DI Reprint: 02-03-2009 (Part 2 of 3)

Shadowboxing the Bush Doctrine
Part two of a three-part series

The parallels between the Bush Doctrine and Al Qaeda's Islamist jihadi doctrine extend beyond military tactics and strategies. The "war on terror" is more than a physical battlefield; it is an ideological war as well. The no-compromise military strategy used by the Bush administration and Al Qaeda also extends to their rhetoric, once again creating a never-ending cycle of conflict.

The national-security strategies of 2002 and 2006 detailed then-President Bush's long-term and short-term goals regarding the "war on terror"; conversely, Al Qaeda detailed its goals through a series of letters and speeches to the American public. Both sides made it clear through their rhetoric that the final battles in the "war on terror" will be for the minds of the people. Bush commonly referred to this ideological struggle as the "battle of ideas."

The rhetorical tactics, weapons if you will, used in the "battle of ideas" are strikingly similar. The core elements of both parties are dualism, a duty to defend, protection of core values, and triumph through cultural expansion. It is at the point of intersection between these four themes that the rhetoric and propaganda are at their most powerful; it is within this nexus that the "battle of ideas" is being waged.

In a game of persuasion, the advocate must portray her or his side as the morally just or empirically valid position in order to present the most persuasive argument. Without the vilification or invalidation of the adversary, the audience may weigh both sides of the debate equally, a fatal proposition for winning a rhetorical exercise. The "battle of ideas" follows the same road map. The Bush administration and Al Qaeda are quick to condemn the beliefs and actions of their adversaries. Each presents an argument designed to efficiently demonize its "evil" enemy. Thus, the rivals are quick to classify the "battle of ideas," usually by way of historical analogies, as a part in the eternal struggle between good and bad, light and dark, and heaven and hell. Thus, any action taken on behalf of the "good fight" is just; conversely, any action taken against the "good" is malicious and wicked. The brilliance of the duality scheme is that there is no in grey area; neutrality is just as sinful as opposition.

The process of vilification is a prerequisite for the subsequent self-appointed label of "Great Defender" employed both the Bush administration and Al Qaeda. Without a malevolent adversary threatening the core values and people of their respective society, the need for a "Defender" is nonexistent, and the use of a first-strike defense policy is unjust. Both organizations present their cases to the world that they were attacked first; war was brought to their soil, and thus, they must respond to save their respective societies. However, each side is careful to represent itself as more than a legally - be it based on Shariah or the U.N. charter - justified defender. A legal right has a logical and legally defined course of action and conclusion, whereas moral obligations are nebulous appeals to subjective reasoning leaving more room for broad interpretations of what is "necessary" and "warranted" in the face of evil. Water-boarding, extraordinary rendition, and attacking noncombatants are presented as defensible means to a just end, ignoring the fact that they are illegal and no less "evil" than the initial terrorist attacks or economic sanctions that lead to the deaths of Muslim children.

While the Bush administration and Al Qaeda substantially differ on political, sociological, and economic policy, they agree on the fundamental pillars of society. For both organizations, the principles of freedom, justice and human dignity are worth defending even if it means the use of force and a great loss of life. In the end, both adversaries are fighting to "defend" the same core principles of society. Unfortunately, they wage war to defend the principles as interpreted by their respective societies, rather than a global community. Thus, the freedom Al Qaeda fights for means the subjugation of American values. It's not human dignity we "champion" as argued in the 2002 national-security strategy by President Bush, but American dignity. Torture and killing civilians does nothing to further dignity, freedom, or justice within America, the umma, or globally.

Whether it is categorized as "expanding liberty," "advancing freedom," "bringing democracy," "establishing justice," "defending the oppressed," or "enjoining the good," both doctrines present victory to be reliant upon the abrogation of their adversaries core values with their own. If cultural domination is the death blow, then the self-imposed "moral defender" label turns out to be nothing more than a pretext for cultural expansion and homeland propaganda aimed at ensuring popular support for aggressive military policies. In the end, the Bush administration's rhetoric justifies the ridiculous accusation that we are waging a "war on Islam" rather than defending our right to live free from terror.

