Final Reflections

I have to say that I have loved UC World Politics. I feel like I have learned a lot in this class and had a chance to partake in a good community learning experience. I’ve enjoyed the activities we have done, the books we have read, writing blogs, and having discussions inside and out of class on the various pressing issues in the world today. I loved being able to talk with PTJ outside of class about whatever caught our fancy in an informal matter, be it over pizza in the lounge or lunch in TDR. I also thought that the trips into D.C. to gain hands-on experience about what we were learning were a great element of the program, and should definitely be continued. If I could suggest one improvement, it would be more activities and simulations specifically involving governments trying to work with one another on various issues such as international security, environmental policy, human rights, and so on. I feel like I really learned a lot about poverty, international cooperation, national and international security, and global economic development; not only did I learn in class about these things, but I ended up having deep conversations about them with my peers.

This was a great class I, and I’m glad I took it. I hope everyone stays in touch and that everyone has an awesome spring semester!

-Gregory Proulx

Future Combat Systems: The Army’s $200 Billion Gamble

I read recently in The Washington Post about the US Army’s $200 billion modernization program, Future Combat Systems. Future Combat Systems is comprised of high-tech ground combat vehicles, unmanned air, ground, attack, and sensor systems, and employs the doctrine of net-centric warfare by using state-of-the-art Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C³I) technology to increase battlefield effectiveness.

Sounds nice, but I have several concerns.

First off, I don’t think it’s wise for the Army to be spending $200 billion dollars on a new weapons system while we are embroiled in Iraq and are having trouble just putting troops on the ground. I really don’t see how the Army can spend that much money in that fashion when they are outsourcing things like providing food and water to troops to companies like Halliburton and KBR. There have been continuous equipment problems, ranging from a lack of body armor for soldiers to armor for Humvees. Secondly, I can understand the unmanned vehicles and sensors being introduced by Future Combat Systems, but it seemed to me like many of the new manned vehicles of the Future Combat System are unnecessary, seeing how we already have vehicles that can do the job. Do we really need a new mounted combat system—also known in layman’s terms as a tank—when the M1A2 Abrams tank, a vehicle that has never in its entire history been destroyed or lost a crew member to enemy tank fire, works just fine? The same goes for the M109A6 Paladin and the M2A3/M3A3 Bradley, both of which are superb fighting vehicles and have many years left of service in them. We don’t need a new tank, infantry fighting vehicle, or self-propelled artillery piece right now. Looking at the manned vehicles of Future Combat Systems, I noticed many of them have a very high profile, which would make them ideal targets for anti-tank weapons, helicopters, and other armored vehicles.

The project has also seen major increases in cost coupled with doubt about whether it will live up to what the military and the defense industry has made it out to be.

If I can say anything, it is this: Army, continue with the unmanned sensors and vehicles component of Future Combat System, but hold off on the vehicles—the ones you have right now are some of the best in the world.

-Gregory Proulx

Tankers of the 1st Armored Division drive an M1 Abrams tank through the Taunus Mountains north of Frankfurt during Exercise Ready Crucible on February 14, 2005.

Related Links:

Future Combat Systems

U.S. Army’s ‘Future Combat Systems” Program Remains Under Fire

News & Analysis: Future Combat Systems

Slow, Fat “Future” for Army

Reflections on Week Thirteen

The major simulation was the highlight of the week, with the European Union, Ukraine, the Dominican Republic, Uganda, McDonald’s, and Doctors Without Borders vying to accomplish their goals while at the same time working collectively. Representing McDonald’s felt strange as I do not support them due to their operating practices and impact on society in terms of things such as health (I stay the hell away from their food), so that was an interesting experience. However, I found it even stranger to be representing McDonald’s and talking about helping developing countries because when I think international development, McDonald’s is the last thing that comes to my mind. We were talking about opening restaurants, bring in capital, and creating entrepreneurship, but all I could think was, “Wow, McDonald’s is definitely not going to be lifting any developing countries out of poverty.” When I think international development, I think USAID, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam International, the Red Cross, the United Nations, and Habitat for Humanity, among others. I personally feel that NGOs and governments are more responsible for contributing to international development, especially since governments are around to better their people. It was amusing to watch Uganda try to deny it had problems with corruption and saying that it was an internal issue that didn’t have any impact on foreign companies in the country, which it did. I was surprised to hear about how severe corruption was in Ukraine, especially with all their efforts to “Westernize.” I feel like I was a bit removed from the exercise for some reason, but I can’t really pinpoint that reason—maybe some end-of-the-semester aloofness? It was a fun activity to do nevertheless, and I’m glad we got to explore the interconnected world of development from the standpoints of nation-states, NGOs, and corporations.

-Gregory Proulx

The Great Capitalist Peace Doesn’t Stand Up To War Profiteering

I think that the idea of “The Great Capitalist Peace” is both unattainable and foolish. When you think capitalism, you don’t think world peace—you think money. The main goal of capitalism is to make as much money as you can, any way you can. And there are lots of ways to make money, such as opening your own restaurant or getting a job with a software company. I think we can all agree those are innocent enough, right? But there is something else more ominous that has shown its potential to be a lucrative enterprise: war. If there are huge amounts of profit to be made off war, it would be in the best interest of capitalists to encourage war. Just look at Iraq. In the first 11 days of the 2003 Iraq War, the Navy fired 700 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Iraq (Borger), a missile that costs about $500,000 each (“BGM-109 Tomahawk”).

