As Kim Jong-il’s health has continued to deteriorate–suffering from a stroke, kidney failure, and many other problems–the issue of his successor has been brought up. According to reports in the New York Times, Mr. Kim is expected to announce his third youngest son, Kim Jong-un. This would be the first time ever that a Communist country has been able to have a third generation dynastic rule take place.

Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until 1994. Following his death, Kim John-il took over; however, he had been preparing throughout the 70s and 80s to become the ruler. In the 1980 party congress, he was given senior level jobs which geared him for his inevitable position as ruler of North Korea. It is expected that this will happen with Jonh-un.

For this to happen, though, there need to be military support. It’s believed by some that the Cheonan sinking was probably a move orchestrated to demonstrate to the generals of the army how serious Jong-un is about being ruler. It wouldn’t be the first time someone in the Kim family used political brinkmanship to elevate themselves. He is known to have ordered random attacks–the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 was ordered personally by him–in order to demonstrate his ability in front of the army.

Fortunately for the Kim Family, it appears that Jong-un already has that support. In an article published by the Atlantic Council last year, they posted a short comment by one of North Korea’s top generals. He is quoted as saying, “We will firmly carry on the blood-line of Mangyongdae and Mount Paektu with our guns, faithfully upholding the leadership of our supreme commander.”

Despite the fact that Jong-un is being prepped for leadership, he won’t assume control until Kim Jong-il is dead. That could take many years. It took 14 for Kim’s father to die and to become ruler himself after being appointed. However, what this presents is a tricky situation for the government.

We know how Kim Il-sung behaved as ruler of North Korea. And, we had a pretty good idea how Kim Jong-il would behave as ruler. However, since nothing is known about Kim Jong-un, it’s difficult for analysts to determine just what kind of a ruler he is. However, considering he is described as “a twentysomething as obsessed with Jean Claude Van Damme and drinking as he is with military might and Pyongyang’s nuclear pride,” chances are, he’s going to be a tricky situation.

So, what does that mean for America?

Because nothing is known about him and because it’s very likely that he’s willing to continue in his father’s footsteps in being crazy to a T, things are going to get very bumpy and very uncertain. He’s unpredictable. He’s a drunken man who loves the fact that he’ll have military power. That’ll lead to a considerable amount of hostility that might flow over to a possible conflict with South Korea. Is it certain? No. But, if he’s willing to make attempts at getting what he wants no matter the cost, a war is not unlikely.

However, this is also a great break for the United States. To begin with, China would secretly hope that North Korea be taken over by a military regime, thus allowing for the status quo to continue. China continues to get access to the $6 trillion in cheap mineral wealth and in return, North Korean generals get limousines. With Kim’s son coming into power instead, it leaves China a little uncertain about the future. Will they still have access to the cheap resources or will he, potentially, try and make more money from it? If you want a better tank, you have to have more money to buy it.

China has continuously had to back up North Korea, but if Jong-un becomes too much of a hassle with his consistent brinkmanship, will China continue to support the country? If Jong-un tries to pull the resources away, chances are, that won’t happen. But, if the resources are pulled and the military loses out on its limousines and new equipment, will the generals stay loyal to him?

Little is known now because little is known about Kim Jong-un. What is known is that this is going to be a very uncertain period of time. Expect hostilities on the Korean peninsula. As Kim Jong-il tries to prepare his son to take the helm, anticipate that there will be more naval clashes and potentially some land clashes. If it escalates to full blown war, it might be one of the only cases where nuclear powers fight.

It is because of that need for an ally that the ultimatum put forth by President Obama to Turkey is an incredible weakness in our foreign policy. On May 31, 2010, nine activists died on a Turkish vessel when Israeli soldiers boarded the vessel headed for Israel. This caused tensions between Israel and Turkey to mount. Turkey and Israel no longer see eye to eye–which is unfortunate because Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel–and that is where President Obama comes into play.

Obama has promised to not sell the weapons that Turkey wants if they don’t change their stance on Israel and Iran. They want to see relations with Israel get better and they want to see more pressure put on Iran. If this doesn’t happen, President Obama won’t sell weapons to the country.

