Blog #32 - Vietnam Debate Blog

This week, we debated America's fate in 1965 - should America escalate the war in Vietnam or withdraw?  There were several nuanced options within the debate: 1. Escalate fully; 2. Escalate slowly and control the risks; 3. Withdraw slowly, negotiate and provide aid to SV; 4. Pull out completely. 

Each option stated their main points vigorously and defended them well.  When the votes came in, 2nd hour had a tie between option 2 and 3; 3rd hour had a tie between option 1 and 2.  Interestingly enough, option 4, the pull-out of Vietnam now choice, only received a couple of votes in each class (but not for lack of trying).  I don't know if this is b/c of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the backlash vs. an Iraq pullout.  But well done to all involved. 

In the film, Fog of War, that we've been watching recently, former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara asked the following question when reflecting thing when analyzing America's use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange on Vietnam to defoliate the jungles and make it "easier" for our soldiers to fight and win against the Viet Cong. 

"How much evil must we do in order to do good?"
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

A couple things to consider when answering this question:  if we're doing evil in order to do good, is that good really a good thing?  If it is a good thing, then at what point do the evil means (that you are using, for instance, Agent Orange) become so heinous that it negates the good that you are doing? 

This is an optional question to answer if you feel like tackling it for 4 extra credit points. 

On a different angle, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been exposed has having misrepresented his time during the Vietnam Era as he runs for the U.S. Senate spot in this upcoming election.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?src=me&ref=general  It seems that some members of the Baby Boom generation, especially those who serve in the military can't really come to terms with what they did during this time period, Mr. Blumenthal included. 

When talking to a group of veterans, he talked about the "days that I served in Vietnam" when talking supporting our troops unconditionally.  He never served and actually went out of his way to obtain five deferments so that he didn't have to serve like less fortunate soldiers who didn't go to college or have connections like Blumenthal.  His father worked with the Washington Post, and somehow young Dick received the deferment 2-A, one of the most coveted deferments, which meant that his job or role was so important that he needed to stay in the U.S..  This allowed him to finish up his Harvard grad work, go to Britain for more grad work, get a job at the Post, and then worked for the Nixon White House.  Only after the war looked like it was wrapping up did Dick join the Marine Reserves. 

Former president Clinton went overseas during the war while on a Rhodes scholarship and protested the war in Britain, while George W. Bush spent his service time in a cushy Air National Guard post protecting the Alabama skies from Communists. 

Here's an article that examines why politicians lie about their war service: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/politicians-and-their-fake-war-stories/?ref=nyregion  It makes for some very fascinating reading. 

Your three questions:

1. Why do you think some of the Baby Boom generation have such a difficult time with what they had done (or not done) during the Vietnam War? 

2. Which of the four options in your class (please identify 2nd or 3rd hour) argued the best case and why?  Please include specifics.

3. Why do you think the debate was set up like this (four different views, working in teams, debate, using primary resources)?  Explain. 

18 points (+4 extra if you choose to

answer McNamara's evil/good question). 

300 words minimum - due Monday, May 24, 2010

Blog #23 - Just War Theory applied to Spanish American War

This past week, we've examined the Just War Theory and discussed how America's entry into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opinions differed as to whether or not the U.S. has conducted itself in a just manner during the war - questions about torture, excessive force and the death of civilians made the issue a tough one to make a decision.

Here are the criteria we discussed:

The principles of a just war include jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, and jus in bello, right conduct in war. You will see these principles fleshed out in some of the following bullets below:
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

- Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm)

Given what we've read and seen about the Spanish American War, how does this war fit with the criteria that we'd discussed? Consider the following:

1. How did the war begin? - U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana Harbor but the cause of the blast was unknown, though at the time, an official inquiry determined it to be a mine.1 American newspapers drummed up support for war (fueled by yellow journalism - sensational, if sometimes false, stories and attention grabbing headlines). President McKinley issued an ultimatum to Spain on March 29th to leave Cuba (which it didn't agree to do until April 1st). But when the war was declared, had the U.S. exhausted all options before going to war?

