Essay 3

Tiffany Young
Instructor: Patty Hanahoe-Dosch
EN 102
December 6, 2009
Essay 3
New Plan for Afghanistan

Panic and chaos flooded the streets of New York City the tragic day Americans remember as September 11. Islamic terrorists took the lives of innocent United States citizens and other men, women, and children from countries around the globe. Following these tragic events, the United States led a coalition in October 2001, with an aim to hunt down Al-Qaeda and overthrow the Taliban government and corrupt leaders of Afghanistan. After the death of several hundred troops and immense spending of billions of taxpayers’ dollars in Afghanistan, the United States has failed to complete the original goal of the Bush Administration, including locating Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. Now, eight years later, the war needs careful reevaluation, and the decision of President Obama could be “wrong and needlessly expensive” (Zenko,9). Rather than continuing to fight counterterrorism, American troops should shift strategy tactics toward the war in Afghanistan by implementing plans to enhance communities and fight counterinsurgency and by protecting citizens from the Taliban, in an effort to establish long-term safety and structure within the country.
After the continued efforts of the United States and the troops currently battling the Taliban extremists, the resulting question is not whether we need a third surge, but whether a third surge is necessary. The war in Afghanistan has been a religious war fought for over fifty years in which citizens within Central and Eastern European nations have endured countless struggles under suppressive principles and restrictions, which destroyed human respect and dignity. Muslim terrorists who continue to kill fellow Muslims and the innocent citizens of other nations have sacrificed themselves; these terrorists continue to “condone murder and claim to be doing so in the name of a peaceful religion” (Bush). In an effort to battle counter-terrorism, 3,000 troops were sent to Afghanistan through an order by President Bush in January of 2009; an additional 17,000 troops were ordered at a request by President Obama in February. extra forces were added to an existing number of U.S. troops totaling 48, 250 in July of 2008. President Obama has recently announced that he will be sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, which is 10,000 less than requested by General McChrystal. He also stated that July 2011 is the target date of U.S. withdrawal. Though security forces within Afghanistan have increased and the Taliban has seemed to disappear for stagnant periods, many Americans believe that deploying additional troops will only provide a temporary solution to the numerous problems at hand.
The original objective of the war in Afghanistan was to fight counterterrorism on a global level, rather than counterinsurgency. Original intentions included toppling the Taliban and Al-Qaeda support, capturing and killing Osama bin Laden, and ending the continued suffrage of the Afghan people (Kobayasha). President Bush affirmed America’s intentions of seeking out the terrorist groups of global reach, not stopping until the terrorists were located and ultimately defeated. Though America declared war on these extremists, President Bush reminded Americans that the United States is in a battle “against evil, not Islam” (Bush). Expanding upon Bush’s reasons to continue America’s role in the war, President Obama recognized that it is a costly and politically difficult effort to keep American troops engaged in Afghanistan. The president ensured American citizens that he would gladly bring troops home safely, if these violent extremists would cease to “kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case” (The New York Times 3). Upon the realization that military power could not solve the issues in Afghanistan, President Obama has spoken of plans to invest several billion dollars yearly to build new schools, roads, and hospitals. President Obama stated that he plans to spend over “$2.8 billion to deliver basic services to citizens” and help institute a stable economy within Afghanistan (The New York Times 4). Following the footsteps of the former president, Barack Obama has implemented several strategies for fighting the war hoping to promote some sort of infrastructure within Afghanistan, though he continues to send troops to fight counterterrorism rather than counterinsurgency.
After the invasion of the Taliban and other terrorist extremists, the citizens of Afghanistan were left with almost nothing. Most Afghans are uneducated and lack basic necessities, including proper nutrition and healthcare. This forced citizens to wear the same clothing for several days in a row and make a minimal income by selling goods on the black market. The poor state of these communities is clearly from a country that “had been at war for twenty-five years; the new government had been in place for only two weeks; there was no electricity between Heart and Kabul, no television and no T-shirts. . .”(Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Many military strategists realize that public diplomacy and development is important to the Afghan citizens and community; sending the correct message “across with cultural nuances” and establishing a link between the security of development within communities is very pertinent (Mills).
Although battling counterterrorism has proven somewhat doubtful, there have been several improvements within Afghan communities since President Bush initiated the United States’ involvement in the Afghanistan war. There has been a development in technology and access to health care and education since the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan. Rory Stewart recorded firsthand experiences of the deprived state of Afghan villages in a book titled The Places in Between. As he explained, “more districts that I visited had no schools or clinics…I was surprised by how poor Afghanistan was and how ungoverned” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Six years following his journey through the country, Stewart recognized the dramatic progress the United States has established within various parts of the country to develop a stable infrastructure. Throughout many communities within Afghanistan, many of the villages now have electricity and have built health clinics and schools. “Since 2001, 6.4 million children have been educated, and there has been a massive increase in access to basic health care” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Education of the citizens is important to establish and maintain a steadfast infrastructure, which can help citizens increase and actively maintain certain security within smaller villages.
George Bush and President Obama have implemented careful strategic planning for the war in Afghanistan, yet they have failed to offer any optimistic period for full completion of their goals. The question that citizens all over the world are asking is, “What went wrong?” In a careful evaluation of the situation, most concerns include issues involving several problems in previous strategies. The United States needs to lead a war that battles counterinsurgency rather than counterterrorism, because the main problem lies within the terroristic attacks that occur on a daily basis within Muslim communities in Afghanistan. President Bush asserted that these Taliban extremists “have brought only misery and terror to the people of Afghanistan,” which they are continuing to do by terrorizing nations around the globe (Bush). Bush also pointed out that after the Taliban took control, women were denied jobs, basic access to health care privileges and any education. Since the rise of the Taliban, the United States has made various achievements within Afghan communities, including progress in health, education, and development; although citizens living in these villages continue to benefit from the small amounts of investments set forth, “the people remain very poor” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Many of these issues were recognized by a senior officer in the Combined Joint Task Force 76 based at Bagram Air Base, when he emphasized that America needs to “clear the area from the enemy, hold the territory, build infrastructure and resources, and engage with the local community” (Mills).