This is a horrible mistake President Obama is making and for so many reasons. More importantly, it is so short-sighted and demonstrates nothing to the rest of the world.

To begin with, we need to look at the fact that the United States continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia where many of the 9/11 hijackers came from and continues to sell weapons to Pakistan despite the fact they have only participated in killing al-Qaeda and Taliban in their mountains with half effort. Despite all of this, we continue to sell them weapons. However, because Turkey doesn’t do exactly what we want when it comes to Israel, suddenly we are willing to get rid of one of our most important allies?

If we continue to pressure Turkey in the wrong way, we are going to lose out on the support we need in Iraq. While major combat missions have come to an end in Iraq, there are still 50,000 soldiers there. We are still going to need bases to provide resources to them. Turkey has always been that base, but if we turn to them and say, “We’re not selling you weapons,” we could see a reversal on our ability to use their bases for our aircraft. Is it really worth losing out on one of those powerful allies just because Israel and Turkey aren’t exactly happy with each other?

I understand the need to keep Israel safe–I think America does too much to do this–but that doesn’t mean we can just turn our back on an ally like Turkey because they don’t want to agree with everything Israel does. The support that we can get from Turkey is incredible and we need to keep that in mind.

Thomas PM Barnett referred to it as a “realism deficit–definitely on our side.” Realistically, it’d be nice if we were able to get them to agree with Israel. However, that’s not realism right now. Realistically, Israel and Turkey are a little tense. They’ll work things out, though. Both are mature nations that want to develop more than they want to wage a war.

The United States cannot threaten to hold back on arms sales because a country doesn’t agree with everything we say. If they are giving those weapons to terrorists, I understand holding out. But, if they are just not agreeing with everything we say, that doesn’t mean we should hold out; especially when we need their support in our War on Terrorism.

President Obama has demonstrated that he does have some understanding of foreign policy. Unfortunately, with a policy like this, it demonstrates how short-sighted the administration is. If we want to keep the bases open in Turkey, we need to understand that we can’t just make threats and promise to cut deals. An agreement is two sided and that’s something the United States should really begin learning. If we just demand and don’t give–such as taking away arms because of a ridiculous demand–we can expect to lose out on strong allies.

As the August 31st deadline for combat operations in Iraq to come to an end, those that are going to take control from the military are civilians. Specifically, it will the State Department that will, come October 2011, assume control of all the operations within the country. Never before has the State Department worked on its own separate from the military, so it will be a decisive situation that will determine whether the System Administrators can really work.

The System Administrators, otherwise known as the SysAdmin, is a term coined by Thomas P.M. Barnett. While the SysAdmin has been going on since the Surge took place–and really, it has been going on since Saddam Hussein’s government collapsed–with the State Department taking over, it demonstrates a clear change from war fighting to stabilization and development. Head over to Dr. Barnett’s site to read up on the SysAdmin.

In a nut shell, the SysAdmin is the second half of the fight. At first, you’ve got the Leviathan–which is the heavy hitting military–going in and defeating the main threat. Following this, you have the SysAdmin military forces go in which handle things such as, “stability and support operations” (SASO), postconflict stabilization and reconstruction operations, “humanitarian assistance/disaster relief” (HA/DR), and any and all operations associated with low-intensity conflict (LIC), counterinsurgency operations (COIN), and small-scale crisis response.” However, we are reaching a point where the military is pulling out and that leads to the civilian take over.

Barnett goes on to say that, “While the core security and logistical capabilities are derived from uniformed military components, the SysAdmin force is fundamentally envisioned as a standing capacity for interagency (i.e., among various U.S. federal agencies) and international collaboration in nation-building, meaning that both the SysAdmin force and function end up being more civilian than uniform in composition, more government-wide than just Defense Department, more rest-of-the-world than just the United States, and more private-sector-invested than public-sector-funded.”

