Capital Punishment

 

Capital punishment has been practiced in the world’s legal systems since the ancient world and even though it has of the most part been abolished in the country, it is still practiced in many countries all over the world. Capital punishment is considered to be among the worst punishments that an individual can be handed by the justice system. It is handed down to individuals that have committed such serious crimes as murder and treason.

A consequence is that it has long been considered a means through which to ensure that individuals in society are dissuaded from committing serious crimes. Furthermore, it is considered to be an act of justice because it allows for a level of retribution, where the families of those who lost a loved one end up receiving a level of closure following the sentencing of a perpetrator of murder to death. Therefore, capital punishment is considered as an essential means of making sure that there is the advancement of law and order as well as justice in society. It is a measure that can be used for the sake of ensuring the creation of an environment where individuals are discouraged from committing crimes that put public safety at risk and going against the established social norms. Capital punishment has only been abolished within the past few years, but during this time, there has been a considerable increase in the level of serious crimes in society.

Capital punishment should be reintroduced because it is a means through which to ensure that individuals who commit serious crimes are held accountable for their actions. This is an extremely important reason because this form of punishment will help in promoting a situation where individuals are discouraged from undertaking actions that might lead to serious consequences. In an age where terrorism has become a menace to society, it is essential to ensure that there is a punishment that is sufficient for those individuals who deem to attack innocent members of society. Under such circumstances, a return of the death penalty will go a long way towards making sure that terrorists are given the punishment that they deserve. Such individuals should not be allowed to remain within society because even in situations where they are given life sentences, they have the potential of radicalizing other prisoners that they meet in prison. In such a situation, the menace that is terrorism will not be easily destroyed, and will continue to increase to such an extent that it becomes impossible to bring perpetrators under control. However, with the return of capital punishment, it will be possible to get rid of dangerous elements of society once and for all, and this will not only bring about a level of justice for those who were victims, but will also allow for the considerable reduction of crime in society.

In conclusion, it is important that the utmost consideration is put in place in a situation where capital punishment is returned. This is especially considering that the original reason for the removal of capital punishment was that it was not only an inhumane form of punishment, but it also involved some innocent individuals being unjustly sentenced to death. However, capital punishment is still needed in the contemporary world to ensure that there is the development of means to combat the new criminal challenges of the contemporary world. Such crimes as terrorism cannot be effectively dealt with without the use of severe punishment, and only capital punishment can rid society of such elements once and for all.

Should Patriots Use Acts of Terrorism in the Formation of their Government?

The creation of a sovereign government is one of the most important events that can take place. This is because it involves individuals undertaking their patriotic duty towards ensuring that they create a government that puts into consideration all of their nationalist aspirations. In the contemporary world, there have been instances where terrorism has been used by patriots as a means of creating their government. Such instances have been seen in countries such as Israel and Northern Ireland, where patriotic groups have made use of terrorism to achieve their objectives. This paper argues that there are instances where it is inevitable that patriots must use terrorism to create their government, because while patriotism is a motive, terrorism can be considered a means of achieving this motive.

Among the most significant acts by patriots in a bid to ensure the creation of their state through terrorist activities were those of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The IRA was for a long time categorized as a terrorist organization by not only the British government, but also its allies. This was despite the fact that this organization did not partake in violence for its own sake, but rather sought to bring about the independence of Northern Ireland. This organization, rather than being motivated by such aspects as religion or money, the IRA sought to ensure that there was the advancement of the rights the nationalists in Northern Ireland, especially when it came to the achievement of independence from Britain (Martin, 2012, p.231). The IRA orchestrated several bombing campaigns as well as organizing an armed opposition to British rule in Northern Ireland; a campaign that continued for decades. A result of this situation was that while this organization did not attain its objective of bringing about the independence of Northern Ireland, it was able to ensure that it promoted the achievement of a peace settlement that sought to bring together the nationalist and loyalist groups in the country (Martin, 2012, p.457). The case of the IRA is fundamental because it shows the manner through which despite the use of terrorism, this organization was able to achieve its objectives, which were patriotic rather than conducted for malicious purposes. The use of terror by the IRA was able to achieve the recognition of the rights of Irish nationalists, and despite not gaining independence; the Irish nationalists have attained a place in the Northern Irish government.

