Summarized Article by Bill Brubaker, Washington Post
"It's been nearly four years since we went to war in Iraq, and four years later there is still no end in sight," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Wednesday.
Pelosi has just returned from a mid-east jaunt covering Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. She said she feels "discouraged" about the process there and that there was "no evidence of any political or diplomatic initiatives worthy of the sacrifice [of American lives]". She said that she feels that within a "matter of months" the U.S. must start changing deployments and developing a new mission, in addition to saying that pulling troops out of Iraq will best bring the country to a more stable point. Naturally, that will put the Democrat at heavy contrast to the plans of the Bush administration to send more troops.
Pelosi also met with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and Afghan leader Harmid Karzai to talk about the status of those countries. Pelosi called Afghanistan the "forgotten war" and pleaded with NATO to provide their fair share of troops for that country.
--
Pelosi's comments following her trip seem to run parallels with what has been said in the media all along -- a lot is left to be done. It's hard to disagree with someone that has now visited all of the U.S.'s current war theaters. It feels very discouraging to know that people without an overriding interest (i.e. the Bush Adminstration) can now go into Iraq and not see much progress. Maybe there is something to her idea of redeploying troops or bringing them home. Regardless, someone needs to step up to the plate and fully grasp this situation and find the easiest way out. We never be able to clean up the terrorist heaven that now lies in these borders.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Admiral Calls for 'New' Approach in Iraq
Summarized article by Christine Hauser, Washington Post
Navy Admiral William J. Fallon, Jr. went before a Senate Confirmation Hearing today in Washington en route to becoming the new head of United States Central Command -- the region containing both the Iraq and Afghanistan war theaters. Fallon currently serves at the top of the US forces in the Pacific.
"I am under no illusions regarding the magnitude of the tasks and challenges in this region of the world," said Fallon to begin his meeting with representatives of Congress.
Fallon is the second active-duty officer to go through the confirmation process in the last month concering the Iraq situation, and feels a sense of urgency in the region.
"I believe the situation in Iraq can be turned around, but time is short," said Fallon.
He has extensive relationships and experience working with Asian countries on diplomacy, and feels that a key to Iraq success if identifying key leaders and units that can be especially helpful in calming the situation.
--
Fallon sure is saying all the right things, but will he able to figure out how to translate that to action? I question whether he has appropriate experience for the escalating situation in Iraq. He also said that he hasn't had much time to come up with a direct strategy -- because of his work in the Pacific. Will that be a problem? Will he be able to apply his diplomatic relationships and style of leadership to this situation? It appears that Adm. Fallon is one of our more qualified individuals for this job, but America still lacks a great grasp on how to handle this type of warfare. Hopefully, Fallon can keep an independent voice and let Congress and America really know what needs to happen.
Navy Admiral William J. Fallon, Jr. went before a Senate Confirmation Hearing today in Washington en route to becoming the new head of United States Central Command -- the region containing both the Iraq and Afghanistan war theaters. Fallon currently serves at the top of the US forces in the Pacific.
"I am under no illusions regarding the magnitude of the tasks and challenges in this region of the world," said Fallon to begin his meeting with representatives of Congress.
Fallon is the second active-duty officer to go through the confirmation process in the last month concering the Iraq situation, and feels a sense of urgency in the region.
"I believe the situation in Iraq can be turned around, but time is short," said Fallon.
He has extensive relationships and experience working with Asian countries on diplomacy, and feels that a key to Iraq success if identifying key leaders and units that can be especially helpful in calming the situation.
--
Fallon sure is saying all the right things, but will he able to figure out how to translate that to action? I question whether he has appropriate experience for the escalating situation in Iraq. He also said that he hasn't had much time to come up with a direct strategy -- because of his work in the Pacific. Will that be a problem? Will he be able to apply his diplomatic relationships and style of leadership to this situation? It appears that Adm. Fallon is one of our more qualified individuals for this job, but America still lacks a great grasp on how to handle this type of warfare. Hopefully, Fallon can keep an independent voice and let Congress and America really know what needs to happen.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Is the the Dell Theory of International Conflict sufficient to reduce (or eliminate) global conflict?
In his book, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman concocts the phrase "Dell Theory of International Conflict". No, it has nothing to do with the pop uproar after the "Dell Dude", from several commercials popularizing the PC-building company, was caught with marijuana in 2003. It's more related to supply chains and their ability to impact the world's thought on conflict. But the "Dell Dude" was really cool in his time.