President Obama faces a critical decision concerning the war which may prove detrimental to his image. In a 66 page memo to the secretary of defense, General Stanley McChrystal claimed that sending additional troops completely misses the point, because the pressing issue calls for a drastic change in military operation and strategies. General McChrystal produced a report for President Obama asking for an additional 40,000 troops, though he reported that the effort “will likely result in failure” (PBS). Assuring 3,500 military personnel and their families in Florida that he would not be sending them into harm’s way unless it was absolutely necessary, President Obama convinced the American people that he was skeptical of the situation, yet his decision may prove otherwise (Kobayashi). It would be a “political catastrophe” for the commander in Chief to allow General McChrystal to draw up a report, and then refuse his requests (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). President Obama’s goals involve rebuilding a nation, which is a long-term commitment that would not require the involvement of as many United States troops.
Rather than focus on accomplishing broad plans in a very small allowance of time, the goals of American troops and military commanders should be limited to several small tasks, which can be efficiently accomplished within an adequate time frame. Cutting down the number of American troops would be an effort towards eliminating unnecessary deaths. Many conspiracies have already formed, as civilians and Afghan military officials become more skeptical and aware of the requirements necessary to avoid continually rising death tolls. It is nearly impossible for the United States to reform a nation with a system which involves extreme terrorists who are prepared to kill their own families or commit suicide. Limiting military objectives creates a more effective strategy, in which the United States would eliminate the tensions of civil war and allow an opportunity for citizens to create and govern a prosperous country by themselves. Trying to fight counterterrorism and ward off the Taliban is a problematic initiative that would take a period of several decades, “hundreds of thousands of troops and a much stronger and more legitimate Afghan state” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). The United States does not have the capability to successfully accomplish its original goals, because it involves the tremendous task of transforming a nation of over thirty million people, which is a job for the Afghan people.
A military mission lead in Nawa, Afghanistan further proves that a smaller and more focused military objective may result in optimistic changes for the future of the Afghans and the war. There are Marines stationed in Nawa, Afghanistan, hoping that the previous development efforts of the United States can positively affect the level of goodwill towards new missions. The latest focus has shifted to combating insurgency in a new way: “Instead of targeting extremist strongholds, they will aim to protect communities from the Taliban” (Chandrasekaran A1). While their efforts have lowered threats and driven terrorists away for now, the focus is keeping the Taliban far from the inner community. The Marines continue to prove their belief that every new day the Taliban ceases to return makes it harder and less effective for them to invade. By maintaining focused strategies, centered on security maintenance, the United States is slowly continuing progress in the constant battle against Taliban insurgents.
Another dilemma of concern for the Marines is the thought of the civilians once their efforts are reached. There is a need for jobs within communities, and the only way to promote stabilizing any community is through establishing programs and initiatives for citizens to obtain work and make money. They are planning to initiate “longer-term reconstruction and governance programs, including a $300 million program to provide agricultural aid to 125,000 farmers through vouchers to purchase seeds and farm equipment” (Chandrasekaran A1). This type of program will help establish jobs for at least six months, employing roughly over 166,000 men. One middle-aged woman commented, “If you leave, everything will be the same. If you guys stay for a long time, everything will be fine” (Chandrasekaran A1). The citizens of Nawa are recognizing the efforts of the United States military, which can similarly be identified by Afghans if the president initiates new military objectives similar to the strategy of the Marines.
For the sake of understanding the past and the future decisions that will be implemented in efforts to control the war in Afghanistan, the president and American people must perceive the situation from an inside perspective. Rory Stewart traveled through the poor villages and kept a first-hand account of the tragedy that struck after the Taliban’s rise to supreme power. It is heartbreaking that the survival of people living in poor Afghan villages have limited access to basic necessities, including food and clothing; Stewart relates the compassion and embrace he felt “in villages because of the filthy, crowded rooms, the illiterate men, the limited conversation” (Stewart, 287). Afghanistan is a country in a deep state of financial jeopardy, which will take a long-term process to help resolve, that involves minimum risk and less money.
“Afghanistan was supposed to be the war that made sense, if any war can be said to make sense” (PBS). To this day, the war still remains an estimate of unpredictable duration, as it continues to prove a difficult struggle for both the United States and the world. Though the United States continues its efforts with good intention, President Bush stated, “We are at the beginning of our efforts in Afghanistan. And Afghanistan is the beginning of our efforts in the world” (Bush). Over the last several years, the United States has established many efforts to help start a system of nation rebuilding, which is a vision that can only be accomplished with the help, focus, and spirit of the Afghan people; So far, the United States has helped Afghans elect a parliament, create a stable central bank and efficient currency, and “establish telecommunications and a credible army” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Though these efforts have made some good progress, “more than 1400 have been killed among American troops and our NATO allies,” and billions of dollars were spent towards the efforts of fighting Taliban extremists (PBS). Various problems still exist, many of which will remain unsolved no matter how much money is invested or how many troops are deployed. Goals of the United States should shift to “two elements: more effective aid and a more limited military objective,” which would include devoting time and money in the departments of education, health, and rural development as well as providing the nation with a suitable irrigation system, energy, and roads (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Efforts by Marines stationed in Nawa, Afghanistan have already proven effective and affirm support of investing in smaller agendas rather than investing in larger, unattainable programs which may end in failure.
The strategies already developed have only surmounted to partial completion, found in the development of security within communities in efforts to promote stability and improved education and health of the Afghan citizens. Though President Obama may has decided to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, he is encouraging “the military to work out what they’re going to do with less” (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). Rebuilding the entire nation of Afghanistan involves developing a distinct policy which both protects the security of the United States and Afghan citizens, as well as helping Afghan citizens slowly gain a sense of freedom from their long-sustained suppression. “Hopefully, that’ll mean we can have a long-term sustainable relationship, instead of this boom and bust, in and out” attitude that will only result in incompletion and failure (Stewart, How to Save Afghanistan). The best solution for economic restructure involves investing the military for at least 20-30 years in projects that involve careful resource management. Working with fewer soldiers in a broadened time spectrum will focus goals and allow stepping stones for reconstruction of a repressive nation overtaken by corrupt military leaders and terrorists organizations.

