Gasland (2010)

One of the most espoused ideals of this century has been environmentalism, which can be defined is a philosophy that is based on the concept of conserving the natural environment through addressing issues that concern various human activities. It is a fact that most of the activities which are addressed by environmentalism involve the pollution of the environment through industrial activities such as the extraction of natural gas by oil and gas companies. The documentary Gasland is an attempt to create awareness, within the American public, of the effects of that attempts made by gas companies to extract natural gas in rural America have on the environment. This film has created a new awareness in the public concerning the devastating environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing, which is one of the means through which natural gas is extracted in the mainland United States. This means of gas extraction, also known as fracking, is done through the injection of chemicals and massive quantities of water at high pressures with the intention of cracking open the rocks deep beneath the surface and as a result releasing the natural gas. This method has helped in the emergence of the natural gas boom across the United States, but as the film shows, there has developed proof that this method of gas extraction is leading to the contamination of water as well as leaking into homes. The film works towards the establishment of means through which these issues concerning the conservation of the American environment can be discussed and viable solutions for the environmental problems caused by these activities by oil and gas companies can be found. It can further be said that this film deals with the preservation, the development, and the return of the American natural environment to the state in which it was previously.

The film’s director, states that his father received a proposal from a gas company for the latter to be allowed to drill for natural gas in his property using the fracking method. At this time, this was a new method which can be considered to be extreme for the purpose of extracting natural gas through the pumping of water and toxic chemicals into the ground at extremely high pressures to fracture the rock formations that contain the natural gas. In the film, it is stated that previously, the main method that was used for the extraction of natural gas was through the drilling into the ground until a pocket of gas was hit and this gas was captured as it rose. The director states that one of the reasons why he started making the film is because he started to wonder how it was that all of a sudden his family and their neighbours were in a gas drilling area when prior to this, their area had never had any kind of industrial development. In the film, the fact that the fracking method is causing environmental damage is worrisome and disturbing and it is because of the use of these methods by the various gas companies that the beautiful, scenic and amazing landscape of the United States is being destroyed. The director of the film, who also serves as the narrator, states that at least fifty percent the state of New York as well as sixty percent the state of Pennsylvania is being leased to gas companies for the purpose of drilling for gas using the fracking method. Throughout the film, it is seen that the land in the United States is being handed over to gas prospecting companies at an alarming rate with many of the individuals doing so, mostly farmers, not realising that doing so is resulting in the destruction of their natural environment.

One would say that the film is mostly made up of a series of interviews and it can be considered to be one which shows profound respect for the people from different places across the United States that are interviewed. It can further be said that because of the respect that is displayed by the film’s director that the individuals who are interviewed are so forthcoming with the information that they have to give concerning the effects of fracking on their environment as well as its direct effects on their lives. The film is able to show how the use of the fracking method has come to put those areas in which it is used in an environmental crisis and the people who are affected the most by this environmental degradation seem to be more than willing to talk to the film’s director about their problems. The means through which the director seems to conduct his interviews seem to be down to earth and this not only engages the individuals being interviewed but also the audience of the film as they become more interested and engaged in the arguments being made. One of the factors which make the film more interesting to the viewer and is able to pass its message across is that the director is able to incorporate what the individuals who are being interviewed are saying and doing into the main story of the film and this enables the director to pass his message across from the direct perspective of those individuals affected. It seems that the main aim of the film’s director is to ensure that he attempts to find the most profound factors about fracking that have come to affect the interviewees and because of this, his attempts are rewarded by a straightforward response to his enquiries.

Music plays an important role in the film because it comes to affect the way in which the message of the film is being relayed. Music is what makes the message of the film gain some sort of character because it enables the viewer to recognise the gravity of the message as it is being passed across. It is what gives the interviews in the film the desired effect when the director attempts to make a point concerning the fracking method of gas extraction. Music is also used by the film’s director to display the irony behind the various statements made by some of the leaders in the gas industry as well as some of the politicians who are in full support of the use of the faracking method in the mainland United States. The power of music in this film is so profound that its audience cannot help it but be engrossed in the subject matter of the film without any more prompting. It can be said that music is the soul of this film and it is meant to get in touch with the emotions of its audience as it is used to display the various areas where the director is heading. For example, one hears music from Preston Reed as the director heads into Colorado and this provides the setting for the material which he would like for his audience to hear and absorb.

