Thursday, July 2, 2009
Final Blog
At the commencement of this course, I considered a social movement just a protest in which people engaged themselves in activism to surface their voices. As this course concludes, I leave with extensive knowledge of the topic. I now recognize these movements harbor frames, emotion, tactics (structured and non- structured), collective identities, etc. In addition I have come to see that there are many other movements surrounding that of the anti- war in Iraq movement. There are movements that are protesting the use of torture, human rights, families with soldiers abroad, families who have lost loved ones, in addition to many more. It may appear that this movement has lost momentum, however I believe it has not. More is to come. With the recent “withdrawal “ of U.S troops there are quick concerns surfacing. This includes the protest of complete withdrawal of all U.S troops. “U.S. troop combat missions throughout Iraq are not scheduled to end until more than a year from now in August of 2010. In addition, U.S. troops are not scheduled for a complete withdrawal for another two and a half years on December 31, 2011. Rather, U.S. troops are leaving Iraqi cities for military bases in Iraq. They are still in Iraq, and they can be summoned back at any time.” (Dennis Kucinich 2009). I see this façade of U.S troop “withdrawal” will only fuel this movement. An article by United for Peace and Justice states “With the latest poll of Iraqis finding that 73% want the U.S. to leave and with U.S. defense costs exploding because of the war and occupation, we look forward to the day when we can celebrate with Iraqis a true victory: a complete end to the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq and the restoration of Iraq to Iraqis.” (United for Peace and Justice 2009).
From the start of the course I had very strong opinions about the U.S’s involvement in Iraq. I simply did not approve of it, seeing it as not very organized and/or thought of, as well as a sly excuse to get oil. I believed our troops should not be there at all. As the course ends, I in spite of it all, am walking away with the disapproval of our involvement. However it is in a much different sense. I now feel that president Obama has taken the right steps in withdrawing the troops. Although many troops still remain on military bases arguably within the city walls, I think this could prove to be a good move. The conflict in Iran could very much happen in Iraq, and I feel it would be best to have a few troops close by at hand to prevent chaos in case of an emergency. I thought about this after thinking of an article I read on Cuba and the legalization of cell phones. This took place at the time Raul Castro took over for his brother Fidel. Word was flying around of the intense reform that was to come (which really has not). Some people were analyzing this as dangerous claiming that rapid reform can be very dangerous. I wholly concur with this, thus being the reason why I feel Obama made a decent move. “Many observers have predicted that a post-Fidel Cuba will follow a cautious, incremental reform strategy rather than a more fast-paced approach-similar to those implemented by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China's economic liberalization after Mao's death. Indeed, there are many voices urging Cuba to avoid the "shock therapy" pursued by the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to copy instead the slower reforms pursued by China-"crossing the river while feeling the stones" in Deng's phrase.” (Raj M. Desai 2008)
It was said a rapid increase in reform could almost definitely be a poor decision and lead to disorder. This is the possibility at stake in Iran. I understand there is an economic issue at hand along with many other issues. However the United States allegedly was in Iraq to take out Suddam Hussein and promote a democracy. Even if there was not a democracy in Iraq, someone should be there to baby-sit in order to make sure things calm down. There are times when I think about George W. Bush’s administration and the people who supported the war as obtuse. On the other hand I feel these people really did have a desire to help the people of Iraq who were under Suddam’s rule. There was/is a large amount of destruction in Iraq. Then again when isn’t there after a war. I feel equally as Jed Morey when he states, “For better or for worse, the Bush Doctrine gave America something that it has been missing since the Cuban Missile Crisis—a little touch of crazy. This war proved that you can poke the bear one too many times. It showed that we will throw you out of your house, kill you in front of your friends, marry your wife and rename your kids. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but it’s a lousy way to win friends and influence people”. Bush could have definitely gone about the situation in Iraq more diplomatic (save for the Suddam Hussein issue, he was crazy).