Works Cited
Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. “A Fight for Ordinary Peace; U.S. Marines deployed across an
Afghan river valley are waging war on insurgents not by targeting their bases but,
rather, by protecting communities.” The Washington Post 12 July 2005: A1.
ProQuest. Harrisburg Area Community College library, Harrisburg, PA.
13 Nov. 2009 <http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/>.
Bush, George W. “The Invasion of Afghanistan Is Justified.” Opposing Viewpoints
Resource Center 2001 Nov. 6. Gale. Harrisburg Area Community College library,
Harrisburg PA. 13 Nov. 2009 .
Kobayashi, Athena. "America fighting Afghanistan's civil war." 27 October 2009.
Press TV. 13 November 2009
.
Martin, David. "Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops." 9 November 2009.
CBS. 13 November 2009
.
Mills, Greg. "The Commandments of Winning in Afghanistan." Foreign Policy Research
Institute. 13 November 2009 .
PBS. "Bill Moyers Journal." 25 September 2009. 13 November 2009
.
Stewart, Rory. "How to Save Afghanistan." 17 July 2008. Time. 13 November 2009
.
—. The Places In Between. Orland: Harcourt, Inc. , 2006.
The New York Times. "Text: Obama's Speech in Cairo." 4 June 2009: 3-4.
The New York Times. 13 November 2009
.
Zakaria, Fareed. “A Third Surge?; The troops need a smarter vision.” Newsweek, 154.18
(2009). ProQuest. Harrisburg Area Community College library, Harrisburg, PA.
13 Nov. 2009 <http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/>.
Zenko, Micah. “Don’t rush the Afghan debate.” The Christian Science Monitor (2009): 9.
ProQuest. Harrisburg Area Community College library, Harrisburg, PA.
13 Nov. 2009 <http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/>.