When one watches this film, he will come to the conclusion that while many environmentalist groups profess to fight for the conservation of the American environment since many of them tend to defeat their own purpose for doing so. One of the reasons why the environmentalist groups have been defeated in their purpose is because they do not have enough awareness concerning how the use of the fracking method of natural gas extraction is slowly but surely destroying the environment of the United States. This is the reason why Gasland is extremely important since it helps to raise awareness concerning the destruction of the environment by gas companies starting from his home state of Pennsylvania to the rest of the United States where gas companies are either involved or propose to get involved in the extraction of natural gas using the fracking method. While it is a fact that most of the gas companies have come out to vehemently oppose the film, making use of all the public relations strategies available to them to discredit its validity, it is the duty of all the environmentalist groups in the country as well as all the people concerned to oppose the use of fracking method by the gas companies as well as ensure that the government is pressured into passing laws which regulate these companies.

In conclusion, it can be said that the idea that gas companies retain control of their own matters concerning drilling especially when these methods endanger the environment has come to be challenged in the film since at present, actors other than governments have come to be key players in the environmental issue. There has been a shift from having regional meetings to implementation of initiatives that are localized and formation of partnerships in order to be able to combat the causes of environmental problems that affect various countries. The time has come when the government should shift their strategies to involve those tactics which are able to enhance the prospects that will implement effective management of the environment starting from the local level of the society.

Leadership Styles of Baby boomers and Millennials

The economic recession that has in the last few years come to affect the United States has had a huge impact in the lives of many Americans today. This impact has not only been on the economy, but it has also come to affect the working environment of people all over the nation. The economic recession hit the United States at a time when the Baby Boomer generation was on its way to retirement. Many of the members of this generation were not prepared for such an occurrence and this left them without any savings or a means to support themselves after retirement. This created a situation where many baby boomers had no choice other than to continue on with their current employment, and for those who had retired, to look for jobs in order to make a living. The workplace therefore came to be filled with people who would, under normal circumstances, have retired, creating a potential for conflict with the younger generation of employees. The fact that many baby boomers are currently still in the job market has created plenty of competition between them and the current young generation, the millennials. The millennials are those who are currently between the ages of eighteen and their early thirties, and as the most youthful generation, they are finding it much harder than their predecessors to either find jobs and to keep them. In addition, even after they get these jobs, their style of doing their work is much different from the way the baby boomers did things. This has come to raise questions concerning the attitudes towards work that is displayed by the baby boomer and the millennial generations.

It is a fact that the leadership styles of the baby boomers and the millennials in the workplace are quite different from each other. Each of these generations tends to have different ways of dealing with situations which enable them to achieve the goals set by the organization for which they work. The baby boomer generation tends to be completely obsessed with the achievement of results no matter the cost incurred. Since most organizations are headed by baby boomers, the main drive of these institutions tends to be the making of a profit and this has led to conflict with the millennial generation, which is more conscious of the social responsibilities of the organizations for which they work. In matters of leadership, the baby boomers and the millennials tend to have a conflict when it comes to matters concerning integrity and ethics at the workplace. Many millennials believe that when the leadership of an organization ceases to implement the original goals of an organization and instead concentrates only at making a profit at any cost, then this leadership has ceased to be ethical and steps should be take to have such leadership removed. In order to be effective, the leadership of an organization has to have integrity and this means that they have to stick by what they regard to be ethically necessary or worthwhile. It is therefore necessary for an organization’s leadership to have certain coherence in matters of ethics, either between ethical values over time or between values and behavior. Millennials believe that leaders should ensure that their goals or objectives are harmonious with those of the organizations that they lead so that matters concerning ethics do not arise in the day to day running of the organization. Without leadership integrity in an organization, there can be no ethical leadership and this is because integrity and ethics are things which are inseparable especially when one is considering the running of an organization whose reputation depends on how its leadership is running it. While this is a fact, many millennials often find that their workplace is frustrating because many of the baby boomer managers tend not to show any sort of integrity at the workplace, often keeping the millennials in the background where they cannot be able to make their ideas heard or implemented.