The use of terrorism to achieve patriotic goals can be considered the right course, because it seeks to ensure that there is a respect for the rights of individuals in the regions where they live. Most liberation movements, no matter their methods, have often been categorized as terrorist organizations, as seen with such groups as the IRA in Ireland, and Lehi in the Palestinian Mandate. Patriotic groups often resort to terrorism in situations where they feel that their concerns are not being addressed by the government within which they live (Marsden, 2016). A consequence is that they seek to ensure there is a level of advancement of their objective through the creation of their own government. These groups, such as the ETA, which promotes Basque independence, often face innumerable odds because the actors that they challenge are stronger than them, with more resources (Leonisio, 2015). Under such circumstances, one of the most effective ways of making sure that there is the advancement of their interests is the use of terror. Terrorism gets the attention of state actors that stand in the way of patriots creating their government, meaning that it can be considered as a weapon of the weaker party. Without the use of acts of terrorism, it is unlikely that the aspirations of patriots to form their own governments would be respected, because these acts ensure that they put as much pressure as possible to the dominant power or state so that they can be allowed to pursue their objectives.

In conclusion, in situations where patriots desire to create their own governments, they are often ignored by the prevailing powers at the time. A consequence is that they have to resort to dramatic displays that will get the attention of these powers. Under such circumstances, the use of terrorism is an effective way of not only gaining the objectives of patriotic organisations, but also putting as much pressure as possible on the dominant parties to such an extent that they end up either giving in to the aspirations of the patriots, or coming to a negotiated settlement with them. Thus, terrorist acts by patriots are a political tool by weaker parties aimed at the achievement of negotiated settlements.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary directed by Michael Moore in a bid to create awareness concerning the events leading to the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. It is specifically intended for the American public especially when one considers that it was released during an election year. The audience of this documentary is treated to massive revelations concerning the manner through which the Bush administration has been compromised through the President’s looking after his personal interests instead of those of the American people. This documentary was intended to steer public anger against president Bush to such an extent that he was not reelected but this turned out not to be the case since he won the elections.

This documentary was developed for the purpose of ensuring that the American public as well as the rest of the world was made aware of events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as its having occurred because of the connections between the Bush, Saud and Bin Laden families. This can be considered to be a political documentary whose main reason was to ensure the President Bush was not reelected for another term as president of the United States. The main message that this film attempts to get to its audience is that the Bush administration had lost all credibility to lead the nation and had to be voted out of office. Furthermore, the documentary attempts to show that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy developed to ensure that an environment of fear was developed in the country to such an extent that the Bush administration was able to pursue its political agenda in the global arena. The war on terror is presented as a cover for a sinister plot between the Bush family and its allies to ensure that they have control over resources in the Middle East at the cost of the lives of numerous American servicemen and women.

I knew nothing concerning the subject of the documentary prior to viewing it and what I found out was quite interesting. The issue of the 9/11 attacks having been a conspiracy was the farthest thing from my mind because of my constant belief that they were merely terrorist attacks perpetrated by the al Qaeda network. When I first went to see the documentary, I expected it to elaborate on the events leading to the 9/11 attacks as well as a background of the perpetrators. Furthermore, I expected it to document the progress made by the government in the war on terror and how it was gathering information concerning the eventual capture of Osama bin Laden. However, once I saw the documentary, I was surprised at the different subject matter that it covered and it brought to the fore many questions among which was whether the people of the United States are as free as they believe they are. Furthermore, my curiosity concerning the controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks was aroused because I came to view them from a very different perspective from what I had gotten used to.

The main subject of Fahrenheit 9/11 are the 9/11 attacks and the events which took place prior, during, and after they happened. This documentary show that the Bush, Bin Laden, and Saud families had a long business relationship spanning decades and because of this, they had developed fast friendships. There is an implication that these three families were responsible for staging the 9/11 attacks to create an excuse for the American military machine to be used in attaining their political and economic interests in the Middle East. The documentary makes a display of the realities of the war on terror and how recruiters are used by military to bring in individuals from poor backgrounds to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moore shows that despite its being widely touted as a war on terror, the main intention of this war is to ensure that there are further limitations to the freedoms of American people while at the same time working for the economic interests of a limited number of people. The documentary is filmed in the United States while there is footage from other parts of the world in an attempt to put flesh on its subject matter.