All things considered, I am not sure where I am at. I do not want to say I am in the middle. Perhaps I am. All I know is that I do not highly approve war, especially when the government cannot give a valid basis for it. I also do not support violence as a manner to resolve conflict. I did not support the war in Iraq when it occurred, but I do support the stationing of a few troops on military bases. That is if they do not involve themselves with anything while being there unless asked to do so. I hope for peace in Iraq and a government that their people approve of. It is not our choice. Good luck Iraq! May the future bring you happiness!
Scholarly Resources:
http://www.longislandpress.com/2009/07/02/war-is-over/
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977726801&grpId=3659174697241980
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8741/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/28/lessons-for-raul/print/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iraq.kirkuk.bombing/index.html#cnnSTCText
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wednesday Posting #4
As it has been observed in class, researchers generally define a social movement as “a collectivity with some continuity to promote or resist a change in the society or organization of which it is apart…” (Turner and Killian). In addition to the definition, the terrorism movement includes many elements of a social movement such as frames, tactics, “faces”, and even arguably possesses a collective identity. Terrorists, as Pape states “are seeking to establish or maintain political self- determination.” This is similar to the gay rights movement, civil rights movement, and many others. Furthermore, although the terrorism movement is fighting to shut out democracy and maintain traditionalism, they are using their culture within their organization. The manner they use it is by their religion Islam, in which they take it to the extreme. As a result, they use religion to assimilate many people and this sequentially leads to the use of “motivational framing” with emotional approaches (such as the love for Allah). This frame encourages and/or pressures members into activity/ and or action (terrorism). Although very radical in approach it is very much a movement just as all the others we have read about in class. Pape’s article fully interconnects with my conclusion theory of the natural and scientific forest. He makes a case that terrorism is indeed a social movement and its suicidal attacks are not just meant to provoke fear. He considers these attacks to have established goals as well . Pape argues that the root of terrorism is not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather it a response to foreign occupation. The natural and scientific forest theory further explains why this crisis in the Middle East has transpired, and possibly elucidates why this terrorist movement exists today.
First, let us think of the scientific and natural forest. The scientific forest is a natural forest controlled by man or man-made. Managed along with many other aspects are flora and fauna, where they will be placed, what various types will be present, as well as the number. In the natural forest, man does not control it, letting mother nature and the natural mechanism to flow freely. The natural environment is not interrupted and each organism possesses functions that contribute to it. As a result, the natural forest is more capable of dealing with disease, population, along with many other predicaments . We see this theory in the crisis of the Middle East. Who are we as Americans to say that democracy is the best form of government? Do not get me wrong, I love democracy and its freedom, however it is crucial to understand these people have never lived under one. We are intruding onto their land to instill the same blue print as ours to replace their own. The United States went in without fully understanding their culture, their religion, their lives, or ethics. Therefore turmoil has unfolded. Perhaps the best thing to have done was to give people the knowledge of how a democracy works. This would have the intention for them to apply their own culture, ethics, etc. to the new formation of their government. Through this they could have decided to use all, some or none of the democratic principles. We also could have gone Pape’s route where suggests we could have kept our forces close enough to the Middle East in order to deploy in the case of an emergency. This is like the natural forest where man at times only interrupts when there is a conflict such as extinction. Although this theory of the scientific and natural forest is used to explain the emergence of the terrorist movement and/ or anti- Americanism sentiment in the Middle East, it does not approve of the extreme radical tactics in use. It is comprehendable that these people are fighting for their beliefs. However to use Malcom X’s farthest end of “by any means necessary” is unacceptable. While Tilly points that many Americans see terrorism as mindless acts of violence to induce fear, it really is not. It can be converted into a very powerful tool to extort resources and political power. I agree with Tilly and Pape that terrorism is a movement. However there are better means, and further diplomatic ways of handling issues. Communication is one in which I feel the terrorism movement has not wholly attempted to do. I believe this is due to a lack of education, propaganda and former politics in where there was high anti-american sentiment. This group I feel is using terror as a tool to overthrow the government. This is very wrong to do because it makes them illegitimate to create a new one, or even put their two cents in. They are not only committing acts of violence to Americans but to their own people as well.
Scholarly resources:
http://www.bepress.com/ngs/vol2/iss3/art2/
The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts
Blowing Up an Assumption by Robert A. Pape
Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual by Charles Tilly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