Who would have thought wars could be prevented by just promoting solid trade and agreements between different manufacturers who desperately depend on their foreign counterparts? Friedman essentially outlines this by illustrating how Dell utilizes several international markets to buy their components which in turn make it into their customized machines. Dell doesn't just buy hard drives and mother boards on an individual basis -- they buy in mass quantity. That type of buying is huge for companies that assemble just one piece of this Michael Dell puzzle, because the supply line is like a swift river that has plenty of rain behind it and a large reservoir in front of it. The CEO's of these component companies can depend on Dell to put their kids through school. This very reason is why the "Dell Theory" will work very well -- at least for the near future.
Simply put, these suppliers are intertwined in an international supply line that is relentless. It's always pulling -- and not just with Dell. Wal-Mart, insert Fortune 500 company here, and hundreds of others all have trade relations with more than a handful of foreign nations. China, Japan, Thailand, and India all play a significant impact on American companies and for that fact, Friedman says they will never go to war with one another. Essentially, diplomacy is no longer the answer to conflicts among trading nations, but rather the ability to effectively trade with one another will be enough. The desire for small companies to be trusted by large companies - with a heavy demand - is all we'll ever need.
As I said earlier, I think this logic will prevail in the near future. The wrath of globalization is still in a child-like stage, and the promise of a more inter-connected world is coming -- like it or not. Countries have to depend on one another to be a competitive force in the every growing market, and they are only going to risk that trust and power for extremely dire circumstances.
But what happens when that moment comes? When natural resources in one country begin to run thin, and their lifeblood in the economy will soon follow, what does that mean? I think the Dell Theory will be out the window, as nations will be forced into barbaric means of claiming the right to prosper in the global economy. Wars will be fought over forest and mines. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of the trust between companies. Anything can happen.
It's tough to say what could be taken to prevent these occurences and promote a long lasting effect of the Dell Theory. Maybe globalization is the key, as countries learn to work with each other instead of for each other. I don't believe there are radical steps we can follow to ensure a safer enviornment economically, except for boosting diplomacy and learning to accept other cultures. But who knows, all of this could change in a year, especially with the rate of globalization today.
Sounds like a safe world, huh?
Maybe we should just laugh about that Dell Dude some more. It seems like the easiest alternative.
Who would have thought wars could be prevented by just promoting solid trade and agreements between different manufacturers who desperately depend on their foreign counterparts? Friedman essentially outlines this by illustrating how Dell utilizes several international markets to buy their components which in turn make it into their customized machines. Dell doesn't just buy hard drives and mother boards on an individual basis -- they buy in mass quantity. That type of buying is huge for companies that assemble just one piece of this Michael Dell puzzle, because the supply line is like a swift river that has plenty of rain behind it and a large reservoir in front of it. The CEO's of these component companies can depend on Dell to put their kids through school. This very reason is why the "Dell Theory" will work very well -- at least for the near future.
Simply put, these suppliers are intertwined in an international supply line that is relentless. It's always pulling -- and not just with Dell. Wal-Mart, insert Fortune 500 company here, and hundreds of others all have trade relations with more than a handful of foreign nations. China, Japan, Thailand, and India all play a significant impact on American companies and for that fact, Friedman says they will never go to war with one another. Essentially, diplomacy is no longer the answer to conflicts among trading nations, but rather the ability to effectively trade with one another will be enough. The desire for small companies to be trusted by large companies - with a heavy demand - is all we'll ever need.
As I said earlier, I think this logic will prevail in the near future. The wrath of globalization is still in a child-like stage, and the promise of a more inter-connected world is coming -- like it or not. Countries have to depend on one another to be a competitive force in the every growing market, and they are only going to risk that trust and power for extremely dire circumstances.
But what happens when that moment comes? When natural resources in one country begin to run thin, and their lifeblood in the economy will soon follow, what does that mean? I think the Dell Theory will be out the window, as nations will be forced into barbaric means of claiming the right to prosper in the global economy. Wars will be fought over forest and mines. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of the trust between companies. Anything can happen.
It's tough to say what could be taken to prevent these occurences and promote a long lasting effect of the Dell Theory. Maybe globalization is the key, as countries learn to work with each other instead of for each other. I don't believe there are radical steps we can follow to ensure a safer enviornment economically, except for boosting diplomacy and learning to accept other cultures. But who knows, all of this could change in a year, especially with the rate of globalization today.
Sounds like a safe world, huh?
Maybe we should just laugh about that Dell Dude some more. It seems like the easiest alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)