Moore makes constructive uses of sound effects in order to make the audience feel the sinister nature of the documentary’s subject. When he describes the manner through which a conspiracy is hatched to deprive Americans of their freedoms, the sound effects in the background enhance this and make the audience fear for their freedoms. In cases where interviews are being conducted, the lighting is quite sharp and this is used as a means of showing the audience the seriousness of what the interviewees are saying. However, when sinister connections between individuals are displayed, the images are darkened and this evokes an eerie feeling within the person watching the documentary. Important images throughout the documentary are brought into sharp focus especially where Moore is attempting to display such instances as where he is denied access to certain places. The interviews are quite interesting because Moore deals with individuals in a more or less informal manner, making them more comfortable and resulting in their saying more than they normally would have.

The part which I liked the most was that which showed President Bush at a classroom in an elementary school after being told that the World Trade Center had been hit by a plane. The moments that he sat still without taking any action seem to suggest that he may have been party to the attacks taking place. In addition, the documentary provides very important lessons one of which is that there is no need for certain legislation, such as the Patriot Act to be passed out of fear rather than being though through carefully. One of the issues which surprised me in the documentary was the association between the Bush and Bin Laden families which had spanned decades; a fact which I did not know before watching Fahrenheit 9/11. However, a drawback occurs where individuals such as President Bush, who are its subjects, are not interviewed in order to give their side of the story and this creates a situation where the documentary can be considered to be one-sided. Despite this, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary which I would be glad to recommend from my friends because it is one which will open their eyes to the workings of the world and show them that not everything is what it seems.

The U.S. Military should shift its focus from Terrorism

There has recently developed the argument that the time has come for military of the United States to shift its focus from terrorism to other matters which are designed to promote international peace. It is for this reason that many policy makers have increasingly started shifting their attention from the war on terror to other initiatives that involve less military involvement in combat and more on peacekeeping and diplomatic initiatives. According to McAllister (2007), the United States in recent years has come to develop some very close relationships with its former adversaries such as Russia, with which it has developed increasing cooperation in matters concerning nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The main reason for the increased cooperation between these countries, according to McAllister is mainly because of the increasing threats to international security through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states as well as the development of religious radicalism which further increases international insecurity. As world leaders, both the United States and Russia have come to realize that they have a common interest in the containment of security threats and these have been exemplified through the increasing risk of terrorist attacks against the United States as well as the radicalization that is taking place in the Caucasus region of Russia. It is mainly through military cooperation between these states, as seen through bilateral, unilateral, and multilateral initiatives, which have ensured that there is proper distribution of international power in ensuring security. McAllister concludes that while the American and Russian militaries have in recent years seen some level of cooperation, the fact remains that these two countries still have a long way to go before they can be able to fully cooperate in all matters concerning international security. It is for this reason that cases that deal directly with national security are dealt with informally, on a case-by-case starting point.

The military-led war on terror has led to a situation where a large number of suspected terrorists have been detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and it is for this reason that there has been plenty of agitation for the release of some of them, because they are deemed to be innocent. Foley (2007) states that the supporters of the policy of detaining individuals for long periods of time without trial justify their support by declaring that it provides the president with the capacity to contain terrorists and through vigorous interrogation are able to provide details of planned attacks. According to Foley, this plan has been widely criticized from its beginnings because it is a direct violation of human rights and lacks in any moral grounds making in illegal. This use of the military in the interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists, Foley states, has been a complete failure because it has led to the imprisonment of some innocent people who have only confessed to crimes they did not commit because of the fear of torture. The fact that the military is used in the development of indiscriminate dragnets, incarceration as well as the use of coercive interrogations who have not been proven to be terrorists has led to the discrediting of the American military, which many believed is a tool of American injustice. There has developed the risk of intelligence agencies being provided with false information through the false confessions of individuals who do not know anything about what they are talking about and this has led to the increasing misinformation that has hampered the progress of the war on terror. Because of the abject failure of coercive interrogations, the United States government has come to fail to comprehend the connection between detention, interrogation, and detentions and this has led to the failure to sort those individuals who are terrorists from non-terrorists through the judicial process.