Most organizations tend to have a corporate culture whose purpose is to govern the ways through which the people who work within the organization work, interact with one another, and work together towards the achievement of its goals. Furthermore, this culture is heavily influenced by the signs and symbols which an organization is recognized by and this determines the way the people who work within this organization behave, thus they are the embodiment of the organization’s culture. While this is the case, there has been a swift shift in the corporate culture of many organizations as the millennial generation has started going up the ranks of leadership in different organizations. While in the baby boomer generation, corporate culture was based on the formal interaction between employees, the millennial generation has influenced the introduction of a more informal atmosphere at the workplace. While there is still a shared language in many organizations, which is very important in the development of a corporate culture because language is the adhesive that holds a society together and without a common means of communication within the organization, then it would collapse, the way this language is communicated seem to have changed. It is a fact that each generation has its way of expressing itself and this is true of the baby boomer and millennial generations at the workplace, where the latter tend to express themselves in a way that many of the latter do not understand, and the reverse is also true. Furthermore, while the corporate culture in many organizations run by bloomers tends to separate work from their personal lives, in those run by millennials, the opposite is often the case. Millennials prefer working in an informal environment and this has enabled them to bring their work and personal lives together. It is therefore not a strange thing to find that most millennials prefer working from home than at the office. In most instances one will find that it is the baby boomers that prefer working at the office, since this favor keeping their work away from home. Although it is a very difficult thing to happen, the culture of a particular organization is subject to change and this has often come about because of the generational conflict between the millennial and the baby boomer generation. While this change does not come easily, it comes about when more of the latter generation retires and more of the millennial generation takes its place. This has caused the development of a culture where individuals are more attached to their work than previous generations. Millennials, despite their high attachment to their work are also quite strict concerning having time to themselves. Unlike the baby boomers, who would work long hours without going for breaks, millennials prefer working for a certain time and then afterwards do something else which is not work related.

All workplaces have many subcultures which interact with one another for the sake of the running of the achievement of the goals that have been set for the employees. Despite the fact that baby boomers and the millennials sometimes work within the same environment, these two generations do not always see eye to eye on many issues concerning work. Although this is the case in most instances, the two generations have been, out of necessity, forced to work together. Each of these generations have created its own characteristics and sense of identity and an example of this is within the workplace where employees can easily classify themselves socially according to their areas of specialization, membership in a particular union, and age. Although these generations may be diverse, each of them is developed for the purpose of furthering the goals of the organization through different means. In the baby boomer generation, people tended to have mentors in the workplace that would inspire and guide them through their careers. The millennial generation, on the other hand, tends to be extremely independent, preferring to navigate their own way through their career paths. They often see any advice from their bosses, who are more often than not, baby boomers, as being too paternalistic and unwanted. The workplace culture is slowly changing as the baby boomer generation is giving way, grudgingly, to the millennial generation and this is ensuring that the formal workplace environment is becoming informal. While many millennials, just like the baby boomers take their work extremely seriously, this seriousness tends to be accompanied by an informality which many baby boomers would find uncomfortable to work in. Baby boomers tend to take their work so seriously that everything that they do has to be done formally. In such instances where meetings are needed to clarify different things at the workplace, while baby boomers would prefer meeting in a boardroom for a fact to fact consultation, millennials prefer the use of technology to achieve the same goal. The latter have adopted new means of communication, such as social networking, and adapted to them so well that they have become a permanent part of their lives.

The baby boomers are a generation who were taught to function more as individuals than as teams at the workplace. They prefer working in a strictly structured environment with as little feedback as possible coming to them. This is in direct contrast to the millennial generations, who not only prefers working in teams, for greater efficiency, but also has a need for constant consultation with their managers. In order to better manage their workplaces, many of the baby boomer generation, to their credit, have come to adopt teamwork in order to be able to interact more with the millennial generation. This ensures that the employees are able to function as a team to achieve the aims of the organization. Working in teams is a means through which closer ties can be developed between the top management of an organization, who are often bay boomers, with its employees of the millennial generation. The close ties that are developed between these teams help in the reinforcement of the skills of the workforce in such areas as attitude, and knowledge. While previously, many baby boomers and millennials were wary of each other in the workplace, with the former feeling threatened by the possibility of being replaced, while the latter felt resentful because they felt that the baby boomers were not allowing them to advance at a pace which was suitable. It has come to be found that for the two generations to be able to work together there are certain factors, such as corporate culture and policy, the working environment and professional activities, which should not be seen as justifiable in the determination of the effectiveness of the task and responsibility. This has created the need for team building to ensure that the gap between the two generations has been bridged, so that each of them can be able to teach the other about what they know, to the benefit of both of them in doing their work. Team building between members of the baby boomer and the millennial generations at the workplace should be enforced entirely so that it can be incorporated as one of the compulsory norms and values of the institution's corporate culture. Furthermore, there has been the revelation that the skills such as communication skills, the ability to handle crisis and problems in the workplace, the traits of information sharing and motivation amongst workers between the two generations can be extremely helpful in making the workplace more efficient.

