Syrian Refugees and the American Opinion

Pam Gomez

October 21, 2015

Op-Ed 6

Syrian Refugees and the American Opinion

The amount of refugees that are arriving to every country all around the world is unbelievable high, every country except the United States. The United States is seen in some countries as the defender of what is right and very welcoming when it come to those who need help. But right now, the U.S is making the process of accepting the Syrian refugees a big amount of time. The attitude the American government is taking towards this situation is not the one I could have predicted. 

The Idea of having a really hard process to be accepted as a refugee in the US, makes it look like the country who is seen as the protector only cares to help others when it has a benefit to its country or citizens. The public opinion in this has a great matter because most of the citizens in the US, do not agree with accepting the refugees in their state or town. The american public claim saying that they would allow “terrorists” on their towns is irrelevant an it actually makes you believe that the public is not aware of how the events are taking place or who are the most affected by these. I think it is ideal to make the people know that this refugees are mostly women and children who have lost all they had. The approach that the government should have to make this information known it is to educate their citizens in more dept about the situation and not let the stereotypes and criticism talk.

The government should have a different approach on how to accept or not these refugees, it is okay to have your worries as country but instead of show to the other nations that they have the power to help in any situation and not by only giving money to train oppositions or directly going to war. By other I approach I would say make it more accessible for the refugees to be accepted in the country and help the to make a a new life with the opportunity that American is giving to them.

To conlcude it is important to say that the American public it is not happy with the government is doing to be involved in Syrian but in my opinion all goes back to how they let criticism affect their views and the lack of education in the problem, so if the public leaves their judgement for race or origin behind and really take in matter what this people is going thru it is possible the opinion will shift to a more acceptable one.

Syria, Proxy War Ahead?

                Proxy War in Syria?

                As many of us in the Political Science community are aware, there has been a civil war ongoing in Syria since 2011.  At first there were two clear sides to the war.  The Syrian side that supported the Assad government was one.  The second was the rebels that opposed the government that was currently in place.  This turned into a sort of debacle early on.  The United States did not seem to want to get too involved.  Rightly so many people might say.  We were just getting ourselves out of the Iraq conflict and trying to bring the actions in Afghanistan to a close as well. 

            Things got worse in Syria however.  ISIS was formed, taking parts of northern Syria and Iraq as part of its territory.  The government in Syria began using chemical weapons against its own civilians, killing a lot of people.  It became an international political nightmare.  The United States has relatively been pretty hands off in its approach to the situation. 

            The level of aid that we have been involved with has been quite low considering what the options are that are on the table.   The United States could have put boots on the ground.  Although, this would not have gone over very well with the public opinion of the people of the United States.  As we have discussed, public opinion does seem to affect policy to some extent.  Public opinion is very important when you bring a war or military conflict involving the use of United States soldiers.  In turn, the United States sent some weapons to the rebel forces and has conducted some air raids.

            Fast forward to today, Russia has now put its hand into the Syrian cookie jar.  Russia has a naval base located in Syria.  This is important for Russia because they do not have many military bases outside of Russia.  Therefore, it is in their best interest to keep a Russian sympathetic government in place in Syria so as to maintain their global reach in the Middle East.  The reason that Russia says it is there is to aid in eliminating ISIS from the Middle East.  As we have heard reports of the last couple weeks though is that Russia has been bombing the rebel forces that oppose the Assad lead government.

            So you can imagine the debacle that is now forming.  The United States on one side supporting the rebels who oppose the current government.  Russia on the other hand, is supporting the Syrian government.  So now we have these two global super powers not directly battling each other, but indirectly conducting military actions against the other. 

            I see this as a means of going backwards from the progress that we have worked so hard to create.  Russia and the United States have not always gotten along.  To be blunt, they have a long history of being arch rivals.  The Soviet Union collapsed and that relationship has gotten better from where it used to be.  However, under Putin, the tensions have slowly begun to rise between these two great nations.  I get the sense that this is the start of a new cold war all over again between the United States and Russia.  The difference this time, is that China is now entering the mix as an up-and-coming global super power.  We currently are trying to establish a working relationship with the Chinese.  This all remains to be seen however.

            Syria, the next battle ground of the second cold war?  The answer to this question will come over the next weeks, months, and years.  I do not think that we will see this fully come to blossom for many years to come.  Russia continually goes unchecked for all of its aggression.  I believe that there must be a unanimous force of global support for the opposition to the actions taken by Russia.  Right now, we do not see many countries that want to take the Russian monster head on.  When is enough, enough?  The world is on the teetering balance of things getting really nasty.  I think that is why Obama is pulling back a lot support in Syria because he is trying to prevent it blowing up into something bigger.  All in all though, this story is not yet over.