Originally published in The Daily Iowan

DI Reprint: 02-02-2009 (Part 1 of 3)

Shadowboxing the Bush Doctrine
Part one in a three-part series

In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush and his neoconservative administration developed a modified version of the international anticipatory self-defense doctrine under the precept of self-preservation. The so-called "Bush Doctrine" was designed to eliminate all current and future threats to American military personnel and civilians. However, the "war on terror" as implemented by the Bush administration was not a viable option to accomplish the very goal it continually espoused, protecting the American public from future terrorism. Seven years later, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri remain at-large; Al Qaeda continues to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the threat of harm to American civilians abroad still exists, as demonstrated by the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks.

For the last seven years, the Bush administration has waged a war on its own reflection. While the media and the White House went to great lengths to portray our "war on terror" as an unambiguous battle of good versus evil and a straightforward example of self-defense against provocation, a more in-depth examination of the strategies and tactics employed by both the United States and the jihadi Islamist factions reveals significant similarities between the quintessential adversaries. Militarily and rhetorically, the two foes employed strategies that were mirror images of each other creating a never-ending cycle of violent acts of reprisal.

At their cores, both the Bush Doctrine and the jihadi military doctrine are self-defense strategies; both doctrines are modified versions of an anticipatory self-defense doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is a modern adaptation of the Caroline doctrine; Al Qaeda reinterprets classical jihad jurisprudence to justify its military operations. The common revision in both doctrines is the reshaping of the "threat" element of anticipatory self-defense. A state must face an imminent threat that leaves the state with no time for deliberate or alternative means of defense to justify the use of preemptive military action. Without a threat, an "act of self-defense" is unwarranted. The jihadi defense doctrine requires Muslims must be attacked because of their faith for aggression to be justified.

In order to justify the use of force, both the Bush Doctrine and Al Qaeda's doctrine argue that the threshold is not an "imminent threat" but an "emerging threat." No longer must the United States or the umma, the worldwide community of Muslims, be a victim of an attack to justify the use of defensive measures, a threat of violence is sufficient to justify force; a first-strike policy is portrayed as a defensive response. Thus begins the bloody tit-for-tat cycle of violence in the "war on terror"; reports of a pre-emptive strike by one adversary are viewed as an emerging threat by the other. Unlike the Cold War, in which the threat of an armed response created a stalemate, the "war on terror" uses the threat of an armed response as justification for using "defensive military force."

Perhaps the acts of pre-emptive force could be better contained and force a tenuous Cold-War-like impasse if both doctrines didn't also espouse "guilt by association." Al Qaeda, and other jihadi Islamist factions, continually equates the actions of Israel against the Arab world with those of the United States. This amalgamation is evinced by the recurrent label of "Zionist-Crusader coalition" by bin Laden when he references the United States. The "guilt" is also extended to any of America's allies, as evinced by the bombings in Madrid, London, and Baghdad. No country that aids the United States in their "war" will be safe. According to the speeches of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, you are either with them, or against them. Sound familiar? Bush said, "We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." Rightly, the Bush administration made clear that the United States was willing to defend itself and its allies from terrorist activity. In other words, the United States is willing to defend its "umma" from outside threats.

It is not my intent to argue that the rationale or morality at the foundation of these doctrines is the same. Clearly they are not equivalent. Rather, my comparison rests in the means by which each doctrine intends to achieve victory. Both doctrines are designed to reject compromise and reconciliation; victory is attained only through vanquishing the Great Adversary. If both doctrines espouse a determination to continue their struggle, their jihad, as long as the enemy or threat of harm exists, we must examine whether the means will ever achieve the desired end. Punching your reflection in the mirror isn't going to destroy your mirror image; it will only shatter and fragment the glass. The Bush Doctrine may have kept America's shores safe over the last seven years; however, it failed to secure long-term stability and protection from terrorist threats.


Originally published in The Daily Iowan

Revisiting the Past

It's not uncommon for my current playlist to go through substantial shifts in genres and/or eras. My playlist isn't always a direct reflection of my mood. I rarely use music to deal with emotional swings. My selection of songs is more accurately a reflection of the activity I am participating in while listening to my Zune or laptop.