It is a fact that many of the individuals who, through military action, have been detained are not accorded any of the constitutional rights that are commonplace among most Americans. This has led to the increasing disillusionment of the families of the individuals that have been detained that they will receive justice by proving their innocence. According to Jenkins (2006), in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the individuals who had been detained by the government on suspicion of being terrorists only had limited rights and that because of this; they had no ability to challenge their status as enemy combatants. Jenkins further states that it was in response to this case that the Bush government formed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), although this tribunal proved not to be effective because it functioned as the propagator of the government’s case against the detainees. This tribunal has proven to apply a broad definition to all of those individuals who have been categorized as enemy combatants and because the detainees are prohibited from having lawyers, they are not able to argue against the tribunal’s decision to detain them indefinitely. The military commissions which were developed by the Bush government to try detainees on charges of terrorism and war crimes have, according to Jenkins, been rigged against the accused. This is mainly because of the fact that these commissions rely completely on the confessions coerced from the detainees through torture, the use of hearsay, as well as the use of soldiers as jurors. Because military commissions have the power of passing the death sentence to those who are brought before them has created a situation where it is extremely difficult for the individuals who have been falsely accused to get out of the situation alive. This is the reason why some innocent detainees, in their attempt to stay alive end up falsely accusing others and confessing to crimes they did not commit as a way of avoiding the death sentence. In addition, Jenkins states that because of the rigged rules that have been put in place in the trials of detainees, it has become the norm for investigators to remain confident that they will win all the cases that are brought before them. This is mainly because investigators have come to see little need to infiltrate terrorist organizations to gain tangible or credible details for their cases, relying on the mostly false confessions of their detainees. Kim and Allard (2008) state that since its development, there have been many challenges faced by the Department of Homeland Security in its attempt to create a common culture within the intelligence agencies under its jurisdiction. It is the development of a common culture between these disparate agencies that, in addition to the military, is essential for the development of a comprehensive antiterrorism strategy. This has not been the case and has led to the failure of intelligence agencies to develop accurate databases, and this has resulted in the failure of some military operations meant to deal with terrorist threats.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States has led to the development of a new American approach to foreign policy which is intimately tied to the security of the nation. According to Miles (2012), the American foreign policy towards Africa has been based on ensuring its security and this has come to rival development as the main reason behind American involvement in this continent. All development programs and projects that are of American origin have attached to them a security dimension, developed by the department of defense, which works hand in hand with such institutions as USAID. Miles argues that the high potential for acts of terrorism to be committed in the United States has led it to adopt policies towards Africa which serve to undermine its development. This is the reason, he states, why it is important for the United States to adopt counterterrorism measures towards Africa which are fairly mild to ensure that it becomes a strategic as well as developmental defense activity. Miles, in the writing of his article uses records as well as a study of the American policies towards the Maghreb region from the Bush through to the Obama administrations. The result of this study is that since the 9/11 attacks, the American policy towards this region has seriously shifted, ensuring that the previously diverse developmental and security initiatives in the region have become converged into one initiative. The result of this has been that there has developed a wide range of sympathetic public opinion throughout Africa towards the American military involvement in their countries, with many believing that they are the best option for deterring terrorism. This, however, has not been the case in American public, where there is a large number of people who question the validity of the military being actively involved in the developmental and security programs of African nations when they can do more in fighting terrorism.

The American military involvement in the war on terror has had an adverse effect on the internal stability of some countries such as Pakistan, which has since the beginning of this initiative, been a staunch American ally. According to Khan (2010), Pakistan’s military alliance with the United States has led to a situation where it is currently facing an internal crisis. This crisis stems from the fact that the government which recently came to power has had to contend with the commitments made by the previous government to the American cause as well as maintaining a stable relationship with its neighbors that has been soured by the war on terror. Khan further states that it is because of Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror that its security has come under threat not only from India, its longtime rival, but also Afghanistan. Khan therefore offers the opinion that the only solution for this situation is for the United States to restrain the activities of India along the border close to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Moreover, according to Mohamadian (2012), there has been numerous debates among scholars concerning the unilateral military actions that the United States has taken in the Middle East which have come to affect diplomacy and international relations. While the intentions of some of these interventions might have been sound, the result has been arise in sectarian violence, especially in Iraq, as well as the prevalence of terrorist attacks, and these have come to threaten the American-led initiative to rebuild the Iraqi state. Furthermore, Ahmad (2010) states that there has developed some friction between the United States’ counterterrorism initiative and the one of Pakistan and this have created a situation where there is conflict between their national interests. Pakistan’s reliance on irregular warfare in its region is one of its instruments of national security and this has come to be challenged by the United States government which seeks to bring these activities to an end, therefore not serving Pakistan’s national interests.

Were Atrocities Committed in Vietnam?