Discussion 10

I agree with everything Rory Stewart said in his interview with Time in the article How to Save Afghanistan. The majority of the article was dedicated to his distinct opinion regarding what the military can accomplish in time if they change their military strategy. I was very interested in his viewpoints, seeing as he is very well educated on past history and culture of Afghanistan and is probably the most well-equipped person to present an opinion of the issue, seeing as he traveled through Afghanistan on foot and knows the country and its people far better than any government leader.
The majority of my third essay revolved around Rory Stewart's belief for a new war tactic, especially because in a report issued by General McChrystal to President Obama, he stated that though he was asking for an additional 40,000 troops to be deployed, it would most likely result in failure. Rory Stewart predicted that President Obama would indeed deploy a sufficient number of forces, because doing otherwise would be detrimental to his image as commander in chief.
What the military needs to do is slowly deploy troops over a longer time frame in order to help create a better infrastructure within Afghanistan. Rory Stewart even stated that a projection of twenty to thirty years is roughly needed, and that by minimizing the goals of the United States' involvement in Afghanistan, the target will be more likely reached, and can be done with less troops. President Obama recently announced that he will not be deploying 40,000 but will only use 30,000 troops.
It is hard to say if more will be necessary to tackle the goals of the military at this point in time, unless the strategy shifts from fighting counterterrororism to fighting counterinsurgency. This way, the Taliban can be further deterred from harming Afghan villages, and more security can be provided for the citizens. The efforts of funding to help establish schools, roadways, and health care is already beginning to show positive feedback. The Turquoise Mountain foundation set up by Rory Stewart is a great organization to help better the communities as well.

