Issue 4 - Afghanistan

thehorace mannReview

Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - Viewpoints

Plunging into AfghanistanAfghanistanLearning from the Past

by Nathan Raab

by Stephen Paduano

HM Review Vol. XIX2

33

Issue 4:Afghanistan

Domestic

4 The struggle withinby JeSSicA beRNheim

international

8 Tehran and the bombby gReg bARANcik

Features

economics Science and Technology

18 The Chinese facadeby DeePeNDRA mookim

Viewpoints Cover graphic edited by Aradhna Agarwal.

Was the surge really a good idea? Nathan Raab looks into the topic on page 8.

20 To the dark side of the moonby AlexANDeR PoSNeR

22 An inconvenient truthby AlexANDeR DANiel

14 Learning from the pastby STePheN PADuANo

12 Plunging into Afghanistanby NAThAN RAAb

psaonline

Could global warming be ex-aggerated? More on page 18.

Disclaimer: The views of the ar-ticles do not necessarily represent those of the editorial staff.

globalwarming1

6 Murder and martial law in Maguindanaoby hANNAh JuN

pbs

10 Neutral no moreby ANDRe mANuel

3

The horace Mann review

voluMe XiX , issue 4

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events,Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Board of TrusteesMaximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary

Freyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani, Venkat Kausik, Zachary Malter

Production AssistantsSeth Arar, Elisabeth Stam

Associate EditorsDeependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei,

Andrew Demas, Aaron Goldman, Danielle Ellison, Victor Ladd, Daniel Grafstein

Staff WritersDorin Azerad, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Jessica Chi, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Alexander Familant, Emily Feldstein, Matt

Fox, Adela Kim, Christine Kim, Alex Ma, An-dre Manuel, Avital Morris, Jacob Moscona-

Skolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca Segall

Contributing WritersHannah Jun, Nathan Raab, Stephen Pad-uano, Alex Posner, Greg Barancik, Jessica

Bernheim

Faculty AdvisorsMr. Gregory Donadio

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Associa-tion. Opinions expressed in articles or illus-trations are not necessarily those of the Edi-torial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for information on advertisements at [email protected] The Review website at: web.horace-mann.org/review/

© 2009, The Horace Mann Review

Dan TemelHenry Hoglund

James YaroStarlyte HarrisSpencer Penn

Editorial Director

Nancy DaSilvaDan Shapiro

Features Editor

Aradhna AgarwalWill Dubbs

Production Manager

letter from the editor

January 2010 HM Review

Dear Reader,Afghanistan has been on

our radars for a long time now. From the years in which America armed the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets to the war on terror that President George W. Bush announced against al-Qaeda, our attention on this key part of the world has waned and waxed over time.

With the recent election of President Barack Obama, Afghanistan has been brought back to the forefront of the American consciousness. Will the surge work? Should we seek to improve the quality of life of the citizens or should we simply try to win the physical confrontations against insurgents? Questions like these arise ceaselessly.

Thus, in the fourth issue of the Horace Mann Review Volume XIX, we ourselves take a look at the complex problem in Afghanistan, with two articles from Nathan Raab and Stephen Paduano discussing the effects of the surge and the lessons of the past,

respectively.Of course, we also cover

many other events that have been going on in the world, from the ramifications of banning minarets in Switzerland, to the global warming “hoax” that set such a frenzy of press coverage against the notion of global warming, to the shooting at Ft. Hood by Sgt. Nidal Malik Hasan and situations of Muslim soldiers in the United States.

As always, I am very proud to present to you this issue of the Review, having seen firsthand the work that our writers and editors alike have put into the publication.