- When Congress voted to declare war on April 19 (311 to 6 in the House and 42 to 35 in the Senate), it adopted the Teller Amendment in which it stated that it had no intention: "to exercise jurisdiction or control over Cuba except in a pacification role and promised to leave the island as soon as the war was over." 1

2. Was peace the ultimate goal? However, during that summer of 1898, business and political interests work on keeping the Philippines once the war is won w/ Spain. American interests brought Emilio Agunaldo, exiled Filipino leader, back to the islands and he heads a new Filipino government which declared its own independence in June and approved a Constitution in November. The American Anti-Imperialist League was created to fight the annexation of the Philippines.

A three year war with the Filipinos lasted until 1902 with 4,200 American dead and 200,000 Filipino civilians and around 20,000 soldiers dead. 1

Puerto Rico still remains in the U.S.'s hands. Cuba gained its official independence in 1902 after President Teddy Roosevelt decided to allow them to declare it earlier than expected. But the U.S. exercised control over Cuba to supervise its foreign and economic affairs b/c of the Platt Amendment. It did so in 1906 and then again later until President Franklin Roosevelt initiated the Good Neighbor Policy w/ Latin American countries in 1933. 2

Pick one of the two questions above and answer it using info from the websites, the video on TR, and your readings.

Due Tuesday, October 20, 150 words minimum.

Please note that there is a quiz on Wednesday, Oct. 21, on Ch. 11, Sec. 1. Take notes on the section - you can use them on the quiz. Same rules apply like the Ch. 7 quiz.

1. Library of Congress - http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/chronology.html

2. Cuba by Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Modern_history

Additional links:

3. http://www.spanamwar.com/ - A host of stuff

4. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/sawhtml/sawsp1.html - film footage from the Span-Am War and the Filipino War as well. However, Edison had some of the Filipino War footage "recreated" back at his place in New Jersey. This one in particular is rather amusing - http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/1355.mov

5. Anti-imperialism league writings by Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie and others. http://www.antiimperialist.com/webroot/PEOPLEdocuments/Membership/publishingsAIL.html

Blog #16 - Just War - WW2, Vietnam, Iraq

When we think of war, historians make a distinction between just and unjust wars. Just wars are fought by countries who hold true to principles whereas unjust wars are fought either by nations or groups w/o principles and are fought for immoral gains. This concept is as old as the Roman Empire and its great poet, Cicero, but has been also developed more thoroughly by the Catholic Church and its saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.


The principles of a just war include jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, and jus in bello, right conduct in war. You will see these principles fleshed out in some of the following bullets below:

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm)

Using the criteria above, consider what you've read (and check out at least one of the links below to include in your response), tell me the following:

1. Was World War 2 a Just War? Why or why not? If it's not tell me where it fails by your criteria.

2. Was Vietnam a Just War? Why or why not? And finally, has Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror been a Just War? Why or why not?

Due Wednesday, June 3 - 250 words minimum. (20 points)

Go Wings!

Thoughts to consider:

NPR's analysis of Just War Doctrine only 4 months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks - http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jan/justwar/020125.justwar.html

Iraq a Just War from an Australian newspaper - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25571560-7583,00.html

Just War Theory (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The Nation's take on Just War after the Afghanistan War began - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011029/falk - "The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II."

A great compendium on JustWar Theory info by the BBC -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/index.shtml

Blog #13 - Tie it all together

Since we're doing history backwards, I want you to think about tying up any loose ends that you might have hanging since we're just past the halfway point in the semester.

There are a couple of things I'd like you to think about as you write blog #13:


1. Pick at least two areas / time periods - economics, energy, terrorism, Cold War, foreign policy, etc. - that we have studied and explain how the recent past(last forty years) has influenced current events within the past ten years or so (for instance, how has the Vietnam War impacted the way American Presidents have planned for future military engagements like the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the Iraq War). Be specific with your two examples as you trace the development of a theme or an idea through time and show how it has developed over time;

2. Evaluate your two time periods and the themes involved and explain why you think these have improved, stagnated, or devolved. For instance, has America learned its lessons from Vietnam? Why or why not?