Zackary Ledlow

Violence Towards Police

            Having several police officers in the family, it is sad to see the how attitudes of law enforcement officials have become negative, overall. The mistakes of few have impacted the overall outlook on law enforcement negatively and have had an effect on the capabilities of officers to do their jobs. Officer Randolph Holder of the New York Police Department was one of four killed in the line of duty in the city in the past 11 months. Nationwide, thirty police officers have been killed in the line of duty so far this year. Police officers around the country have been ridiculed and extorted for several instances of police violence in the United States, so much in fact that multiple civil movement groups have been created. The most prominent movement is Black Lives Matter, which began in the wake of the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Florida shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin. Are police in the United States under siege? Demonstrators who marched to the gates of the Minnesota State Fair last weekend marched holding a banner reading “Black Lives Matter” and chanting, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ‘em like bacon!” Another example is Deputy Darren H. Goforth, who was gunned down last week near Houston, a slaying that Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson contends signals open warfare on law enforcement.

            How did police officers go from being honored public servants to villains? The mistakes, where present, have led to a movement that has sparked action across the nation in multitudes. If I were in the position of police officers across the country during this time of distrust, I would feel as they do now, as if they are under siege in wake of a string of deadly attacks on police. Now, the increase in attacks on police officers can also be linked to the increase in national rhetoric on the issue. Because of the amount of response that police violence brought about, it It's become part of a heated political debate over police and community relations with critics of  the Obama administration’s responses and their anti-police rhetoric.

From my point of view, the combination of increased anti-police rhetoric in

response to various acts of police violence and the creation and movements of the Black Lives Matter movement has created a mistrust of law enforcement in the United States. I believe these factors have severely influenced the targeting of police officers for attacks. In order to resolve this conflict a number of things must occur. The qualifier of “Black Lives Matter” must be dropped in order to resolve inequality while also lowering the amount of anti-police rhetoric released to the public. Millions of people watch the president speak every time he appears on television. When the subject of his appearance becomes the belittling and disgracing of police as a whole, it becomes an influencer on how people see, react to, and feel about law enforcement.

            The issue of police violence against the African-American community has had a long-standing history. From what I have seen, it seems as if the increasing amount of instances of police violence, and therefore the reaction to it, stems from an increasing amount of video footage, as more and more people are in possession of cell-phones capable of video recording. Concluding, due to the fact that anti-police rhetoric is regularly being released and the movements that have brought to light many instances of police violence, police officers must slowly re-establish trust within the communities they serve. 

Chandler Olah

Ryan Kelsey

Israel’s Looming Intifada

            Throughout the past several weeks, tensions have been rising in Jerusalem, with multiple cases of lone-wolf attacks against Israeli citizens.  In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has upped his rhetoric in an alarming and extremely dangerous way.  He implied that the Holocaust was not developed in the wicked mind of Hitler’s Third Reich; rather, it was developed in the evil mind of the Muslim cleric responsible for overseeing the holy sites in Jerusalem, Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini.  The exact quote is as follows:

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel [them.]  Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked.  [al-Husseini] said, ‘burn them.’”

            While this could be seen as nothing more than a foolish and wildly inaccurate assessment of history, it catalyzes an already growing trend toward violence within Israel.  This was Israel’s response to the call from Ismael Radwan, a high-ranking Hamas official, for a third intifada, or war between the Palestinians and Israelis.  Assuming both sides are aiming to avoid full-scale war, how does each side ramp down its actions to bring this flare in tensions to a peaceful conclusion?

            Currently, each aggressive action being taken by either side is being met equal or additional actions by the other side, as always happens when these tensions arise.  While no easy solution exists to bring about a permanent solution to the differences between Israelis and Palestinians, both sides should agree that they cannot afford a full-scale escalation of violence right now. 

            For Israel, they should recognize that their image has been damaged internationally, especially after the violence that occurred in Gaza last year, resulting in over 2,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands more.  Netanyahu, especially, should be concerned about how his actions will impact his relations with the United States, a relationship characterized by increasing distrust and ambivalence between the latter.  Furthermore, he risks provoking extremism and anti-Western sentiment in a volatile region, with Syria and Iraq as prime examples of the reciprocity that comes from violence.  However, Netanyahu could also be displaying his strength after his failure to sabotage the Iran Nuclear Deal that he vocally opposed.