Leadership in the workplace is one of the areas where the baby boomers and the millennials have both major differences and similarities about. Both of these generations believe in strong leadership in the workplace to ensure that all the employees are able to effectively implement what their leader wants. This enables the employees within an organization to know exactly what their leader wants and exactly how that leader wants it done and these employees are able to completely focus on the achievement of their leader’s vision. It is a common belief among workers of both generations that the leader that shows integrity in his work and in his vision will definitely inspire his subordinates to follow his example in their own work and this will ensure that a high level of ethics are practiced within an organization because of the ethical leadership inspired by the integrity of the organization’s leader. However, the difference comes not on the area of strength but on how the leader is to present himself to the workers. Baby boomers believe that for a leader to be more effective, he or she has to not only show strength of character towards the workers, but should also remain aloof so that the latter can have the opportunity to do their own work properly. Furthermore, baby boomers in the workplace today believe that they are being overworked and are shown very little appreciation by their leaders. This has created a situation where many have become disgruntled and only continue to work not because they love the job, but because they need an income to maintain themselves. Millennials on the other hand believe in more interaction between the leader and the other workers in the workplace. Millennials have been raised in a culture where there is need to have employment which has meaning to an individual and this has encouraged them to seek more interaction with their supervisors at work. The need to have meaning in work has ensured that many millennials do not stay on one job for too long because of their endeavor to seek meaning and fulfillment, something that is often elusive if one is not determined to find it. It has therefore become a culture among millennials to be constantly learning from their superiors in the workplace in a bid to not only create a path for their own advancement, but also for the purpose of creating space for themselves in the management positions which are currently dominated by the baby boomer generation.

In conclusion, it can be said that while the baby boomers and the millennials may have different attitudes concerning work and the workplace, both of these generations’ attitudes have been formed from the environment within which they were raised. In fact, while the baby boomers may feel differently from the millennials, when it comes to work, it is a fact that a large majority of the millennials was raised by the baby boomers, and it is this environment which has formed their attitudes. Moreover, one would say that these two generations are not as different as many think because of the fact that one generation raised the other. This means that the attitude towards work that is displayed by the millennials, is in fact, the very same attitude that is held by many of the baby boomer generation, only the former are more open about these ideas than the latter. One would further go on to say that the only major difference between these generations is age, and the other differences would not be there had there not been an economic recession which forced both generations to compete for work.

Raging Bull (1980)

Among the greatest films of the drama genre is 1980’s Raging Bull, which starred Robert De Niro as the boxer Jake La Motta and all the evidence from the film suggests that De Niro paid a lot of attention to the details concerning La Motta’s life so as to be as close to the historical record as possible. The making of Raging Bull seems to pay a lot of attention to the issues concerning realism, history and artistic truth, which are the main ingredients in the making of successful dramas. The way through which the actor perceives his role on screen allows him to make an accurate depiction of the emotions that a real life individual, such a Jake La Motta, experienced. The heart of Raging Bull is based on the ability of De Niro to recreate the life of La Motta in particular moments of his life since this enable his to portray the truth concerning La Motta’s daily reality. In the making of the film, De Niro had to immerse himself into the various aspects of La Motta’s life during the different periods of his life, from when he was at his peak to when he was at his worst, and this was with the aim of ensuring that he understood the realities of the role that he was playing. De Niro seems to have take to heart not only the emotional depictions of La Motta but also his physical ones since he worked towards achieving a physique that was as close to La Motta’s as possible. These attributes enabled De Niro to become a living representation of the life of La Motta on film and it allowed Raging Bull to become a critically acclaimed success for many years.

The immersion of De Niro into the life of La Motta is evident in the film as seen through the way he portrays La Motta’s life from the peak of his success as a boxing champion, to his marriage, the jealousy that he has over his wife’s affairs, his estrangement from his brother, and his eventual fall from grace as he has bad encounters with the law. In addition, De Niro took up a training regimen to ensure that he had the body and the making of a boxer and this can be attested to in all the fight scenes in the film. According to La Motta’s own account, De Niro trained with him on a daily basis for over a year in order to achieve the required physical form for the film. The film attempts to recreate all the major fights that La Motta had ever fought in his career in a way that is as realistic as possible and this allows it not only to bring La Motta closer to the audience, but also serves the purpose of showing the level of dedication that De Niro had in preparation for filming. It is evidence for the dedication needed for the filming of drama such as Raging Bull, from the actors who have to completely change their lifestyle so that they can achieve both the physical and emotional form that it needed for the accurate depiction of the various themes involved in the film. The result of such dedication is often the realistic depiction of the film which enables it to be able to connect with its potential audiences at a personal and empathetic level that is as close as possible to their daily real life problems.