Discussion # 9

Stewart has a very solid grasp of understanding neocolonists, both in the past and present time periods. He explains that though the colonial administration from the thirteenth century was racist and exploitative, they actually worked and fulfilled their obligations and duties, especially to the people. Some of their entitlements included recruitment, establishing effective departments of state, balancing the local budget, training a local elite, etc. On the other hand, present-day neocolonists only make what Stewart refers to as "a charming illusion of action," seeing as they do not interact with Afghans in the way the colonials did in the past. Policymakers today disregard Afghans, and know little about them, with no regard to learn or understand. It is heartbreaking that because of their lack of effort, Afghans continue to suffer under repressive policies, made by those who do not care about the negative effects it leaves on the people of Afghanistan. As Stewart quoted, "few care about policy failure when the effects are only felt in Afghanistan."

Discussion #8

Although much of Rory Stewart's passages concerning the Taliban always deals with negativity, he is only relating information to the reader about the villagers and the cruelty that the Taliban had evoked on the people. He was providing the reader with a realistic and truthful viewpoint, as with everything else along his journey and throughout the book. For example, on page 253, Stewart writes,
"'There was no electricity or television in the village. These men had never visited an Afghan city or met a journalist. I wondered why they immediately explained to me what the Taliban had done and why they focused on this Koran rather than on their families and their villages.'
'Can you read the Koran? I asked.'
'No we cannot read or write.'
'Did the Taliban take it out and burn it?'
'No. It was lying in one of the houses that the Taliban burned when they attacked the village.'
'So it was accidental.'
'Yes. You see what kind of people the Taliban are. He meant I imagined they were infidels.'
'How many people did the Taliban kill in this village? I asked.'
'Five...'"

Discussion #7

1. The Hazara people are mostly of Muslim religion, living primarily within the region of central Afghanistan. Most of these civilians are very poor, and lack a general education, proper clothing and sanitation, and even access to electricity (because many of the villages do not have electricity). When traveling through the country, the Hazara people invited Rory Stewart into their mosque, which he found very kind, considering most others had not. In this specific portion of Stewart’s journey, he encounters some men and suggests that the ancestors are descended from ancient Mongolians.
2. The geography and climate of Afghanistan are both completely different from that of the United States. The nation is mostly considered desert, and is sweltering hot. There are many mountains, and some villages and communities are found within them. These villages are very poor and lack the ability to grow crops because the landscape makes it almost impossible. This is hard to understand, but Pennsylvania is known for agriculture, and many areas that we live in are used primarily for farming. The ability to grow crops provides food and also establishes an income, of which these people can’t acquire. Instead, many of them try to find and sell goods, even ancient artifacts from demolished ruins of old and abandoned cities; they sell these items on the black market for much less value than its worth, even just to provide minimal income, necessary for survival.
3. Though the Afghan people are all interconnected through the Muslim religion, there are differences in culture of the nation, especially between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. The differences among people in villages are also recognized, and it is dangerous to travel from one village to the next without being killed along the pathway. Stewart reports this, and also mentions that most people have not even been outside of their own small community, especially the women. Ever since the Taliban invaded the country, the rules and restrictions, especially for women, were increased far beyond the penalties that were outlaid in the religion prior to the invasion. Though the Muslim religion upholds a sacrilegious aspect for women, the Taliban created rules that damaged their social life and various other rights. Tribal and military loyalties within the nation were split up within select communities, and Stewart was accompanied by several men along his journey. Usually one or two “officers” would accompany Stewart to his next village, where he would present a piece of paper signed from the leader of the prior village, stating that he had permission of his travels; at that destination, he would ask for another signature, pay the old “officers,” and obtain new ones to accompany him to the next village on his route through Afghanistan. Though Stewart tried to refuse the safety and protection of these “officers,” it was almost mandatory that they be by his side the majority of the time along his journey. Some of these men did it as an act of kindness to him as a fellow stranger, in order to provide protection, and also because Stewart issued them some sort of pay at the end (though some seemed to refuse at first…)

Essay #2

Tiffany Young
Instructor: Patty Hanahoe-Dosch
EN 102
October 30, 2009
Essay 2
Economic Sense and Nonsense