            For Palestinians, they should be searching for a peaceful solutions because, mainly, support for an autonomous Palestinian states has been growing in recent years, with 193 members of the United Nations formally recognizing it.  Participation in catalyzing and provoking violence may damage this support and result in a delay in its recognition by other states.  Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, tens of thousands of Palestinians were displaced after the last war in Gaza.  Any rational leader should look at this and consider to negative consequences of promoting violence.

            In the end, the relationship between Israel and Palestine in recent years has been like a game of chicken on a circular track, with them narrowly avoiding a devastating collision every time they round a lap.  With the last intifada ending approximately ten years ago, there is no telling how far this current escalation in violence will end up.  While both sides have irreparable differences, war can still be avoided.  Neither side can truly afford a conflict right now; however, neither side can truly control the actions of their people at this point, with unsanctioned violence sparking up on both sides.  However, the leaders of Israel and Palestine could tone down their rhetoric to avoid the full-scale conflict that both sides appear content moving towards currently.

The Continuous Battle Against Terrorism

           The United States, and many other countries around the world, are dedicated to fighting the global threat of terrorism. ISIS has been dominating news coverage for some time now, but other terror organizations are still present around the world. For those who are not staunch followers of other countries’ affairs, it may be easy to forget their perils if we are not constantly reminded of them every day. This does not mean that the U.S still isn’t involved in combating these forces, however. The Obama administration has been doing an admirable job of sticking to its word as best as possible, or in taking the best course of action where and if needed to try and combat these forces. They have been cognizant of the fact that these groups are not equal in their size, mission, ability, land possession, infrastructure, etc., and therefore warrant different strategies and tactics for how to be dealt with. The Obama administration has been very mindful of that and is tailoring its approach for each situation.

            The threat of ISIS has been at the center of media attention dealing with foreign affairs for some time now, but the U.S has been careful with how to approach the situation. President Obama has been clear about how he does not want to put boots on the ground in Syria, and has taken actions to avoid having to do so. Although, not all the strategies implemented have been effective; for example, the program of equipping and training of Syrian rebels was not as successful as was hoped. However, ISIS is interesting because it is unlike any other terrorist organization that the U.S has faced. Its ability to target and successfully recruit young people from all over the world to add to its already large member base is terrifyingly effective, it has a comparatively strong infrastructure, and its extremely violent and brutal behavior are just a few examples of how it differs. Many people are calling for more action to be taken against ISIS, but the U.S can only do so much without actually committing military action. The situation is further complicated with everything else going on in Syria, and Russia’s involvement. While it is uncertain how the situation will progress, President Obama is doing his best to keep his word of not sending American troops to fight.

            Recently, Obama has come under criticism for extending the stay of U.S troops in Afghanistan. While he had promised to withdraw almost all of the U.S force before leaving office, that is no longer the plan. Other NATO forces seem to be in agreement with the U.S and are keeping their presence in the area. Some of the reasons for doing so is that there is concern with leaving a fragile country too quickly and concerns about Afghanistan’s ability to effectively combat Taliban militants who are fighting to regain power. NATO’s top commander in Europe was quoted saying that “changes on troop structure is based on conditions on the ground, not on schedules”, according to the Washington Post. The U.S had set an end date to its training mission, and that it is not abiding by it, is frustrating to many people. But President Obama is also in a tough spot here with the options that are available to him. The possible consequences of removing troops or keeping them must be analyzed, as the Obama administration surely did. As is the current NATO and U.S understanding, troop presence is dictated by events, not by a schedule. So it’s not so much that President Obama is going back on his words, as it is that he is responding to a change in events that steered him off course from his original plan.

            The Taliban and ISIS are only two examples of the many terror organizations that the U.S is still trying to combat. Boko Haram, for example, is still present and seeking to gain influence. The U.S is also trying to squander them and Obama recently informed Congress that he plans on deploying a small number of troops to Cameroon as part of the effort against Boko Haram, but the troops will not be engaging in direct military action against the militants. Each of these groups require a unique response from the United States. President Obama is doing a commendable job of trying to balance conflicting pressures both domestically and internationally on such a sensitive and major issue. 

Ann Nenoff

United States’ & Anti-Capitalist Free Market Capitalism

By: Jake Kazmierczak

 

So I read an interesting article yesterday written by The China Post titled “China’s economic growth hits lowest since financial crisis.”  Considering how much is going on in Asia right now with the TPP, etcetera, the title grabbed my attention by default. According to this article, China’s boom is transitioning into a “slower and more sustainable expansion, driven by domestic consumer demand,” though reports show “the change is proving bumpy.”

So what does this mean for the U.S?

I guess this is good news, right?