300 words minimum. Due Monday, May 4 (25 points).

Blog #10 - Does the world need a police officer?

One of the books that I've been reading lately is Colossus by Niall Feguson. The subtitle is also the focus of the book: "The Rise and Fall of The American Empire." In it, Ferguson discusses how Americans are not typical imperialists; during the Cold War (which we will begin studying soon), we had "an empire of invitation" and not one necessarily of conquest. We had allies, not territories to rule over (or at least that's how many of us like to see it).

We see these sentiments in speeches all the time. Before (1st quote) and after (2nd quote) we invaded Iraq, President Bush stated:

"The U.S. has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people... We will remain in
Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept
this kind of commitment before in the peace that followed a world war.
After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left
behind constitutions and parliaments."

"We will help build a peaceful and representative government that protects
the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.
Iraq will go forwardas a unified, independent and sovereign nation... Other
nations in history have have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and
exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return
home."

Ferguson suggests that the U.S. could use its power for good in this unstable world today. He said that the United Nations is too fractured to be effective and that the members of the U.N.'s Security Council (like Germany, France, and China) have vetoed military actions. Compared to China or India or the Arab nations, the United States is best suited economically, politically, and militarily to lead the world out of chaos and into stability and order.

So, the question for you is about America and its role as the world's police officer: 1. Should America act as the world's police officer? If yes, why? If not, what should its role be?

Questions to consider:

Blog #9 - The Iraq War

Coming into its 7th year, the Iraq War may be winding down based upon President Obama's plan to shift the front of the war on terror to Afghanistan and take it to the Taliban and Al- Qaeda. Out of the 130,000 soldiers in Iraq, Obama wants to leave around 50,000 in Iraq though Congressional Democrats want to leave only 15,000 in the country.

When the history of the war will be written, historians will have to consider several questions (2 of which you'll answer below):

1. What should future generations be taught about the war?

2. What do you think we will remember about the war after it's all over?

200 words total - Answer due by Wednesday, March 25

Washington Post military correspondent Thomas E. Ricks stated at the conclusion of his latest book on the war, The Gamble, that the events for which the war will be most remembered have not yet happened. Maybe that's true. Maybe not. I believe most people will remember the prison torture scandal of Abu Ghraib. They'll remember the statue of Saddam toppeling over, and they'll probably won't forget the haphazard reconstruction efforts in the first few months of the occupation in the spring and summer of 2003.

Fox News' coverage of the war: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79630,00.html

CNN's War in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/

The Nation's coverage of the war: http://www.thenation.com/sections/iraq_war

Blog #21 - Do It Yourself, Part 2

Pick one of the following blogs and give a full, detailed and well-thought out answer. As usual, you can't pick your own, and your answer must be a minimum of 150 words.

1. Do you think that the U.S. would have been any safer w/o fighting the Vietnam War? Was it really worth it? Why or why not? - Lorne, Ben, Ryan B., Bethany, Jourdan, Tyler, Megan W., Jason S.,

2. When public support is so low for a war (Vietnam / Iraq), why did/do we continue to fight that war? - Ally R.

3. With many of the same characteristics as the Vietnam War, do you think that the Iraq War will end the same way or differently? Why? - Christy, Ben, Kelsey, TJ, Robbie L., Alex D., Matt Ba.,

4. Why doesn't the media show us the reality of wars? Should they show us the reality of what's going on in Iraq? - Emily C., Nicole, Michael G., Jessica,

5. How would life (our future) be different today if there was a draft like in Vietnam? Would you enlist, skip out on the draft, or allow yourself to be drafted? Why? - Trevor, Andrew, Claire, Derek M., TJ, Mollie,

6. Do you think it is disloyalty to America if the citizens don't support the troops who are fighting the war? Why or why not? - Raekeshia

