Diplomatic talks with the Taliban??

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/world/middleeast/26diplo.html?_r=1&ref=internationalrelations


This is an NY Times article concerning President Obama possibly changing the policy with the Taliban, and resorting to Diplomatic Talks to further "Consolidate" the country.

Personally, I'm all for diplomacy, but I wonder is that even possible at this point? especially given that the US in one aggressive strike, took out the leader of the Taliban regime.

If it gets the troops home, then why not?


I just sincerely have doubts as to this new approach.

Only Time will tell

Obama Announces Plans for Afghan Surge Pullout

Obama Pullout

Above is the link for a New York Times article which says that on Wednesday, President Barack Obama will announce the pullout of surge forces in Afghanistan.

Currently there are 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan that were deployed in the Surge, which have been there since 2009

There have been speculations as to how the withdrawal will take place,however, the one that will most likely take place will be the withdrawal of 15,00 this year, and then 15,000 by the end of 2012.

however it may take place, there are still 68,000 troops in Afghanistan after this removal.

US - Pakistan relations

Gates stresses relations with Pakistan

Above is the link for the article starring retiring Defense secretary Robert Gates who is stressing the importance of US relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan is key in the fact that it is in between  Afghanistan and India, two very pivotal countries in US national interest.

Pakistan has always had a close relationship with the US. Ever since Nixon's China Game

Now, the Pakistan US relations have been deteriorating especially because the Pakistanis feel that their sovereignty has been compromised by the US in the strike that killed Osama Bin Laden. Since then the push has been for an improvement in relations.

Link - NYT Article - Turkish Vote Result Seen as Opportunity for EU

NY Times - Turkish Vote Result Seen as Opportunity for EU
Above is the link for a New York Times article regarding the election of the new Turkish Prime Minister. 

The European Union sees a door opened for Turkey, especially since this country is a candidate for admission into the EU. 

They (EU) feel as though they will benefit the most out of this work they will be embarking on Turkey, as it is a gateway to the Middle East. 

Its all a game of chess right now, their next move better be their best move

NATO and Libya

NY Times - Gates Pushes 5 NATO Allies for more on Libya

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has had an influence and has military forces in Libya to overthrow the Qaddafi regime. The questions, as in the article, are what may be the roles other countries play in the military based strikes.

Germany and Spain both have stated to remain their positions, while the US urges them, and three other more countries to do more in the coup of Qaddafi

The US feels that Qaddafi is at his wits end, and all he needs is a little bit more push from NATO.

Will this effort by the US work? who knows?

- Read the article for more and tell me your thoughts

One superpower or many powers?

In class we have discussed three different scenarios of a world power: 


1) Hegemonic - One big power 
2) 2 superpowers - two countries share the superpower
3) Multi-power - More than one country has the power 


Many argue about which power benefits more. Personally, the multi-power system benefits the system we have now. Countries trade amongst each other more freely now than ever and need the cooperation and the ability to check and balance each other out. 

The Amiriyah Shelter Bombing and the tension in Iraq

in 1991, after the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had waged a war against Iraq because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the control of the oil resources.  This war was short lived when Saddam Hussein and his army had withdrawn from Kuwait. One of the finishing touches of this war was the bombing of the Amiriyah Shelter. This location was the target of one of the Smart bombs the US was ready to launch. After word that there were military forces in this shelter, the decision was made to launch the bomb.

In the aftermath of the bombing, the discovery was made that the 400 deaths as a result of the bomb were not military but civilian (mainly women and children). This became the focal point of a huge controversy in ethics and relations between Iraq and the United States. The US was looked at in a negative image because of this action, and since then had already spoiled relations with Iraq. 

What is interesting is that the US, in the Iran-Iraq war, supported Saddam Hussein, and now quickly turned on Iraq to protect their own vested interest. 

If the US knew where they were launching the bomb to, why didn't they send the bomb somewhere else?

I understand that civilian lives are part of a big price of war, but to what exent? 

Also, this makes you think about why Iraq doesn't like the US as is now and wonder why we are really in Iraq