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.

Fundamentalism 101: Saudi Arabia, and Absurdity 101: Sudan

Recently in the news there were two stories involving Islam and its continued perversion by religious nutcases. First there was the case in Saudi Arabia involving the gang-rape of a 19-year old woman by seven men, for which she was sentence to 90 lashes and a prison sentence (upon her lawyer appealing the sentence and making public comments about it, the penalty was increased to six months in prison and 200 lashes).¹ Second was the case in Sudan about the British teacher sentenced to fifteen days in jail and then deportation after her class named a teddy bear Muhammad.²

Being a person who supports women’s rights and logic, I find these events mind-blowing.

If one thing is clear, it is that rape is never the fault of the victim. This woman did not ask to be gang-raped—she was simply getting a photo of herself from a male high school friend because she had recently married. It is true that she violated the laws regarding the segregation of sexes, but these laws themselves are unjust, not only because they are highly biased towards women, but if any violation occurs, the guilt is placed primarily on the woman. This ruling by the Saudi judicial system contains two messages: first, it’s the woman’s fault, and second, she asked for it. This is just one of the many such cases in Saudi Arabia, where women’s rights are shown little respect, if even acknowledged at all. Women are restricted from doing many basic things, including:

• Voting

• Driving

• Showing their faces

• Renting an apartment for themselves³

• Checking into a hotel alone³

• Going out in public without being accompanied by a male relative⁴

• Leaving the country without permission of a male relative⁴

• Marrying a non-Muslim man⁴

Women who break these rules risk arrest, torture, sexual abuse, and execution at the hands of the Saudi religious police, or Mutaween. Saudi Arabia’s cruel and inhumane treatment of women is well-documented. On March 11^th, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died when they were beaten and forced back into their burning school by the Mutaween for not wearing proper Islamic dress. Scuffles broke out when the Mutaween prevented firemen from attempting to rescue the girls, stating, “It is sinful to approach them.”⁵ Foreign women are also subject to this same treatment. In 1993, Canadian nurse Margaret Madill and a female friend were taking a taxi home when they were stopped by the Mutaween, who locked them in the taxi in extreme heat for six hours, beat and accused them of indecent dress and public intoxication, and jailed them for two days before releasing the two without charge.⁶ Such occurrences in Saudi Arabia are common, and not just limited to women—human rights violations are a signature of the Saudi leadership.

Somehow I feel like we should stop giving the Saudis F-16s and oil money.

The whole uproar regarding Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher who let her class name a teddy bear Muhammad, is so ridiculous that it’s amusing. People were out in the streets of Khartoum shouting for her beheading. The Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas stated that, “What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam.”⁷

Oh really?

I’m pretty sure that a teddy bear won’t bring down Islam, but judging from the reaction of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike to this absurdity⁸, it will bring down whatever twisted fantasy these fanatics believe in.

Oh, and one more thing. If Sudan has a law against insulting religion and faith, maybe they should put one in there about war crimes, too.

-Gregory Proulx

Works Cited

¹ El-Magd, Nadia A. “Saudi Rape Ruling Puts Govt on Defensive.” The Associated Press. 1 Dec. 2007. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5itRFLIdKb8OnJpiQRpQl1tHq0oGAD8T8U0UO0>.

² “UK Teacher Jailed Over Teddy Row.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2007. 5 Dec. 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7119399.stm>.

³ Doumato, Eleanor A. “Saudi Arabia.” Freedom House. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=182>.

⁴ SAUDI ARABIA: GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST WOMEN. Amnesty International, 2000. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE230572000?open&of=ENG-SAU>.

⁵ “15 Girls Die as Zealots ‘Drive Them Into Blaze.’” Telegraph. 15 Mar. 2002. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/15/wsaud15.xml>.

⁶ “Women.” Amnesty International: Saudi Arabia. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/4.html>.