The economic slowdown of the United States has resulted from inadequate policies established by government officials and policymakers. An article selected from Neil Benson’s blog, titled Sense and Nonsense[1], addresses the Republican Party’s view towards President Obama and the current economic instability of the United States. The author makes false claims, stating that the only goal of the Republican Party is “to prevent President Obama from implementing any plan,” including the new health care reformation bill (Benson). Democratic legislators have drafted various health reform bills, though the controversy of choosing the ultimate plan still remains. There are several policies which Republicans believe can be implemented to improve economic growth and stability in the long run. Though Benson assumes the Republican Party is concerned with preventing the Obama administration from establishing new policies, the key goal is to eliminate unnecessary taxation and therefore diminish health care costs, making it more affordable for all citizens.
Mr. Benson’s political argument relates to a comment within an article from ABC News, written by Jake Trapper. The article, titled “Political Punch,” dates back to July 29, 2009 and addresses the issue of a statement made by Senator Jim DeMint regarding the healthcare situation. Benson comments that the Senator’s only effort is “to stop the current health care initiative.” Trapper provides a counter argument, declaring, “Officials will say the people being "broken" are the American people going bankrupt paying for health insurance premiums that increase 10 percent every year” and “those who want to use this issue to break the president are doing nothing but working for insurance companies and insurance executives” (ABC News). In DeMint’s assertion concerning Obama, Benson ignored that the statement was made during a conference call regarding “Conservatives for Patient’s Rights.” The majority of Republicans, including Senator DeMint, are troubled by the loss of patient and citizen rights. Rather than opposing anything that President Obama and his administration attempt to put into practice, Republicans encourage upholding patient’s rights and attending to the issue of increased insurance premiums.
President Obama’s health care plan includes raising taxes to support socialized medicine, which is a “single payer” system where every individual will be included in the government program. Many of the current excess taxes have arisen from an overabundant abuse of expensive tests being run on patients solely for liability protection due to the rise in medical lawsuits. Republicans hope to lower malpractice insurance and help remove any possible liability that doctors or hospitals might incur, which will only happen with tort reform. Another primary concern regards the injustice of progressive taxation, which involves raising taxes for higher earned salaries. According to Gerald Prante, representative of the Tax Foundation, “Even if you wanted to make the tax code more progressive as Obama's main goal is, you could do it in a much better way than Obama has done (in a way that actually improves the tax code).” This type of implemented taxation leads to unfair wealth distribution, which is taking from hard-working citizens and giving it to those who are unemployed or who are simply too lazy. Though Obama has not specified that these taxes were for socialized medicine, it can be implied by his favor to new taxes, including “higher income taxes on upper-incomes, higher payroll taxes on upper-income workers and a windfall profits tax” (Prante). Not only does the new healthcare proposal cover about half of the uninsured in our country, it will also increase progressive taxes and negatively impact the average middle-class citizen.
Though both political parties propose various strategies to strengthen the economy, Benson excluded an accurate assessment of United States economic statistics, which must be considered when conducting any valid argument. In the first quarter of 2008, GDP fell 6.4 percent, and the unemployment rate rose to its highest since the Great Depression, at an estimated 9.7 percent as of August 2009 (United States Department of Labor). The Families USA report estimated that with the rise in unemployment, the “number of uninsured working-age adults rose by 4.0 million - and, as a result, the total number of uninsured Americans now exceeds 50 million” (Lucas). The rise in unemployment stems from increased cost of health care to employers as a result of excess government taxation. In a report issued July 18, 2009, USA today reported an estimated “9% cost increase” by 2010, in reality “employees' costs actually go up by double digits." According to PWC Principal Michael Thompson, the extra taxation will have a ‘major, major impact’ when many employers are freezing or cutting pay” (USATODAY.) The Republican Party recognizes the “link between rising unemployment and health insurance coverage losses” and believes that lowering taxes would help provide more affordable coverage (Lucas).
Benson fails to recognize the economic issues that concern the Republican Party when he ignorantly refutes, “It is hard to know what the Republican Party stands for, if it stands for anything at all.” It is difficult to execute a perfect plan of action to completely resolve every issue involved in the economic slump, yet certain tactics appear to be promising. Rather than issuing higher progressive taxes to wealthier citizens, national health care should be made available under specific requirements to the poor and those suffering financial hardships. A balanced budget plan would include simultaneous government spending and taxation in equal amounts, which would raise GDP by the specific amount, and promote overall economic stability and potential growth. Several strategies set forth through the Obama Administration involve additional government control and higher taxation, ultimately raising Republicans’ concerns for a government heading towards socialism and fascism and moving away from capitalism.