7. Do you think the chemical nicknamed Agent Orange was appropriate to use considering the destruction and casualties? Why or why not? - Ian, Fred,

8. Do you think President George H.W. Bush should have gone after Saddam Hussein and his army after freeing Kuwait in 1991? Why or why not? - Rob G., Bethany, TJ, Emma,

9. With over 4,000 soldiers killed and 30,000+ injured from the war in Iraq, besides pulling out the troops, what other solutions are there to stop more Americans from being killed in Iraq? Is there another alternative to pulling out of Iraq? - Angelina

10. If you were on the grand jury in the Kent State shooting case, how would you have voted? Why? - Sarah

11. Given that there are so many similarities between the Vietnam and Iraq wars, why haven't our leaders learned from history? How would you do things differently if you were president? - Sarah, Amber, Jacob T., Jessica,

12. How do you feel about our current foreign policy: do you feel our priorities are out of whack or should we be able to look out for ourselves first? Is there another alternative? - Alexandra, Jacob T.,

13. Should Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara have spoken up sooner about our misguided Vietnam policy than he did? - Paul, Matt Ba., Jessica,

14. Would you have been a protester during the Vietnam War? Why or why not? - Marin, Nikita, Tyler H., Jason S., Megan W.,

15. Do you think the student protests influenced America's decision to leave Vietnam? Why or why not? - Stefan

16. Why didn't more nations support us when we went into the Persian Gulf the second time in 2003? - Stefan

17. Should the American people be able to vote against the President's decisions during war time? Why or why not? - Rob S.,

18. Who was to blame for the Kent State shootings: the National Guard, the students, or someone else? What other ways could this have been handled? - numerous students

19.

Blog #20 - Is it treason to protest a war while it's going on?

During the Vietnam War, student protests played a small but pivotal role in turning public opinion against America's involvement in South Vietnam. Many groups formed to protest the war - groups like the Yippies, The Weather Underground, and Students for a Democratic Society. Yet, 70% of Americans felt that protests in Dec. 1967 were "acts of disloyalty." There's the thinking that the country should rally around the President during war time - no matter what. After the Tet Offensive, opinions on the war turned against it, and so did opinions of the President - both Johnson and Nixon.

In Washington D.C. in November 1969 and and April 1971, over 1/2 million people showed up to protest the war. After the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970, more average Americans began protesting the war:

"Many labor leaders spoke out for the first time, and blue-collar workers joined antiwar activities in unprecedented numbers. However, construction workers in New York assaulted a group of peaceful student demonstrators, and (with White House assistance) some union leaders organized pro-administration rallies." 2

A recent article from Common Dreams compared the two anti-war movements.

"America's current anti-war movement is resourceful and persistent, but often seems to lack the vibrancy of its counterpart in the Vietnam era when protesters burned draft cards, occupied buildings and even tried to levitate the Pentagon.

A lot of the opposition to Vietnam was motivated by people's fear of going to war - maybe it was pretty self-centered. With this movement, maybe it's not as big, but it comes from a deeper place than 'Hell No, We Won't Go.'

"We're not as unified, not as hard-core, not as big," said Frida Berrigan, 32, a board member of the War Resisters League and daughter of the late peace activist Philip Berrigan. "There's a reason there's not a draft."

"During Vietnam, the perception was that atrocities were everywhere - the military was looked down on," he said. "There is a serious effort now not to stigmatize the military - a conscious effort to say, 'This is not a bunch of baby-killers.'" 1

After the Iraq war began, criticism was somewhat muted, but there were worldwide protests in the hundreds of thousands. By August 2004, almost 500,000 rallied in NYC at the Republican National Convention where President Bush accepted his nomination to run for the presidency again.

Since 2003, there have been sporadic protests, including Michael Moore's infamous blasting of President Bush at the Oscars after winning the award for Bowling for Columbine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Is43K6lrg

So, what do you think?

Is protesting a war during war time a treasonous offense? Is it an act of disloyalty? Why or why not?