Recently, I have been revisiting bands who were at their peak in the 1990s; the mid to late 1990s is a more accurate as most of these bands were at their height of stardom while I was in high school or early college. Most of the bands of that era have a "Best of" album on shelves. Instant top 40 gratification.

Currently on rotation on my laptop are The Cranberries, No Doubt, Stone Temple Pilots, and Eve 6's first two albums. The latter band pushes the playlist into the new millennium but the style of music is still very late 1990s. So far the mix has been quite enjoyable; non-radio favs are always fun to rediscover, even 10-15 years later.

I'm still waiting for the Bush "Best of" album to drop. Perhaps Gavin is too busy with his new pop album or just wants to forget about the glory years; however, I wish there was a concentrated playlist of Bush singles and best songs. Most of the time I find a song on a compilation album I didn't even know/had forgotten was sung by that artist. (E.G. "Days of the Week" by STP)

As more and more nineties bands seek to recapture their former glory (Candlebox, Alice in Chains, STP, Gin Blossoms, Smashing Pumpkins) it's nice to revisit the reason for their successes. From time to time I try to forecast which songs and bands will make up the future "oldies" stations. Green day seems an obvious choice given their popularity 15 years later. The remaining potpourri is a bit more ambiguous. Regardless, my sojourn back in time has been a nice break from the modern day top 40 cycle that gets overplayed on free-radio these days.

2009 B.C.E.

Well Sprinters, it's another year gone by and I'm still unsure what to do with this blog. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I intend to cross-post more from The Podium so that this place doesn't look so bleak and boring. My current project is a series I intend to write for the Daily Iowan about the Bush Doctrine and the war on the terror. It's based off of a seminar paper I wrote in law school. I will make sure I cross-post it here.

Also:

I will be participating in a friendly "get healthy" challenge with my friend. You can check out the progress based on the chatter at his blog "Loss and Health, Pirate"

Hopefully I get more original pieces done this year (either here or at The Podium). The life with the wifey is dire need of direction for both of us and we are hoping to figure it all out in the coming months. Do we stay in Iowa? If so, Iowa City? Buy a house? Start a family (biped not quadped like our current "children")?

Hopefully, before I hit the three-decade mark a bit more is settled.

Podium Piece Reprint: 11/10/08

A Great Weekend to be a Hawkeye

By now every corner of Hawkeye nation has heard the echo of the victory drums after this weekend's historic upset of Penn State. Fans and players alike braved the cold weather under the common banner of black and antique gold, the same banner that both parties raised as thousands flooded the field after the game-winning field goal of Daniel Murray split the uprights and gave the Hawkeyes their biggest upset in the Kirk Ferentz era.

Three hundred miles to the north of Iowa City a bevy of undergraduate Hawkeyes braved the cold for a different, yet competitive, purpose. Over thirty University of Iowa students climbed into a caravan of University Fleet Services vehicles Friday morning and drove to the Twin Cities. They returned in the dark of Sunday night victorious, even dominant. However, unlike their Kinnick-playing brethren the victory of these students will go unnoticed. Their efforts will not be covered by web sites or newspapers. Their representation of the black and gold means little to anyone but their peers and parents. The title of "undefeated tournament champion," and placing four teams in the top ten of a forty-four team tournament will, for no other reason than they don't play at Kinnick or Carver, earn these students absolutely no respect from the University community.

Every year upwards of fifty University of Iowa students compete in a season that lasts longer than college football and college basketball combined. They spend an average of nine hours a week, all extra-curricular, honing their skills and practicing while balancing their heavy course loads and jobs. By the end of their season these students will have traveled to both coasts and many cities in between, sometimes four to five weekends in a row. Unlike their west campus peers, they pay for almost all of the expenses out of their own pockets -whereas most of their adversaries boast school-provided budgets in the tens of thousands of dollars. Distinct from their west-side peers, these students graduate - many with multiple degrees, and with honors. Contrary to their peers who play at Kinnick and Carver, over the last ten years this competitive Hawkeye squad has not only made it into post-season play, they have consistently placed with high honors.