Among the biggest concerns of actors who have been selected to portray characters in drama films is whether they can be able to be convincing to the audience. The same thing happened to De Niro and this is the reason why he sought to gain some experience in the boxing ring in preparation for the filming. In addition, De Niro accurately depicts La Motta’s obsession with weight throughout the film and he does this through gaining and losing weight in real life so that he can also adequately depict the emotional dilemma that La Motta had concerning his weight. In the film, De Niro attempts to recapture the specific gestures that La Motta made during his fights as a way of ensuring accuracy and these are used to underline the actor’s naturalistic and historically informed depiction of his role in Raging Bull. Each of the scenes in the film, even the fight scenes, is highly emotional affairs which enable the audience to become directly involved with La Motta, understanding his motivations as well as the circumstances behind the successes and failures that he experienced in his life. This film, however, works towards the clearing of some of the negative images of La Motta during his public and private life as a professional boxer. It attempts to show that, like any other person, La Motta was also human, with all faults and failings that are associated with the race. The image of La Motta that is brought about by the film is that of a person with many complexities. It partially burnishes the common public image of La Motta as being a ruthless boxer who would stop at nothing, nor hesitate in the ring in order to achieve victory. It shows that although his actions seemed to be ruthless on the outside, La Motta still had a conscience, and he often reflected on these actions. Another image of La Motta that comes forth in the film is that of being a player in significant historical events, which ended up being disastrous for him in a personal manner since he ended up losing almost everything that was important to him. La Motta shows some regret for some of the actions he took in his belief that he was doing his best to ensure that he was not only successful professionally, but that his family was also maintained. Despite this, La Motta not repentant, and it is quite possible that the regret he displays is the closest thing to an apology that he is going to make to his fans and admirers for his actions. The film gives a rare glimpse at a man who was both enormously respected and admired by many.

This is an emotional film to watch because it does not have any action but it instead deals with the emotional aspects of the people within it. It has a powerful plot which curiously creates an environment that displays the day to day lives of the characters. When one watches this film, one comes to the conclusion that life is a journey which has its ups and downs and that the best way to handle this transition should not be resistance, but acceptance. In addition, the self-destructive acts that leads to the end of La Motta’s professional career, something which he depends on to earn a living, is highly symbolic. The film itself is not boring because of the heavy drama which is involved in every scene. The camera work is done so well that this film can be considered to be a rare phenomenon in the American film industry of the 1970s. In conclusion, it can be said that this film is highly revelatory of the life and times of Jake La Motta. 

Control Room (2004)

Control Room is a documentary whose main intention is to clear the name of the Al Jazeera reporting of the Iraq war, since in the United States, members of the Bush administration referred to this channel as the mouthpiece of terrorist organizations, most especially, Al Qaeda. This documentary seeks to show that this belief is not true and that it is merely propaganda to discredit its image. When one watches this documentary, one would not fault the way Al Jazeera covered the news during the Iraq war because it is revealed that the coverage was balanced and to the point. Al Jazeera showed the true picture of the war and not what the American government wished for its people to see; the realities of the war. In fact, if one carefully considers the information which this channel broadcast during this war, there would be a realization that the American public would not have supported such a war had they seen what it did not, only to the Arabs of Iraq, but also to the American men and women who went to fight in the war. Control Room is an eye opener towards some of the events which took place in Iraq and how these events were covered by the Al Jazeera network. It reveals that, despite the statements made against it by the Bush administration, none of the statements made were true and were, in fact, an attempt to cover up the truth about the war from the American public. This documentary is an attempt to show the news about the Iraq war, not from the perspective of the media of the west, but that of the region in which the war occurred.