The United States throughout its history has gone to war starting with its war of independence until most recently, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In most of the wars that it has been involved in, there have been claims that the United States military has committed atrocities against the civilian populations of the countries it has invaded. The reports of such atrocities have been reported during the following instances: the Philippine-American war; the Second World War; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; in Yugoslavia in 1999; and finally, during the War on Terror. In this paper, we shall discuss some American atrocities committed during the Vietnam War with specific emphasis on the crimes committed against the noncombat civilian population within Vietnam.

Atrocities such as the killing of noncombat civilians or the torture of prisoners occur in all wars but that it became a particular issue in the Vietnam War. Violence against the civilians of Vietnam by the American military was an intentional act of war and they acted with indifference to the destruction of noncombatants and to that of their property. Most of the military commanders of the United States were aware of the laws governing ground warfare that had been established by various international agreements but atrocities were still committed by some American soldiers and officers. Throughout the entire war, only two hundred and seventy eight soldiers and marines were convicted of murder, rape, and other violent crimes by the military justice system but many more incidents went unpunished or were not even reported. The policy of heavy bombing by in South Vietnam with high explosives and napalm by American forces to support ground operations in and around villages and the widespread use of artillery for the same purpose generated many accidental civilian casualties.

The United States military used herbicides and defoliants as part of its herbicidal warfare in Vietnam, and one of these, known as Agent Orange, was used extensively from 1961 to 1971 in South Vietnam and in portions of North Vietnam. At the time the herbicides were being used, there was little consideration within the American military about the potential long term effects of the widespread use of Agent Orange towards the Vietnamese population. It is further unclear exactly where in Vietnam the Agent Orange herbicides were sprayed and the amount sprayed at each location and this has ensured that virtually every aspect of the effects of this herbicide in Vietnam is infused with uncertainty. These herbicides were used on the crops of the Vietnamese civilians so that the crops could die causing mass starvation. The American army commanders mistakenly believed that starvation would force the Vietnamese population to support the American backed South Vietnamese regime but this turned out to be counterproductive because instead the people lost all confidence in the southern government and secretly supported the North. Another major result of the use of these herbicides was the mass starvation that occurred after their use and a lot of the civilian population, which had nothing to do with the war, died in the resulting famine.

It was the fear, anger, and incentive for promotion or commendation for a high body count (which was a requirement by the military at the time) that led the American soldiers to an over application of their weaponry which constituted atrocities against the civilian population. Individual Vietnamese and sometimes even entire villages could be killed because they were suspected of being the enemy or in certain incidents; they were simply killed just because they got in the way. The Vietnam war, with its tactical use of high altitude bombing and artillery fire, and the search and destroy missions resulted in mass killings. These weapons were used indiscriminately by the American military and in the process many civilians were killed accidentally. The number of these accidental killings may border in the tens of thousands because there were no statistics, whether private or official, at the time to show their extent. Furthermore, while platoons were on missions, their leaders rarely restrained them from committing such acts as would be deemed atrocities in normal human societies. One of the major and most notable of these incidents, due to the high media attention it gained, was the My Lai massacre of 1968.

The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was the mass murder of between three hundred and five hundred Vietnamese civilians in the village of Son My by American soldiers during the Vietnam War. Most of the victims of this massacre were women, children and the elderly and when investigations were carried out, some of the bodies were found to have been mutilated and many of the women had been raped preceding the killings. When news of this massacre first came to light, the army tried to deflect any concern about it by blaming it on the South Vietnamese military. This incident prompted global outrage when it became public and it increase the domestic opposition for the United State’s involvement in Vietnam. The My Lai massacre had numerous complex causes which included psychological stress on the soldiers, poor unit leadership, bad intelligence, and an overall American strategy that put more emphasis on killing than on protecting the people. The American strategy of having body counts to show their progress in their progress in the war was very detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese civilians because they could not be differentiated from the North Vietnamese soldiers who also wore peasant clothing. This led to the American soldiers’ killing of random Vietnamese civilians on suspicion that they were enemy forces. Some soldiers, bent on having a higher body count in order to establish their reputations within the military ranks, wantonly killed Vietnamese civilians in order to raise their counts.

By its nature, atrocity defies rationality, marking the limits of understanding and he uses this to explain what happened in Vietnam. The order to kill anything that moves caused many American soldiers to commit vast and unthinkable atrocities in Vietnam. American platoons had a tendency of waylaying civilians, raping the women among them, and at times murdered them in cold blood. In certain instances, if the American soldiers did not find anybody to fight in the various villages across the countryside of Vietnam, they would instead indulge themselves by raping, torturing, and murdering the hundreds of civilians living within such villages. Most of these cases went unreported because the people of Vietnam at the time did not have did not have any legal authority they could turn to for justice because they were in the middle of a war and furthermore, the government which claimed to represent them (South Vietnam) had allied itself with a foreign power in order to maintain its authority. In fact, the South Vietnamese government actively supported the American involvement in Vietnam despite the fact that atrocities were being committed against its civilian population.