In other words, the military is pulling out and the civilians have to take over. We can see this in the number of soldiers being dropped down to 50,000 soldiers. Combat operations are ending; however, there is still a sizable force in Iraq to continue training their army, providing necessary security and keeping stability until they leave in fourteen months. They’re stepping back and watching as the Iraq Army takes care of more of their own situations.

But, while this is going on, the civilians are going to be working on bring more electricity to the area. While they have a considerable amount of oil that could be used to make electricity, many people in the area might see only an hour or two of electricity a day and then it’s gone. This is obviously a problem for a country looking to get back on its feet after such a long, painful war.

This also is an interesting and exciting scenario for the State Department. Because the State Department has never worked on its own separate from the military, it has a lot of learning to do. Does the State Department want to be the Federal agency responsible for this type of operation, though? Instead, what we might see is a department that can handle the in-between.

As Barnett goes on to say in his first book, The Pentagon’s New Map and on his glossary, the Department of Everything Else will need to develop. You’ve got the Department of Defense that can kick any country’s butt. And you’ve got the State Department that can handle a lot of the diplomatic missions. But, what about the whole rebuilding period of time? Who does that effectively?

Right now, it’s the State Department, but they won’t want to be that department. Instead, it’s going to lead to the creation of another department that can handle it. This department will take resources from both the Defense Department–soldiers and money–as well as the State Department. The Defense Department will see its budget slashed because in all honestly, why do we need so many air craft carriers? Our military will become more specialized and able to handle the specific types of conflict we’ll deal with in the 21st century.

There are two things that might worry people. The first is that if we reduce the ridiculous spending in the Defense Department and transfer resources to this Department of Everything Else, then we’ll be open to attack from countries like Russia and China. So long as we keep our nuclear arsenal, that won’t ever happen. Mutually Assured Destruction has made it possible for us to never go to war with a near peer country–one of those countries that could actually fight against us in a land war–because both sides could use nuclear weapons. No one wants that. It’s the reason we never went hot in the Cold War.

The second thing people might be worried about is more government spending. I am in the same boat and that’s why when this move happens, it needs to be done by taking resources away from the Department of Defense and the State Department. If we are making a department specifically  for this SysAdmin operation, the State Department and the Department of Defense don’t need their own parts to handle it. Let the one agency do it.

While the Iraq War has gone on for a long time, this stage of the conflict is going to be the most lucrative and dangerous. With so many soldiers pulling out, things can quickly devolve in the country. An example is today’s coordinated strike in 13 Iraqi cities. However, that’s going to happen. The Iraqi military and police are getting stronger and will only get stronger.

As the months move forward, we can expect to see the country get a grip with what’s going on. However, one final thing must be done and that’s a government needs to be put in place. If that doesn’t come to fruition, things can quickly devolve. Therefore, the State Department must work diligently to get that resolved or else all of this will be for nothing.

If anyone has the courage and the guts to go head on against the political might of the Congress when it comes to the military, it is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In an attempt to get ridiculous military spending under control, Gates has made moves that have irritated many and have made some politicians worried about their specific districts. However, if there is one thing that we need right now, it’s a military on a really big diet.

The United States is having a problem with the deficit and while defense is an important department to have, it has grown out of control. In the past decade, the Pentagon has doubled to $550 billion. This, of course, doesn’t include the extra $159 billion the Pentagon gets to fight the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If we, as a country, are going to get our deficit under control, we are going to need to trim the debt.

He has already cut a series of unneeded weapons programs which, over the life of the order, will save the United States $330 billion. Over the next five years, the Pentagon has to make cuts in administration and need to increase efficiency to the amount of $100 billion, he ordered.

Unfortunately, this isn’t enough and he recognized that. He closed the Norfolk, Virginia Joint Forces Command. This base was meant to bring the different branches together to together; however, there are others in the country. This would only save about $240 million a year; however, 2,400 civilians and 3,000 contractors will be out of work. Over the next three years, he hopes to see contractors cut by 30% to try and cut costs there. He’s frozen any new employees for his office. And he is going to be cutting 50 posts for admirals and generals, 150 senior officials and closed two agencies that employ 550 people.