The first scenes of this documentary seem to reinforce the belief that it is a network whose sole purpose is the spread of anti-American propaganda. The people who are seen working behind the scenes are all dressed in traditional Arab headgear, and when the American president issues an ultimatum to the Iraqi president, it is seen that those observing in the room jeer at the former. While, for many, this would reinforce the stereotype that has come to plague the Al Jazeera network, the truth is that the scene was inserted in the documentary to show that this network is not as different from those in the west as many would think. The documentary reveals that the statements by President Bush and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that Al Jazeera was the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden and that it was the centre of anti-American propaganda in the United States are completely unfounded. In fact, it is revealed that the exact opposite is the truth; that Al Jazeera is a network which is dedicated to presenting balanced news about the Middle East to the entire world. It is not mired down by state or political interests but in the interest of providing quality news. This documentary takes the audience behind the scenes, and reveals the people who are behind the collection of the news that is presented at Al Jazeera. While this network is much disliked and thought of in a negative light by some people, it has one of the largest viewer bases in the world, competing with such channels as BBC and CNN. During the Iraq war, this network was among the one with the most presence in the country, and it lost several journalists who were caught in American bombing while doing their jobs on the ground. In an attempt to achieve objectivity in its coverage of the war, it showed images of American servicemen and Iraqis who had been killed in the war, as well as the destruction which accompanied the deaths. Such images were rarely if at all, shown by the media of the West which reveals that Al Jazeera was more objective than they were. Such situations came to be seen as this network working against the interests of America, something which the documentary reveals to be untrue.

The documentary is shot at the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and it is here that the image of this network as a producer of anti-American propaganda is burnished. Instead, what is revealed is an image of people who work hard just like in other networks to bring the news from the field and present it to the public. What is shown is that it is not a network of propaganda as some have put it, but one which functions regularly. In fact, the documentary shows that the biases against the network do not stem from the network’s actions, but from the various administrations in the west, particularly the United States. The documentary does not just reveal information from one side, but it works towards showing what people from the other side think. Among those who are interviewed is Josh Rushing who is a media liaison for the American military and has a strong belief in the correctness of America’s mission in Iraq. There is also one Hassan Ibrahim, a journalist who works for the BBC and whose only mission in his work is to find out the truth. Both of these people reveal their true feelings concerning America’s mission in Iraq and the role of the media in its coverage. The stance taken by these men on various matters can be a surprise to many who watch the documentary as they show just how difficult it is to achieve objectivity in the coverage of any news story. There is also the revelation from some of those interviewed that they have a strong commitment to democracy and that they, in fact, immensely admire the constitution of the United States. This would surprise many in the wet because of the fact that most of the countries of the Middle East, in which Al Jazeera is based, are autocracies or absolute monarchies. This crumbles the common western stereotype that Al Jazeera is for the sole purpose of inflaming the Middle Eastern public against the American government and people. Instead, the image of a news network that is dedicated to the objective presentation of news to the world is revealed. The documentary serves as a redeemer for the tarnished image of Al Jazeera and presents it as a network deserving of merit for the work that it does.

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.

African Americans and Japanese Americans During WWII and its Aftermath

African Americans and Japanese Americans had a long history of discrimination in the country and this became worse during and after the Second World War when many of them came to be segregated along racial lines. The history of discrimination against these two communities tended to be extreme because they were treated as lesser human beings who had no rights. Therefore, despite having been in America for several generations already, these groups came to face many challenges especially during the war and post-war period.

When the African Americans who had been to the war returned home, they came with new ideas acquired from their experiences in the warzone in Europe. While they were in Europe, they had been treated on an equal basis by the white people of that continent and this made them realise their rights as human beings. Those from the south had a new mindset which would eventually lead them to ensuring that their rights as human beings were respected and that the Jim Crow South did not remain as it had been previously.

The fact that African Americans came to realise their rights and demanded them did not go down well within the white dominated society. This period came to see heavy attacks on the African Americans by the white establishment, especially in the south where many were attacked in broad daylight in full view of the police who did nothing to protect these people (Hobson, 356). It was the escalation of these attacks as well as the discrimination in other sectors of the social and economic life of the United States that there developed the Civil Rights Movement whose main purpose was to fight for the rights of the African Americans.

After the Pearl Harbour attacks in the United States, where the Imperial Japanese navy attacked the United States on its own soil, it was the Japanese Americans who came to face the brunt of the public anger that developed. The Japanese Americans were innocent of any involvement in these attacks yet they were increasingly viewed with suspicion by the mainstream American society. This situation became worse once the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies, since the Japanese Americans were made to leave their homes and moved into detention camps because of the suspicion that there were Japanese spies among them (Staub 1238).

The fact that they were detained by their own government despite having lived in the United States for generations and having broken all ties with Japan was a sign that they had not been fully accepted into American society. Those who were detained in these camps, when eventually set free, were much traumatised because they failed to see the reason why they had been detained in the first place. Just because they looked different form the rest of the American people and that their ancestors originally came from a country which had attacked the United States was not a valid reason for their discrimination and this they came to realise as a violation of their fundamental rights as Americans.