Works Cited
ABC. "Political Punch." 19 July 2009. ABC News. 20 October 2009 .
Benson, Neil. Sense and Nonsense. 10 September 2009. 15 October 2009 .
United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. October 2009.
20 October 2009 .
Lucas, Dave. “The Economy Project.” 20 October 2009. WAMC. 27 October 2009
Prante, Gerald. “Tax Policy Blog.” 25 July 2008. Tax Foundation. 30 October 2009
< http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23418.html>.
USATODAY. “Report: Health care costs to rise 9% in 2010.” 18 June 2009. USA Today.
<>.


Political, Economic, and Social Commmentary
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Obstructionist Republican Party
What's left of the Republican Party has a new motto. It's "Just Say No" again, and again to anything proposed by the current administration. It could be argued that the Republicans are fulfilling their role as the loyal opposition. However, that argument is terribly thin because it is hard to know what the Republican Party stands for, if it stands for anything at all.

The main mission of the Republican Party seems to be to prevent President Obama from implementing any plan in any area. The Republicans voted against the stimulus package, and offered very little in the way of an alternative that made sense to anybody but fellow Republicans. They were against the bailout of the big three automakers which ought to be interesting the next time they're trying to get votes in Ohio and Michigan.

The essential nature of the current Republican Party position was eloquently stated in July, by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. When talking with Republican activists regarding efforts to stop the current health care initiative he said, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." If Senator DeMint were interested in serving the interests of the people of South Carolina, he might remember the large percentage of his constituency, which has either no health insurance or inadequate health care coverage. The senator from South Carolina may be prescient in his prediction of Waterloo, but it may be about his own party rather than the president.

The Republicans rightly raise concerns about the amount of money being spent by the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the Republicans are adept at raising concerns, but short on offering realistic alternatives to solving the critical problems facing this country today. The continued absence of meaningful leadership within the Republican Party has allowed Sarah Palin to develop delusions about her ability to run for the presidency in 2012. Perhaps the Republican Party will get its just reward after all.
(from http://senseandnonsensnb.blogspot.com/)
[1] Blog link is http://senseandnonsensnb.blogspot.com/

Discussion Topic #6

Upon reading the book and from prior knowledge and research, I personally believe the primary reason women were not frequently mentioned was due to the religion within the communities that Rory Stewart encountered. The Taliban treatment of women is very notorious, and upon recognition of this, the Femininst Majority Foundation outlays a special page which sites facts regarding the Taliban and Afghan women. The foundation was created in focus of women’s rights and humanitarian crisis and outlays the violation of rights of the Afghan women, including banishment from the work force, being expelled from universities and issuing orders for women to cover their faces by wearing a burqa. The Taliban also forbid women the right to be examined by any male physician, yet they could not be examined by women either, because they were banned from the work force. Upon violation of these laws, women faced execution. From an American perspective, these laws seem very absurd and cruel, yet the women of the country do not know any better. The people within communities are very religious, and the laws imposed are extreme, yet they were maintained in order to maintain a dignity that is sacred. The rules are based upon respect, and it is often very hard to distinguish what should be considered morally “wrong,” because these rules are indeed based off religious ideals. Though many women are stripped of these rights, it is part of their religious tradition; the primary concern should be in the penalties women face for religious violations.