Things to think about: what exactly should be allowed as a protest? Everything? Marches, letters to the editor, sit-ins, etc.? Would you go as far as burning an American flag? What if the draft was reinstated? People were jailed during World War I for speeches (Eugene Debs) and passing out pamplets that called for an end to the war and the draft.

Due Monday, April 28th - minimum of 200 words.

Sources:

1. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0321-03.htm

2. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html

3. Iraq War pictures. http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03/19/us/0319-PROTEST_10.html

4. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

The Daily Show - 5 Years in Iraq

Jon Stewart looks at the administration's underestimation of the length of the war, the terribly lame protest movement, the V.P.'s disregard for American opinion polls, and President Bush's travels back in time.

Fake News - The Colbert Report

Here is an interview on a "fake news" channel, The Colbert Report, of Samantha Power, the woman we saw in No End in Sight, talking about her new book about Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. fix-it guy that was killed in the truck bomb incident in August 2003. She called him the "most important man we've never heard of."

Blog #15 - After September 11, 2001....

Many of you were 9, 10 or 11 years old when this tragic event happened, and that's part of the reason why I feel the need to start the semester with those horrible events of that perfect, blue-sky Tuesday morning in late summer 2001.

In the video we watched together, In Memoriam: New York City: 9/11/01, we saw some awful images - maybe they were new for you, maybe not.

I'd like you to answer a couple of questions:

1. Pretend you don't know anything about what's happened in the six and a half years since 9/11/01 - just pretend. How would you want America to respond to this attack that left 3,000 dead and over 15,000 wounded?

A few things to think about when you answer this question: Would you respond militarily by attacking Al-Qaeda? Would you respond diplomatically by trying to isolate Al-Qaeda economically and help eliminate the sources of poverty? Would you work to improve America's image within the Arab world? Or is there another alternative? What could Americans have done at home to make a difference? (include some of your notes from the video here).

2. Question #2 - Do you believe that the Presidential candidates will be able to do what they say about Iraq? Why or why not?

Alternate question #2 (in case you don't like the first question #2) - Should we remain in Iraq and stabilize the country, withdraw gradually, or leave as quickly as possible? Why?

The Iraq War is now coming up on its 5th year anniversary and few see an end in sight. Click here for the latest opinions on the war from Gallup Poll : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCAaYzFdrm0 (it's very short -only 1:30 long).

So far, almost 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and over 15,000 injured. The war has cost over $3.1 trillion dollars, and America is in the middle of a recession. Gas prices are predicted to hit $4.00 by Memorial Day (a little over 2 months away) and oil prices keep hitting new historic high prices ()$108 a barrel just the other day - 3/11/08). Americans are divided over the war and how to finish the war.

Obama, Clinton and McCain are debating what to do with Iraq and Afghanistan - should I stay or should I go now? Many Americans think that by leaving too early we will leave Iraq as a breeding ground for terror (much like Afghanistan turned into one in the 1990s). Others feel like we need to increase the number of troops. Others feel like that we broke Iraq, we need to fix it.

John McCain: "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units."
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Hillary Clinton: "The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. " http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Barack Obama: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Each of your answers to the questions should be a minimum of 100 words.

This song, "Belief", by John Mayer fits this conflict between America and radical Islam so well:

Is there anyone who / Ever remembers changing there mind from
The paint on a sign?

Is there anyone who really recalls / Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes / In how they think it ought to be

Everyone believes / And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor / But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water / You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition / And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon / For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes / From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes / And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can / Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can / Belief can


I felt that this picture of the parents of Marine Sgt. Robert Courtney, killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq on October 30, 2004, fit the song well("what puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand?"). For every number that we hear on the news... "3 American soldiers killed by a mortar attack in Fallujah..." there is a whole group of people behind that one person who was killed or wounded. This is the human cost of what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blog #5A - Is America an Empire?

There have been dozens of books written lately about how America has become an empire - especially with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Here's just a sample:

The premise of many of these books is that whether we like it or not, America is an empire. Whether we like acknowledging it or not is whole other thing.