However, he has come under attack because these are all jobs in different districts and no politician wants to see jobs lost. When jobs are lost, the individual those people target is the incumbent and in a tight political year, that’s not something they want.

The big savings, though, need to come in health care. Active-duty individuals don’t have to pay for their health care and I agree with that. They are serving our country and shouldn’t have to pay. However, retired individuals get an incredible deal on health insurance that hasn’t gone up in 15 years. The annual premiums are only $460 for a family. Because of how low this is, health insurance costs for the Pentagon have gone from $19 billion to $50 billion a year.

While I totally believe that soldiers should be respected for what they did for our country, as health insurance costs go up, their contribution must as well. Different numbers suggest different amounts saved; however, any amount saved would be incredibly beneficial.

Rep. Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force predicts that if the Pentagon makes serious cuts, they can save $960 billion from 2011 to 2020. However, Robert Gates and Congress are going to have to do what it takes to get rid of the ridiculous amounts of money.

Secretary Gates can do one other thing to cut spending and that’s to reduce the size of the Air Force and the Navy. Their influence in warfare is not as great as it once was—we’re fighting against terrorists and insurgent groups rather than near peer foes—so we don’t need such a massive Air Force and Navy. I am not suggesting cutting the entire departments, but there needs to be some trimming because it simply isn’t necessary.

Because of the nuclear weapon, the fear of near peer war should be out of everyone’s mind. China won’t ever attack us because then they’d have to fear a nuclear response. The same can be said about any other country. Therefore, cutting back on the Navy and Air Force—two departments necessary for near peer war, but not necessary for insurgency fighting—would allow for tremendous savings.

We are in a recession and the deficit in the United States is enormous. If we want to stay solvent and start to rise again as a powerful country—economically and militarily—we need to make these necessary cuts. Congress gave the Pentagon free reign after 9/11. Now, though, the government needs to reign the Pentagon back in even if it means people lose jobs. The country simply cannot afford it.

In dealing with the near war on the Korean peninsula and the constant worry that there are no jobs in America, one of the topics that has come up is the discussion of whether or not there should be free trade agreements. People immediately look at NAFTA and, disgruntled, turn their back on the idea almost immediately. Free trade, though, provides an opportunity to better the economy because as more trade occurs, more jobs appear.

When discussing free trade with a colleague of mine, I asked him what his opinion was. He replied that free anything—whether it is free markets, free trade or a free government—was a good thing. He was hesitant, though, when talking about NAFTA. He said, “a free trade document should be a paragraph long.” If you look up NAFTA, it’s considerably longer.

A free trade agreement with South Korea has been going through Congress for some time now and, there’s a very good chance that it has pages and pages of rules and limitations. That’s not free trade. That’s trade with a bunch of rules.

Despite what people think, free trade is actually an incredibly powerful way of bringing more jobs to the United States. If, for example, we had free trade with South Korea, we would be adding millions of potential consumers to products that are made in America.

People fear that by doing this, what we also do is take jobs away from America because we are buying cheaper goods from other countries. This is true, in some cases. However, the same way as the free market finds a way of balancing itself, free trade finds a way of balancing itself where both parties benefit from it equally. Where some jobs might be lost in the country, others will pop up elsewhere. And, since there is an increased market for goods, more jobs will appear than will disappear.

It can be taken a step farther, though. People argue that it is necessary to be restrictive and to give “subsidies” to American companies. These subsidies come in the form of tariffs. Some people argue that by putting tariffs on goods, the price of that product will go up and people will opt to buy American goods. It makes sense.

The only problem with that logic is that a tariff is two sided. Last Fall, President Obama decided that he was tired of how cheap Chinese tires were, so he put a tariff on it so high that it was no longer cheaper to buy a Chinese tire in comparison to an American tire. Instead of just taking it like many people expected China to do, they turned around and put a massive tariff on chicken feet. In a country with one billion people who happen to find chicken feet to be a delicacy, that tariff was a major economic slap to the American chicken industry.

