that Taliban control has left them in for years.

(Derek Sun.)

Derek Sun can be contacted at dsun [at] artsci.wustl.edu