America committed genocide in Vietnam and admits that individual atrocities and war crimes did occur in that country. One would agree with Sevy’s opinion because of the statistics showing the American military casualties of the war. It is said that about fifty eight thousand United States soldiers died in the Vietnamese war and this was despite their having a weapons technology that was far superior to that of their opponents. Now that it has been determined that the Americans had superior weapons, we should now the casualties in the Vietnamese side. If the American lost nearly sixty thousand soldiers despite their superior weapons, it is only logical to assume that the Vietnamese lost many times more that number in armed forces and that would be without counting the civilian casualties of this war. The random killings that were committed by all the armed forces involved in this conflict may put the number of civilian casualties in the millions. It is my suggestion that if the Americans had not involved themselves in the war in the first place, then it would have come to a swift end much sooner than it did.

The American atrocities in Vietnam are real and that they happened on a much grander scale than have been reported. It is up to the United States government to recognize and acknowledge these atrocities and not only do so, but also apologize to the people of Vietnam for committing them. If the American government would do this, then there would definitely be an improvement in the relations between America and Vietnam which would bring them even closer than they are today. Furthermore, America would earn global respect for owning up to its failures and because of this new found respect; America would be able to retain its hegemony over the world with the good will of all the nations of the world. This would be to its advantage especially considering that new world powers, such as China, Russia, and Brazil, are rising to challenge America’s authority as the only world superpower.

The War in Syria: American Blindness to its Realities

The war in Syria has become one of the most controversial issues in the modern world, and mainly because of its beginnings, divisions between major political parties in the United States have been developed. The Syrian war has brought with it huge human casualties, and although it was expected that it would be completed quickly like the Libyan War, thanks to the support of the United States and its allies, the war is currently continuing. This situation has left a lot of doubt among both the Democrats and the Republicans about whether it was reasonable for the United States primarily to participate in the Syrian conflict.

When President Obama announced his intention to attack Syria after what was allegedly the use of the Syrian government's chemical weapons against its own people, the PPS, it is expected that there will be that wide gap between the two sides in Congress. However, this was not so, because in a rare demonstration of unity between Republicans and Democrats, it was widespread to resist any airstrikes against the Syrian government or direct participation of the United States in the conflict. The fact that there was widespread opposition to the United States Participation in Syria on both sides is a true statement about the sensitivity to this issue of the American that the public feels. In the rare case of unity, representatives of both sides seem to have almost unanimously chosen to represent the true feelings of their constituents, who are mostly tired of the war. In fact, the polls showed that the United States should stop concentrating on solving external conflicts and instead focus on solving a growing number of problems in the domestic arena.

Despite the seeming unity of the two sides with regard to Syria, the fact is that the United States government does not have a clear policy towards Syria, and this may be the reason that the conflict lasted for the past two years. This conflict has, however, also created a situation where it has become difficult for the United States to deal with the diverse consequences such as the development of the refugee problem. It is more likely than not that the continuation of the Syrian conflict will create a refugee problem, as Syrian refugees seek to settle in the United States. The fact that Syrian refugees will likely continue seeking asylum in the United States has become a worrying subject in both parties and this is likely to be another issue which will unite the Democrats and the Republicans in a bipartisan way. In addition, the Syrian war has caused US allies in the region, Turkey and Jordan to have such as the influx of refugees that has created a sad situation in these countries. The fact that Democrats and Republicans, despite having been proven that they can work together, have not yet come up with a clear policy towards Syria, is the most alarming. The United States Congress must exert pressure on the government so that it creates a clear policy that will put an end to the Syrian conflict that will provide lasting peace for the Syrian people.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the Assad regime lost its mandate to rule the Syrian people, and because of this, it must go. It has been a standing position of both of these parties since the onset of the conflict. However, because of the changes of the status on the ground due to Russian and Iranian intervention has led to a situation where it is essential to come to an accommodation. The latter step would an extremely important one because it would curb the number of internally displaced persons in the country, but the number of refugees in neighboring countries creating similar situations to those that failed states the situation.