In other words, by adding a tariff to goods that were sent here from another country, we also lost out on a market to ship our goods. We can, in no way, afford to lose out on markets to sell goods that are made best in America. But, if we add tariffs, we are going to do that. As we add tariffs, other countries will add tariffs and that will result in less trade.

While tariffs are important, we should be more restrictive on how we use them. Free trade should be just that. Free. We will send goods to them, they will send goods to us. We will get cheaper stuff, they will get cheaper stuff. More jobs will come to America because there will be another massive market to cater to.

People think NAFTA when they hear free trade. Unfortunately, NAFTA is free trade with a whole bunch of rules. For free trade to work, it should be a paragraph long and it should simply say what countries are involved and that’s about it. By doing that, the economy of both countries will flourish. It is important to understand that a free market, a free government, or free trade is what is best for our country. Only with innovation can our country grow. And, with a large market such as South Korea, that growth is very possible.

Fortunately, things have begun to cool down between the two countries. While I would love to see Kim John-il out of office, right now, I think we need to be careful about waging a third war. Perhaps in the future, I wouldn’t be opposed to getting rid of him and allowing for a unified Korea. However, that’s something I’d rather touch on at a different time. The important thing to understand is what a war would have looked like on the Korean peninsula had it broken out.

North Korea Attacks

The only probable way a war would break out is if the North made an invasion attempt by crossing the DMZ. With a million man plus army moving down toward the border, this would appear to be an easy cake walk: their army is bigger, so they’re going to win. While the army was mobilizing and moving south, the artillery–13,000 pieces and most likely growing at a monthly rate–would open fire on Seoul as well as military bases along the DMZ.

The ultimate goal for the initial barrage would be to weaken the defenses at the DMZ and cause panic and mayhem in Seoul. A destroyed Seoul would cause considerable damage to the economy of South Korea. Therefore, a successful attack by North Korea would require a very precise attack on Seoul with the artillery while the army made their way toward the border. Because we’re talking mobilized soldiers, it would only take a couple hours to reach the DMZ.

The biggest concern is the type of missiles used by North Korea. Conventional weapons, while disastrous, would not cause nearly as much damage as biological or chemical. This is where South Korea would have to be concerned. Should North Korea use these unconventional weapons–and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t–it could result in far more deaths than just conventional weapons.

While these soldiers were on their way, North Korea’s air force would mobilize. For there to be a successful ground assault, they need very durable and powerful air support. This is one of the big places that they really fall short. While they have around 400 MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21, these are all older aircraft–ones that were flown in the 50s and 60s. They would be going against more powerful, faster and better trained South Korean pilots which leads to the counter attack.

South Korean Counterattack

The counterattack is the most important part to determine the way things go down. Almost immediately, South Korea and the United States would mobilize their air force. Between the two, there are nearly six hundred modern day air craft. The exact number or air to air and air to ground is unknown, but this mobilized air force would be one of the three powerful forms of counterattack.

The first step would be to bombard the artillery on the North Korean side of the DMZ. As long as the missiles and artillery is launching projectiles toward Seoul, South Korea is unable to fight a successful war. Therefore, the air force’s first target would be the artillery. Along with this would be South Korea’s artillery. All hits would be on the artillery.

The second step would be to engage the North Korean air force. Because of how old North Korea’s air force is, this would be a quick defeat. And because of this, the North Korean army wouldn’t have any air superiority to protect the soldiers. Without air superiority, there’s little chance of success for North Korea.

The final step is the South Korean army invading North. Once the war has actually started, there’s no way that South Korea will allow Kim Jong-il to stay in office. They’ll want him out of office as soon as possible and might push for a unified Korea. Whether this is a possibility, though, will require a considerable amount of diplomatic work.

The Chinese Response

Much to everyone’s confusion, China would do very little if a war broke out. They would reinforce their border with North Korea to prevent as many refugees from crossing over. That is their biggest fear. However, they would not support North Korea and back them up. People always argue that, because they were allies in the 1950s, that China would support North Korea. There is little evidence to back this up. The only reason China doesn’t do anything right now against North Korea is because China fears the millions of refugees crossing the border.