Even though their banners are not hung from the rafters of Carver; their accolades are not carved in brick, marble, or metal; their plentiful stock of trophies and medals gather dust in an unadorned cabinet, or various apartments closets, rather than being displayed with the fanfare of a three-story hall of fame; and even though their historical back-to-back national championships and seven year national top five finishes streak will not be used to recruit anyone to our institution, these students will continue to strive for greatness and will work tirelessly to uphold the name of "The University of Iowa." The University of Iowa Mock Trial students have pride in what they do for the University community, even if the substantial majority of campus and alumni refuse to honor their accomplishes and efforts. They bleed Black and Gold just as much as every person that was able to watch the football team win at Kinnick this weekend; and they deserve the same recognition for their accomplishments and success just as much as those that wear an Iowa jersey.

To all the students that competed over the last month in St. Louis, Des Moines, Washington D.C., Mt. Vernon, and St. Paul, that continue to earn the respect of other schools across the country, and uphold the level of competitiveness associated with "The University of Iowa", I would like to say, "Thank you. Keep doing what you do." It truly was a great weekend to be a Hawkeye!


Originally posted at: The Podium
Published in the Daily Iowan.

Update

I am currently working for the OpEd Board of the Daily Iowan. Thus, most of my posts can be found on The Podium Blog. A few of the blog posts have been published in the DI already. Look there for more current posts.

I will update this site with posts from time to time.

What a difference a year makes

Heading in to the primary season last year I would have never guessed how this election process has turned out. I thought Romney would win the Republican ticket and that Clinton was a solid lock for the Democrats. Of course, this is why I am not a political analyst, and why I don't gamble.

Twelve months ago I wasn't even registered to vote. My view of the American political system was jaded, cynical, and bordered on a frustrated feeling of complete hopeless and powerlessness that lead to a strict stance of indifference. Two elections have come and gone since I was of legal age to vote. I had no part in either of them. I was a proud political conscientious objector. My indifference was my voice to the government. I was an educated non-voter; I followed the debates, the issues, and all of the different policies. Yet, I was never inspired to be politically active; I never felt as if there was a reason to exercise my right to vote or that my views would be heard.

All of that changed this year. As this political maelstrom that we call the race for the White House has grown larger and larger - sucking in various politicians' careers, American integrity, ethical behavior, and billions of dollars - I decided to register to vote. This was the first race that was interesting, inspiring, and made me feel as if I should be involved since I turned 18. Bush v. Gore? Bush v. Kerry? Boring. Uninspiring. Continued hopelessness.

This country is at a vital turning point. In 27 days, the people of this country will tell the coming generations what America truly stands for in the 21st century. At least, this is what the media tells me on a daily basis. I do believe this election is paramount, but not just because there will be a female vice-president or a minority president in the White House on Inauguration Day.

When Barack Obama and John McCain were selected to represent their respective parties I actually felt that no matter who won, America would have a strong, bright, respectable, and ethical man in the White House to lead us through the next four years. I may be a "secular progressive". I may have caucused for Obama. But if Clinton had won the nomination, I may have voted for McCain. Not because I believe Hillary isn't capable, but because I despised the campaign she ran. My dismissal of the American political system is rooted in my hatred for misleading and false ads, politicians that stir the racial-religious-social prejudice pot, empty campaign promises and platitudes, and self-interested politicians. Certainly a candidates stance on the economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy will guide my vote; however, for me the "big issues" are just as important as whether or not I respect the candidate.

I am a proud American. I am proud of this country's core beliefs. I am proud of what we have accomplished in this country, especially over the last 100 years. In turn, I want to be proud of the elected leaders of this country. I want to be proud of the actions of my fellow Americans. Lately, I have pride in neither. The mob-mentality of American voters over the last month has been abhorrent. The character assassinations and manipulations of social prejudices during the race for the White House has been repugnant.