However, the United States has only been indirectly involved in Syria. This process has involved the government, supported by the Democrats, working to support the Syrian rebels in providing weapons and training. There has been coordination with the allies in the region to train militant groups and help them transit to Syria to fight government forces. Although the United States has not been directly involved in the conflict, in the form of boots on the ground, it has worked with its allies to provide logistic support to the rebels, which apparently has been approved by both Democrats and Republicans.

Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.

Historical Injustices Part 1: Palestine

In the contemporary world, numerous historical injustices have yet to be comprehensively addressed. These span the entire globe, with a significant number of them happening in non-Western countries. This case, however, will address two of these injustices, namely the Palestinian and the Kurdish Questions, in an attempt to analyze whether seeking justice for them is still feasible. We begin with the Palestinian Question because it is one of the most well-known in the world, with numerous attempts having been made to bring about an amicable solution between the parties involved.

The Palestinian Question

The Palestinian issue has been ongoing since 1948, when Israel was declared a state and a homeland for all the Jews in the world. This state was formed in land long settled by Palestinians and the creation of this state by immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world, was not taken well by the natives of the land. The result has been that since then, Israelis and Palestinians (with their allies) have fought numerous wars and seen considerable tensions that have led to a situation where the Palestinians have lost a majority of their homeland.

A large number of Palestinians have ended up in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and others have become part of the Palestinian diaspora, especially in Western countries. Through its systematic expansion of its settlements in the occupied lands of Palestine, Israel has been able to disposes the Palestinians without much international criticism. Furthermore, some settlements in the occupied territories have existed for several generations, resulting in a situation where a status quo has been created. It is unlikely that the Jewish settlers will accept to leave homes that they have occupied for many years in order to make way for the formation of a Palestinian state. Any attempt to remove them has the potential of causing considerable conflict with whatever party that is involved. In addition, such a move would not be feasible because of the military superiority of Israel over the various Palestinian factions, which has forced the continued subjugation of Palestinians in their own land to date.

The two-state solution that has been promoted for decades is no longer feasible. This is because of the considerable number of settlements that have been created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian lands. Therefore, in order for lasting peace to be achieved, serious consideration for a one-state solution has to be put on the table. This is because Israel has already established its dominance over the entire land, and while they may have their own government, Palestinians are still essentially subject to Israel.

Instead of continuing to seek a two state solution that will never materialize, it would be better for both parties to make use of the current status quo to further the objective of establishing a single state for both Israelis and Palestinians. All that needs to be done is for Palestinians to be given the same rights and privileges as their Israeli counterparts in exchange for their giving up on their national identity and becoming a part of a multicultural society. Such a move could effectively lead to the end of one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

Twenty-first Century Nationalism in Europe

One of the most significant developments following the Financial Crisis has been the increase in the power of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe, and a nationalist tilt in the United States. The nationalism that has arisen seems to be because of the considerable fear that local populations have developed in recent years about their economic and social future. Most of the states within which nationalist feelings have become prevalent, such as in Britain, France, Hungary, and Poland, have had varying histories with the first two having been colonial powers while the last two were for decades occupied by or under the influence of the Soviet Union. In this post, however, we will discuss the situation in France and Britain.

Britain and France attracted a large number of immigrants from their own colonies and this trend has continued during the post-colonial period despite the restrictions that have been put in place. The large number of immigrants in these two countries, especially because of their membership in the EU, has come to be sen as a threat not only to their cultural identity, but also to the economic security of the native populations. A consequence is that there has developed a backlash that has not only led to the increase in the number of people supporting right-leaning parties like UKIP and the Nationalist Front in Britain and France respectively, but also a backlash against refugees from such volatile countries as Iraq and Syria. The failure of the EU to address these concerns has led has led to Brexit, which is an event that was so unexpected that the rest of EU member states have yet to come to terms with it. A potential withdrawal of France from the EU if it does not change its open-border policy to refugees might just happen.

Incidents of terrorism that have hit France the hardest among EU member states have empowered the political right of this country. The potential of some members of ISIS coming into the country among the refugees and committing acts of terror against the people of France has led to public opinion tilting towards the right. Thus, among the most liberal states in Europe concerning immigration and refugees, France and Britain might both end up not only blocking refugees from entering their borders, but might also leave the EU and its European dream a shadow of its former self. The EU has to act in order to maintain its composition and remain a strong voice on the world stage.