All in all, the war would be a quick one. North Korea’s army would suffer far more casualties than South Korea’s; however, Seoul would suffer a large amount of casualties, especially if biological and chemical weapons were used. War on the Korean Peninsula would be dangerous and it would be costly, but it would remove a considerable problem. A unified Korea would allow for more prosperity for Koreans, both North and South.

In Kyrgyzstan, protests have erupted in response to corruption and poor economic situations caused by the Bakiyev administration. President Bakiyev is reported to have fled Bishlek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. While he is still considered the ruler of the country, it is important that President Obama and the State Department prepare to court the new government that, if put in power, will be responsible for making the decision whether to grant the United States access to a pivotal base in the Afghan war.

It has been argued that this new government could bring about change to the current agreement that the United States has with Kyrgyzstan over the use of the base; however, this simply does not make sense. The single most difficult issue that could come against the United States is the fact that, for the months leading up to this, the US said nothing about the oppression going on. This could have created some frustration against the US, but it isn’t likely to last.

What is important, though, is that whether this new government becomes the replacement to the Bakiyev administration or not, the State Department must move quickly to ensure operations at the base stay operational. The base was closed down Wednesday evening due to the violence. This is a detriment to the war effort in Afghanistan and must be corrected as soon as possible.

To ensure that the base opens immediately, President Obama should immediately invite the opposition leader that stands out on top to the White House. Obama can attempt to court the new Kyrgyzstan government and push for the base to remain open. While the leader will most likely give a hard time, in the end, they’ll probably keep the base open. The base provides a considerable amount of money to the Kyrgyzstan government and that is money much needed to ensure the country doesn’t completely go broke.

One of the things that Obama must keep in mind is that the country is 70% Muslim and therefore, it could prove difficult to persuade the opposition leaders that the base is of use. There have been pushes in recent years to try and add more Islam to politics and this can cause a bit of a situation when trying to get permission to use the base to bring more soldiers to Afghanistan where a war is going on against a Muslim regime. However, according to a report by ISN Security Watch, while there are pushes for more Islam in politics, it is still a very secular society and isn’t ruled by Islamic law.

In the end, the most important thing to consider is that Russia has spent considerable resources trying to court these opposition groups to persuade them that an American base isn’t a good thing in the country. If the United States is going to keep these bases, persuading the Kyrgyzstani people that the base is of importance will have to be President Obama’s hard push in the coming weeks. While he focuses on a lot of his domestic policies, he must keep time in his day to guarantee that the base stays open.

Without the base, the United States will lose a pivotal and key supply route for the soldiers in Afghanistan. While the military will most likely find a different route, at this present moment, with Obama’s Afghan surge underway, this is not what the war effort needs. Instead, the base needs to stay open to ensure a consistent flow of supplies.

If President Obama cannot persuade the opposition leaders to keep the base open, it could damage the upcoming Kandahar assault. However, as Paul Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group told the New York Times, “My gut feeling is that it [details of the base] can be smoothed over. But they have got to move fast to reach out to the opposition, and do it with a certain degree of humility.” In the end, the base provides income to the area as well as jobs in the immediate vicinity. American bases brings potential economic growth to a region. Hopefully President Obama can convince the opposition leaders to keep the base open.

With the mission in Afghanistan very clear — to clear out regions of the Taliban and then quickly send in a government-in-a-box to set up — it has become even more important for the Afghan military to be adept at protecting the region from a re-insurgence of the Taliban when the NATO forces leave. However, as much as there is a growing interest in the number of Afghans looking to enlist in the military and police force, there are not enough trainers there to ensure President Obama’s strategy is enacted fully.

According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, recruitment for the Afghan forces is going well. “Retention and attrition levels within the army seem to be good and pretty close to goals,” he further went to say in an interview with reporters. This is a sign that the Afghan population is stepping up to the responsibility of defending their nation from the Taliban.

Beyond that, a Washington Post article reported that the first class f Afghan cadets, numbered at 212, were getting ready for graduation. However, what is most exciting in the whole thing is that they have 42 female applicants for the female academy. Never before in Afghan history have women applied to be part of the military, so this is an obvious sign that Afghanistan is beginning to modernize.