From the data on the PowerPoint slides, it seemed clear that U.S. public opinion on China is significantly more focused on their work methods, cyber attacking, and economic threats to the U.S, rather than physical threats. So if our biggest concerns lay there, a rocky slow pace for China’s economy sounds like a great thing. That being said, just because it’s probably good for us does not remove us from our hypocritical stance on the issue.

I’ve touched on this before, but I think this is a good time to really flesh out my opinion on the matter. 

The U.S. claims to believe in concepts such as freedom, liberty, and democracy. I wouldn’t call it a stretch to say the United States prides itself as a capitalist nation either. So why are we so afraid of the Chinese economic threat? A truly capitalist nation’s economy will just die when another nation beats it; I’ve grown up learning how the “American Way” is innovative, proud, and fearless. So what’s the scare all about? Who cares how big china gets? If we make better products than them we’ll win both domestically, and internationally.

In my opinion, it’s laughable to read SeekingAlpha reports where these investors start a panic every time a foreign or domestic, economic threat does something that ‘might’ hurt their business. It’s a vague way to say this, but if the U.S. had the spirit we once had, we’d still have the innovation and creativity to work around these challenges.

I’m not to say how things will play out, but my hopes are that this momentary lapse in the growth for china inspires some of us in the U.S. to drop the government shield and take china head on, economically, in a fiscal war to defend true capitalism. Just look at Silicon Valley, and all the tech companies making apps, and see how controlling global business climates are unnecessary if you make a product that wins. We need to let china “do its thing”, get out of their hair, establish and strengthen good diplomatic relations with china, focus on domestic issues, and then sit back and let capitalism play its course. I think that doing so is respectable course of action, which aligns with the original core values of American culture and government.

Conflict in Syria

Sergio A. Lopez

Professor Muck

PSC 222

21 October 2015

Conflict in Syria

            The international community has directed much of its attention to the Middle-East, exhausting whatever efforts may be feasible in containing the complicated conflict that has been ravaging the country of Syria for years. There is much debate at the domestic level of what global powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom should do in reaction to the Syrian conflict. Even more political debate spurs at the international level, as more of Syria’s surrounding nations begin to take what they believe to be appropriate steps for the preservation of their own safety, or interests. The United States in particular, however, has been tasked with the responsibility of acting as the hegemon of the world, meaning that perception has become critical in every motion the United States concerning the conflict in Syria. This means that the United States must act very cautiously in Syria, taking into consideration the attitudes of both domestic and international audiences.

            A critical factor that has played an important role in how the international community proceeds with the Syrian crisis is the growing power and influence of the terrorist group in the region that refers to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The militant group has claimed responsibility for a significant number of terrorist attacks and terrorist attempts from all around the world. ISIS is also why the United States claims to feel there is a necessity for some kind of military intervention in the disturbed region. Currently, President Barack Obama has not gone so far as to deploying soldiers from the United Stated Armed Forces and engage in an open military assault, but he has instead diverted to using unmanned drone strikes as a form of action against the Islamic State. The Obama Administration has also sought the cooperation of other nations who might be willing to join the operation in similar ways to help contain ISIS and pressure the militant group into disenfranchisement. The President’s administration, however, has received heavy criticism back home from both average citizens and members of Congress for their current policy regarding the United States’ role in Syria. Members from both the Democratic and Republican Parties have claimed that the President’s policies have not been strict enough on the region. Much of the motivation for this tone erupted after the signed agreement between the Obama Administration and the Iranian government regarding the Middle-Eastern nation’s nuclear programs, which was perceived as an agreement that the United States could have better negotiated.

Similarly, political figures within the United States have stated that President Obama’s current policies in Syria are too weak, suggesting that the drones strikes have not been enough. The argument here is that ISIS still remains a powerful militant group, and that the resources that have thus far been exhausted in attempting to weaken the organization have failed. Conversely, there is also a strong opinion resonating within the United States that fears the nation has overstepped its boundaries, and that further involvement in the region only wastes resources that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere in the federal budget—particularly to domestic programs. The strong polarization between the contending opinions has left a vast majority of Americans feeling discontent and frustrated with the United States government as a whole, and a lack of support for the President’s administration has reached a higher level of concern.

            Taking into consideration the varying degrees of opinion when it comes to the interpretation of responsibilities that must be assumed by the United States, President Barack Obama and his administration have successfully proceeded with Syria very cautiously, and have managed to avoid significant conflicts with any involved nation. The United States has strived to obtain international cooperation from its allies in the United Nations, and it has successfully done so. Further, the United States has maneuvered its drone strikes away from both the Syrian government and its various opposition forces. Although not entirely exclusive from the opinions of the public, President Obama’s administration has assumed the responsibilities of foreign policy and has largely removed the mass public from its decision-making process. This has been a reasonable and justifiable approach by the President of the United States, and has proved necessary to deal with the complexities of effective foreign policy.