⁷ Montesquiou, Alfred De. “Sudan Charges Teacher for Teddy Bear Name.” The Associated Press. 28 Nov. 2007. 5 Dec. 2007 <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUYY9aFqMRYNGvVIYkw8XTkcTi0QD8T6PHKG1>.

⁸ “Sudan Teddy Insult Teacher: Readers’ Views.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2007. 5 Dec. 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7115400.stm>.

Reflections on Week Eleven

I thought our focus on poverty was very helpful in informing us on the issues of both domestic and global poverty. Our visit to Bread for the City was very informative on the problem of domestic poverty in D.C. I thought their multifaceted approach to addressing poverty—providing medical, legal, social, and financial services, along with food and clothing—was very ingenious, for it dealt with the major issues facing D.C. residents who are impoverished or at risk for poverty. It was also very telling to hear the staff that came and talked with us voicing their concern, and in some cases disgust, over how the city is dealing with poverty. I was disturbed to hear about the lack of supermarkets in low-income D.C. communities, as access to food is such a basic and vital requirement for people everywhere. Since I plan on doing community service here in D.C., it was good to learn about a possible venue where I could help the community!

Our activity on global poverty was really good, and I enjoyed looking at the many different aspects of poverty, as well as the many different ways in which poverty can be addressed. Although I felt it was difficult in choosing between all the different options for fighting poverty, I think our group did a good job by addressing the base problems of poverty, such as lack of infrastructure, clean water, literacy, and agricultural development, so that a foundation could be built on which to continue further improvements, such as healthcare, education, and so on. We reasoned that education would be no good if people were dying because they didn’t have access to clean water and food, so that is why we picked these. One thing I noticed was that there was no option regarding population control, which I feel is a very important step in fighting poverty due to the fact that the planet’s resources are limited and cannot support an infinite amount of people. The activity also sparked a lot of interest for me in exploring international development, especially the use of appropriate technology to help fight poverty and further progress in developing countries, so I hope to take a closer look at that area of international relations.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflection on why I hate pointless discussions and blogging

During Tuesday's discussion many of us expressed our views on different areas of the
"Ethical Realism" theory. While I felt that this discussion was constructive and informative at first I felt that it ended in being a repetitive dialogue of the same points presented in slightly different ways. Furthermore the people presenting these points argue as if they are saying something that directly opposes the previous speaker when in actuality they are in almost complete agreement with one another ( despite some select nuances in arguments) . While I know that I am guilty of this as well I still find that its a waste of time and (at least in my opinion) does not teach anything. I constantly find myself not gaining any further knowledge on the readings and theories presented than I had upon initially received upon reading. Though I understand the method of teaching so that students teach themselves and I am learning - I feel that I am not learning anything on the intended topic. While I have learned a great deal more about human interaction, how we try to manipulate one another and twist facts to make them look better I still feel like I don't actually know anything useful about world politics. Of course politics does seem to be all about manipulation and how to be a jackass so maybe I have learned something. Though I find this class style unfair I deal with it because life is not fair - I was told by our lovely PA that I should just talk about how I feel and my take about the learning experience so here it is. That being said, I would just like to add that I think that blogging is completely and utterly useless

Reflections Week XIV

During Thanksgiving break last week I enjoyed Ethical Realism and thought the class discussion Tuesday went particularly well. The pauses after people’s comments were effective and allowed for a clear flow of responses that were related, yet provided new insights. As people commented on the balance between ethics and realism, I began to think the title of the book should be Realist Ethics, because the realist agenda determines the amount of ethical practice implemented. The well-being and wishes of another people are considered and granted only “when possible” and compatible with a realist policy; however, either title clearly incorporates the new approach to relations with other countries. While no solution is perfect in its creation or implementation, a system that allows peace through economic interdependence between countries and places emphasis on market values instead of individual rights might be the most practical and effective manner of relation for many areas of the world. A system with the most potential to prevent military confrontation and other forms of violent force should be considered most seriously, especially one that forms an alternative approach to a zealous spread of democracy, considering the ideological differences and struggles of today.