As much as these are positives, there are problems. First and foremost, more than 70% of the recruits for both the army and the police cannot read and write. They are taught to write their name and then are immediately thrown into the field to begin training with their weapon. This presents a grave problem because these soldiers are unable to be given a message on paper and be able to read it. There can’t be effective NCOs and squad leaders without an increased level of literacy.

On top of that, there is a problem with the police force. As much as the military is the one who is going to be fighting against the Taliban in combat, it is the police force that is going to prevent the Taliban from coming in at night and executing people who helped the Afghan and American armies. Therefore, the police force needs to be strong enough to patrol the streets and handle the stress that comes with policing neighborhoods.

To quell that problem, Afghanistan needs more trainers. As of right now, the group responsible for training the army and police is short about 1,000 trainers, says Army Maj. General David Hogg. If they are going to effectively train the army and police of Afghanistan, there needs to be an important push for more trainers. That means one of two things.

President Obama and Afghanistan have to, together, try and court more countries to provide military trainers. Whether countries want to offer combat soldiers or not is completely irrelevant. What they need to do is try and court countries to provide people who are competent enough to train the army and police forces.

Secondly, we need to bring in professional civilian trainers to teach literacy to the soldiers. As Thomas P.M. Barnett stated, “inevitably the SysAdmin [nation-building] effort ends up being as much or more civilian than uniform.” We need to increase the number of civilians there teaching literacy. Continue bringing in soldiers to train them how to fight, but when it comes down to literacy, we need professional individuals who are skilled in teaching literacy.

The United States can’t be in Afghanistan forever. We have to begin pulling out of the region at some point and handle the reins over to the Afghan army and police force. However, without an effective team of trainers, the Afghan army and police forces are never going to develop properly. It is imperative that more trainers go to Afghanistan soon to ensure that, as the combat forces of NATO take over more regions, there are ample police forces there to protect the government-in-a-box that pops in. Otherwise, NATO will have to continuously go back into regions and get rid of the Taliban. With a July 2011 withdrawal date put forth by Obama, we don’t have the time to wait.

The media’s attention shifted from the diabolical and threatening visage of al-Qa’ida and Islamic extremists in Yemen to a scene of horror and futility in Port-au-Prince. In response to the threats of terrorism, where one is less likely to die in contrast to a natural disaster, there is an iron-fist mentality; where the response to human-submitted chaos is force.

The events tragedy in Port-au-Prince systematically derailed the Yemen conversation of whether or not the United States should take military action because it would be unprecedented, illogical, irrational, and absurd for tens of thousands of deaths to be overshadowed by one Nigerian with his trousers on fire.

The tragedy in Port-au-Prince entranced international attention away from Yemen and the Nigerian with enflamed trousers. There is no argument as to the rationale behind this switch, as the Haitian earthquake involved the deaths of many. However, the rhetoric the media used when talking about the Christmas Day attack was one that constituted on the two premises of “what if he succeeded” and “what it means for American national security”. For our purpose it is useful to distinguish the coverage of the earthquake and the Christmas Day attack, as the former is an example of orthodox journalism while the latter is a filler, void of any real substance; no doubt that the establishment of a twenty-four hour news broadcast forced corporate news company executives to accept this filler material.

No clairvoyance is necessary to predict that once the viewership of the Haiti tragedy dwindles, the mainstream media will return to covering the debate against terrorism in the name of ratings. The past decade is riddled with the asperity that a single event, such as Hurricane Katrina or the December 2006 tsunami that killed 220,000 people along coasts of the Indian Ocean is filler between debates on extremism. It is insanity that suggests terrorism threatens more lives than natural disasters. Such a paradigm gives a response as to why the War on Terror (collective military operations since 2001) is paid with $1 trillion and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastation, which directly affected 800,000 people and killed similar numbers as terrorism in the United States starting with 9/11, was paid with $16.7 billion.