When many people think of empires, we tend to think of the ancient Romans with their gladiators and colisseums, or the British Empire and some guy in a funny-looking pith helmet tromping through the African jungle: "Dr. Livingston, I presume?" With the word "empire" or "imperialism" comes so much negative baggage; plus, those words are so down-right anti-democratic. If we're controlling the destinies of other countries, how are we allowing them to be democratic and free nations?

Being an imperialist nation, apparently, has been something we've been working at for several decades now. A book by Stephen Kinzer called Overthrow outlines over a dozen instances where the United States has taken control of a country b/c our business or political interests were threatened, resources were slipping out of control, or during the Cold War, we felt the creep of socialism get too close.

We've talked about how widespread American military is across the world: 700 military bases in 60 countries; 1.4 million soldiers. There's an upside to all of this - don't get me wrong! Because of these brave men and women, we're so much safer than we would be without them. I am grateful for theirs and their families' sacrifices.

The question to answer: Is America an empire?

Questions to consider but not necessarily answer - is the course we've taken towards building an empire worth the hatred of the world? Our safety doesn't mean much when terrorists want to kill us at home. Morally, are we doing the right thing by keeping other countries from determining their own destiny? Economically, is the tax money we're spending on our military also the right thing to do? Should the other countries of the world shoulder their own defense expense? Why or why not?

Minimum response - 250 words - due Wednesday - 2.13.08

Find out how we overthrew Iran in 1953: A Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

How alike are Iraq and Vietnam? Andy sounds off

In some ways, the Iraq war is like the Vietnam war. Both Presidents Bush and Kennedy went to war and ended up getting negative feedback after they went. Both said that they would stay in the country as long as it took. Both claimed they were fighting terror.

Why is it that the Vietnam war is viewed as a success yet the Iraq war is looked at as a failure?

Andy R.

Journal #7 - Can we learn from the lessons of past imperialism?

During our look at the Spanish American War and the Filipino-American War, I tried to draw some obvious parallels between the Persian Gulf War (1990-91) and the Iraq War (2003 - present) . Hasty, short wars like the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War were thought to be the wars of the future: short and relatively bloodless using the latest in technology. Then there's the Filipino-American War and the Iraq War: two wars fought to quell insurgencies (though intitially Iraq was about toppling Saddam). Both wars have proven to be brutal, divisive at home, and required our soldiers to do some wicked things in order to win.

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Ledger in 1901 about the war in the Philippines:
"Our present war is no bloodless, fake...engagement. Our men have been relentless: have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten on up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to "make them talk," have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-ridden corpses."

Taking into account the stuff we've learned in our imperialism unit and in the imperialism debate, what kinds of lessons can we learn from American imperialism? Any one of these questions could apply for your journal.
- Is it worth the economic security to control the destinies of countries we can barely identify on the map?
- Are we sacrificing our democratic ideals when we take over other countries and pick their rulers for them? Why or why not?
- If we continue to worry about and depend upon oil in the Middle East, how will we ever develop clean energy sources that will get us off of our dependency?
- Is our dependency upon Middle East oil a security threat? Why or why not?
- When we are $8.659 trillion in the hole, how can we afford to be everywhere around the world?


Pick a question or come up with another angle on how we can learn from our past history of over 100 years of imperialism.

Editor's Note: We didn't amass this monstrous $8.659 trillion dollar debt just on Iraq alone. It started in 1969 when we were fighting the War on Poverty and the War in Vietnam at the same time. Then, we started outspending the Soviet Union during the 1980s to win the Cold War. That didn't happen until 1991. After 1991, our government was huge and wasteful, but still provided essential services. President Clinton signed a huge tax package to begin chipping away at the national debt in 1993, and by 1999, taxes along with a booming economy helped the government start to slowly pay down some of the debt. That all changed w/ President G.W. Bush.

Plus, there is security to think about when America acts as we do. Are we acting in our own best interests for vital resources, strategic locations, and the security of the nation?

- G.W., your devil's advocate!