Chris Danielson

PSC 222

Op-Ed Week #6

The Irony of American Tolerance

Recently I read an article that gave background information on the recent flare up of hostility between Israel and Palestine, and it quickly became apparent that both sides were firmly planted in their positions and completely unwilling to compromise with one another. It was evident that both sides were taught to hate each other, which brought the idea into my mind if there was anything that we, Americans, were brought up to hate. I could only come up with one answer, and that was, intolerance.

Over the past few decades, the United States has made great strides in improving social equality among its citizens. Although it's not perfect, and racism, sexism, and homophobia are still in existence, a large social stigma has been created against vocalizing disagreements with one of these minority groups. This made me wonder if that if the US as a society has become intolerant with the goal of attaining tolerance.

The answer to this is, like most questions, “both”. Domestically, I think a lot of American individuals are afraid to speak their minds because they're worried about receiving unwanted diatribes. This is problematic, because it curbs speech. While it may do away with a lot of hurtful speech, it does away with a lot of speech that may be necessary in order to further educate the public, as well. I think of the recent sex change of Caitlyn Jenner and how it was spammed all of the news for weeks about how much of a hero she was, and if you didn't agree, you'd be called a bigot.

This issue also makes me think of America's intolerance in the name of tolerance, relating to foreign affairs. The United States was intolerant of the way the Soviet Union was treating their people and running their country, therefore, the US and the USSR became interlocked in a struggle that lasted the course of several decades and threatened to exterminate the world.

Again, in Afghanistan, the US was intolerant of how the Taliban was treating their people and invaded. The result is that the US has spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of troops trying to stabilize a region that they only ended up disrupting further.

My point throughout all of this is not that tolerance itself is bad, but that, like anything else, if taken to its extreme, it can become problematic. If we know anything about the American public, it's that they like things simple, black and white, which usually ends up in the oversimplification of very complex situations. While dumbing down the issues may be helpful for a candidate to win the support of the American public, it's absolutely disastrous for our country as a whole, because the people lose power when they're ignorant, which allows a small elite to make decisions without checks and balances.

The ingraining of tolerance among the past couple of generations has allowed the US to hurdle threatening obstacles that have plagued its history. However, balance is key, and we must be vigilant not to become intolerant with the goal of gaining tolerance.

Japan's Naval Review

Joshua Rhodes

Japan’s Growing Navy

                Japan, India, and the United States have recently held a naval review and a show of joint naval strength, this was more posed toward china and their aggressive efforts on taking the disputed waters in the South China Sea. Shinzo Abe had recently made changes to the Japanese Constitution to allow more flexibility for the Japanese military to assist any friendly forces. Japan not only showed the size of their navy, but even debuted a new battleship being the largest ship since WW2.

                The fact that Japan has created new ships and is increasing their military size shows their concern for china. The question of if the Japanese should have the right for their own military after their constitution has brought many different opinions and the worry that the United States should be worried about this. No, we shouldn’t. Though the Japanese Navy is growing larger, there are different aspects that must be considered. One being that the United States has the largest navy in the world, followed only by China. Japan’s largest ship, isn’t close to the size of our largest ships. In comparison the new Japanese ship is 248 meters long while the longest U.S. naval ship is 342 meters. Secondly this is not a show of force to the world but a show of joint force against china, a participation of three of the largest navy’s in the world looking directly at China, there should be no real threat to the U.S. until the other mutual threat is handled. The best action for the U.S. is to do nothing and remain protective of our allies. Though Japan and the United States haven’t had the best first impression relationship since WW2, it’s good to see that we are now at a new point of strength since WW2. The relationship between both Countries is different.

                How is china a threat? With the aggressive claims of the islands in the South China Sea, it’s been a major dispute between both China and Japan, this is continuously stressing Japan because they cannot be equally aggressive, the best option for Japan is to build and flex their military strength. The goal for Japan should be a display of soft power toward China only to prevent any further conflict or war. This also puts the U.S. in an interesting position because they don’t want to escalate tension with China, however they also want to control China through joint effort of other countries, another indirect way to control a situation.

                Japan is not the only country that is taking more defensive action towards China’s rapid expansion. There were other countries that took part in the naval review, Australia, South Korea and France also took part, it seems that the world’s largest navy’s all noticed china and has taken action to show that china must control themselves.