I bring this insatiable appetite for understanding the complexities of the human paradigm to this parabolic table of counter-terrorism because what is terrorism if it is not a mind-game? The objective for the counter-terrorist is to prevent the terrorist from terrorizing; to say to the probable terrorized that they should donate their confidence in the measures you are taking to protect them, a vote of confidence.

If sandbags placed around rivers in the dawn before a major storm is the preventative measure of natural disasters, then striking al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen is the preventative measure of terrorism. Lunacy is turned into logic once the ends justify the means, thus the preventative measures in the War on Terrorism are justifiable, right?

If there is one true aspect of the mainstream media’s attention deficit, then it must be that events, such as the Haiti earthquake are unpredictable. Putting the sandbags around a flood prone river does not prevent the storm from coming. It only eases the repercussions of the storm;, it might stop some areas from flooding. Similarly, striking at al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen does not prevent terrorism, as terrorism is an embedded part of human nature; counter-terrorism is easing the unsettled feeling of the terrorized.

We task government with our safety. Through votes and taxes we give them the legitimacy that is required to undertake preventative measures. If the New Orleans levees and 9/11 is any indicator of the capability of the government to safeguard lives, then we have sanctioned a dubious faculty to be our shield against danger.

As the Haiti disaster and Christmas Day attempt proves, tragedy and death is always lurking, and what we really ask of our government is whether or not our safety is built upon foundations of chance or upon action. Will the sandbags ever stop the storm from coming?

This was a guest submission written by Jeff Morris. Jeff Morris is a writer and Political Science Major at Appalachian State University. Email him at morrisjr@appstate.edu.

Consider following WeThePeoplePolitics.com on Twitter.

By threatening to potentially call for the repayment of the government bonds they have purchased, it would be a dangerous move against the United States, especially during a time of tough economic growth. President Obama must rethink his approach to Taiwan and China else suffer some serious consequences.

China is one of the countries that will shape tomorrow’s world. They will do it in one of two ways. The first is in a way that is in their own best interest without regard to what America or any other country likes. The second is in a way that will be both mutual and beneficial for the entire world. It’s this second route that I worry is going to be damaged if President Obama continues pushing too hard against China. The Chinese have already begun to get involved in Afghanistan, but there are many other things that China could help with that America is potentially losing out on if we push too hard.

Selling weapons to Taiwan is a completely useless action that only will cause harm. The argument that Taiwan deserves these weapons is nice, but it doesn’t justify losing the capability of China to aid in a globalizing world. Considering the fact that both parties that ran for political office in 2008 were looking to strengthen ties with Beijing, this attempt to almost derail that is ridiculous. All these weapons do is demonstrate to China that Taiwan is trying to pull away again which is only going to further infuriate it.

Think of in another regard: if Texas wanted to pull away from the Union and China was sending weaponry to aim at the rest of the Union in case of invasion, how would the Americans feel? I doubt they’d be happy. Therefore, it is imperative that Obama cease the shipment of weapons to Taiwan. We must allow China and Taiwan to handle their own issues.

As much as I hate the idea that meeting with the Dalai Lama is going to further cause strife with China, this is one aspect that should happen. A meeting – despite China’s insistence – does not mean anything unless the Americans act on it. I am fine with the meeting occurring; however, action taken because of what the Dalai Lama says can be dangerous. I support human rights, but one has to be careful because to save one group, more damage might be brought upon many others.

The days of China in the Cold War are over. They are no longer this “Communist Pig” country. Instead, they are rising capitalistic country – that tries to be communist – which will, sooner or later, get rid of their single party dictatorship. As economic reform occurs, political and legal reform will follow. However, if the United States interferes in this reform, the government will tighten up and ensure nothing good happens.

Selling weapons to Taiwan is a dangerous move for the United States and it demonstrates how stubborn we are as a nation. We must tread carefully with China and Taiwan. It would be incredibly foolish for us to risk losing an important economic ally as well as a future military ally. They are one of the strongest countries in the world. We went head to head against another super power once and it resulted in decades of a cold war. Why should we make the same mistake with China? We must be careful when trying to do “good” around the world.