Do the math—that’s $350,000,000 worth of cruise missiles.

If you were the CEO of Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas, the two companies that manufacture the Tomahawk, might you not be, dare I say, excited for this war?

Many defense companies have profited enormously from the death and destruction caused by the Iraq War. The defense industry has enjoyed “a contracting free-for-all” and little governmental oversight, with defense contracts totaling $269 billion in 2005 (“Cracking Down”). Among the top offenders are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, KBR, Halliburton, General Electric, Bechtel, CSC/DynCorp, and Blackwater. These companies have committed a variety of crimes, ranging from Halliburton and KBR’s providing troops with contaminated water and spoiled food to Blackwater’s use of excessive force in Iraq. Thanks to the widespread cronyism and corruption within the current administration—such as Gordon England, former Secretary of the Navy and current Deputy Secretary of Defense (even though he has no military experience), a former executive for General Dynamics, and Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton—it is very easy for these companies to get away with their crimes. If you are not only the former executive of a defense company but also in the government and in a position to push for a war, wouldn’t you be tempted? Like I said before, if you were the CEO of Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas, wouldn’t you be eager for this war?

Defense contractor Brent Wilkes was. In fact, according to several of his former colleagues, he wasn’t just eager, but “ecstatic” and “gung-ho” about the Iraq war and the “new opportunities it would create for the company” (Calbreath)—so much that he used his friendship with former CIA Executive Director Kyle Foggo to land an Iraq contract to deliver $1.7 million worth of bottled water and other supplies to CIA operatives in Iraq and bribed former Representative Randy Cunningham to obtain further contracts from the Defense Department, for which he was convicted of 13 felonies, including conspiracy, bribery, and money laundering (Moran).

Last time I checked, being eager for a war because of the new opportunities it would create for the company didn’t translate into any sort of peace, let alone the “Great Capitalist” one.

-Gregory Proulx

Further Information:

Presenting Arms: The Iraq War & The U.S. Weapons Industry

CorpWatch: War Profiteers

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

US Labor Against the War

Works Cited

“BGM-109 Tomahawk.” Federation of American Scientists. 1 Dec. 2005. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm>.

Borger, Julian. “Air War Weapon Stockpile Runs Critically Low.” Guardian Unlimited 1 Apr. 2003. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926996,00.html>.

Calbreath, Dean. “Case Shines Light on How War Contracts are Awarded.” The San Diego Union-Tribune 15 Feb. 2007. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070215-9999-1n15contract.html>.

“Cracking Down on War Profiteering: Contracting Free-for-All.” Center for Corporate Policy. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/warprofiteering.htm>.

Moran, Greg. “Jury Finds Wilkes Guilty.” The San Diego Union-Tribune 6 Nov. 2007. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071106/news_1n6wilkes.html>.

Final Reflections

Looking back this has been a great semester. Though I still have a long way to go on all counts I have learned so much - not only about World Politics, but also about human nature and interactions (and aren't those helpful for understanding the former?). Living with a group in this way has taught me a lot and certainly changed my way of thinking and doing things. It may of course be difficult to pinpoint how exactly, but I know that it is there. Whether spoken or unspoken we have all certainly learned a lot about compromise - sometimes it just happens but we (for the most part) have all learned to deal and go along with life as planned. In a way these lessons were brought to the table in the major simulation where we were asked to converse and compromise. While these efforts may have been far less successful I believe that we could have had some progress if we kept working - probably more than average because of the collaborative and interdependent community that we have developed as a class.
Speaking of this community I would just like to thank every body for being so great this semester, it's been such a wonderful experience! Though I know I will see most of you next semester some of you are moving and so i wanted to be sure to tell you that and that I will miss you!! - Good luck with everything !!!!!

Final Reflections!

It’s been a great first semester in UC! I look upon all our excursions, discussions, and laughs fondly and feel grateful to have been a part of this experience. There are fun times and frustrating times, but they all cover far more than a standard academic class. In addition to a challenging and mind opening class, it was even better to be able to relate new concepts to weekly experiences of living in DC. The cultural differences seen in the city combined with the class analysis of how our countries relate to each other definitely leads to a broader perspective on life, both globally and even down to Leonard 7 hall. Living with people who share similar interests and classes was not only more exciting in political discussions, but allows for an experience that taught me more about both myself and about the ways in which others live and think. When I think back on the college years, I know I will definitely remember how they began!

Final Reflection

I came into this class ambitious and optimistic, ready to solve the world’s problems with a stroke of my pen (or keyboard more accurately). I leave it not quite so optimistic though perhaps slightly more prepared for the really world. We wrestled with some pretty difficult issues in this class; ones that go directly to the difficult questions of morality and reality. We talked a lot about what should be done and is that possible. We started out in this class by establishing that world peace is not possible. Though I agreed with this statement I felt like the class was throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying that there was no point in trying to achieve peace. This made me wonder why I was here trying to make the world a better place. I realize now that that served only as the slight reality check I needed to bring my idealism into check with reality. I know now that it might take trillions of pen strokes, trillions of keyboard clicks, and many years of hard work and even then only slight changes might occur. However, in a universe full of evil, and yes goodness too, even a small individual triumph is a triumph. Maybe if we can spread just a little bit more goodness we can have an impact because while powerful governments matter so does culture and culture is created by individuals. I think the creation of a culture of goodness, acceptance, and harmony could have a dramatic impact while not completely solving the world’s problems.