On November 4th, 2008, we will be choosing more than just an elected official. We will be choosing more than just whether or not a Republican or Democrat sits in the Oval Office. We will be choosing whether or not, we as Americans, will tolerant our leaders to be elected via unethical and socially divisive politicking. I firmly believe that when your back is to the wall, your true character surfaces. Over the last couple of weeks each ticket has its back against the wall. The finish line is insight, time to dig deep and find the strength to sprint. Both campaigns have flip-flopped - which honestly is better than being too stubborn to admit you're wrong or acknowledge that society and solutions are in constant flux - both campaigns have pointed fingers, and both have used misleading statements to woo voters. Neither side's hands will be clean when they take office; however, it is John McCain that I have lost respect for, not Obama.

John McCain ran in 2000 as the reformer; the Maverick; the man who wasn't afraid to stand up to the Republican base even if meant he was unpopular. He stuck to his morals, his values, and it probably cost him the party domination. I can respect that. He fought for his country abroad and in Washington. I can respect that. In February, when the Clinton-machine was throwing mud and shit as fast as it could at Obama, and the right-wing media used Obama's middle name in a clear attempt to foment prejudice McCain denounced Bill Cunningham's "Barack Hussein Obama" mantra. I can respect that. Hell, I can vote for a man like that, even if he means "four more years of Bush in office" - and I foster extreme dislike for Bush, the Neo-Cons, and the Bush Doctrine. McCain's "Country First" slogan seemed real. Yet, today, I am left asking what happened to that John McCain?

In the last week he has had multiple opportunities to take the high ground, and failed to do so. When someone shouted "terrorist" at his rally he should have denounced the defamatory comment then and there on national TV. The use of Obama's middle name is a much more subtle reference to extremists and "evil"; yet, McCain quickly killed it. Where is that John McCain now? Multiple reports of derogatory comments by supporters at McCain/Palin rallies have been reported; even the possibility of a death threat - it doesn't matter if it's a real threat or not - was screamed at a rally in Clearwater, Florida. Accusations of treason have been lobbed at Obama. These are serious and frightening events. A person that values "Country First" and promises "Change is coming" should squash this uneducated, juvenile, bigoted, and odious behavior quickly and decisively. Instead, McCain's ads and silence only galvanizes and condones the bigots, the extremists, and the hate-mongers. What kind of America is he putting first? Does he want to be in the White House so badly that he is willing to ride the votes of people that believe Obama is the Antichrist, a black who doesn't know his place, or an Arab terrorist secretly plotting to give the United States over to his Muslim cabal?

I used to have a lot of respect for John McCain. I embraced his nomination instead of another puppet of the Christian Right; however, I was embracing the bipartisan John McCain circa 2000. The McCain that challenged Bush, the established Republicans, the Neo-Cons, the Christian Right, and stuck to his own beliefs over the clear desires of his party base. I was embracing the John McCain that confronted unfounded accusations and dirty political games head-on. A real Maverick would have told the Christian Right to get lost and would have nominated Lieberman instead of Palin. A real Maverick would tell his supporters that if they are voting for him solely because he's white, that he doesn't want their vote. A real Maverick would take the high road even if it's a harder and ultimately a losing road to the White House. A real Maverick values his own ethics and morals over political office. A real Maverick would accept losing if it meant that he was still respected. A real Maverick wouldn't want to win if it meant he was guilty of character assassination and galvanizing uneducated bigot rhetoric. A real Maverick brings positive change of reform through his actions and not just paying the lip-service to the idea through a campaign of platitudes and promises.

I wanted so hard to believe that McCain v. Obama would be different. I wanted so hard to believe America was ready to usher in a new era of open-mindedness and tolerance - that we truly are the greatest nation on Earth. I would have really enjoyed a race between McCain circa 2000 and Obama. I would have really enjoyed having to toil with who to vote for in my first time in the booth. I would have really enjoyed being proud of both candidates. I would have enjoyed believing that politicians do care about "Country First" instead of themselves and their cash flow. I would have really enjoyed seeing America change for the better. I really wish I still had "Hope" that "Change is coming."

Originally posted at: The Podium
Published in the Daily Iowan.