So, I wish you all a happy reading. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Kevin LinEditor-in-ChiefVolume XIX

Kevin LinEditor-in-Chief

Nicholas HerzecaJason Sunshine

Executive Editor

Alex FalkManaging Editor

letter from the editor

Jordan FedererAntonia Woodford

Mario AlvarezHill Wyrough

Senior Columnists

Freddie AdlerBen Marks

Eric SchwartzBusiness Manager

Camille KnopAylin Gucalp

Photo Editor

HM Review Vol. XIX4

Domestic

Recently, while reading ar-ticles about discrimination towards Muslims in France and Britain, I found a blog written by a soldier from

the 3rd Battalion of the Marine Corps Se-curity Force Regiment. Not only was his blog factually supported, it was one of few with which I found myself agreeing. The name of this blog was Muslim Discrimi-nation in the U.S. Military. Not. This blog

could be seen as offensive, demeaning the discrimination Muslims in the army have endured. But, after having read the blog, I completely agree with the author. Muslims are a valuable asset to our na-tion’s security, and serve in virtually all sectors of our military as translators and servicemen. We as a country cry racial discrimination as a cause for attacks like the one made by Major Hassan, when in fact it was religious beliefs that propelled his actions. Like the author states, if we had tried to “questioned or detain[] him

regarding his religious/ideological lean-ings he would have been on the news as a poor, poor victim of a mean old Army Muslim hunt.”

I do believe that discrimination ex-ists. Estimates state that there are from 4,000 to over 12,000 Muslims in the army, and it has been noted that some Muslim soldiers do get mocked and teased in a derogatory manner. But I believe that Muslims endure more discrimination in a civilian setting, where average people are unaware of the positive contributions

The Struggle WithinFaced with discrimination, Muslims in the military can have a vastly different experience than those of other leanings.

by jessica bernheimarmy.mil

January 2010 HM Review 5

Muslims make to society and see only the media’s representation of Islam’s terror-ist nature. There are many Muslims who sympathize and agree with the actions of extremists; in fact, one man on CNN said that the Qur’an specifically dictates that all non-believers must be terrorized. However, while there are extremists out there, we cannot say the entire Muslim population has extremist beliefs.

Discrimination towards any ethnic-ity or religion is absolutely despicable. It exposes the ugliest of human traits, and ultimately provides evidence for Thomas Hobbes’ belief that man is inherently evil in nature.

It has long been human belief, from before the days of Social Darwinism, that we are superior to everything else on the planet. But superior should mean that we are above petty hates towards those who are different. Charles Darwin never in-tended his theory of natural selection to apply to humans, but unfortunately peo-

ple subverted his scientific theory to jus-tify cruelty towards those they felt inferi-or. Humans are such a diverse group that adapting any generalized beliefs to the human population proves destructive. Scientists have found that genetic muta-

tions have caused the human species to evolve over time. Are those with the abil-ity to consume milk, one of the first ge-netic mutations to arise, not human?

While discrimination is wrong, I can understand discomfort amongst soldiers stationed in a country in which their main enemies are Muslim extremists. They are ordered to kill these people—these Taliban—who have murdered so many of their comrades, and yet at the same time they are ordered to fight along-side people who hold the same beliefs as these enemies.

That being said there is an enormous difference between discomfiture and out-right contempt. An American Muslim is American the same way an American Christian is. The separation of church and state is extremely important in America, and yet it is not properly enforced. This is one of the fundamental flaws in our government. Religion should not con-flict with nationality, yet it does, because when we fight Afghans or Pakistanis, we are targeting extremist Muslims whose intent is to destroy America. Because we as a country are battling with those of a specific religion, all those who share that religion, even without the extremist ele-ment that threatens our safety, are viewed as a threat. This is the plight of American Muslims in civilian environments.

Conversely, joining the Ameri-can army is voluntary, and anyone who chooses to join and fight for their country is subject to the same rules and restric-tions regardless of religion or ethnicity. Muslims in the army have chosen to fight under no obligation from the state. All

wall street journal American citizens in the army are subject to restricted rights of speech, press, and expression. For example, soldiers cannot participate in demonstrations in uni-forms, on post, in a foreign country, or where violence is likely to be present. A soldier cannot write for a publication re-garding national government operations, military matters, or foreign policies with-out submitting the article for review and approval. A soldier cannot act in a way that would seem as if he or she were rep-resenting the views of the army. All those subject to these same laws should be entitled to the same rights, chief among them the right to keep and practice one’s religious beliefs without being subject to hatred or discrimination.

Everybody shares something with a criminal, be it skin color, race, gender, or religious belief. That does not mean we are all criminals. We cannot group extremist Muslim terrorists with other Muslims. They share a faith, yes, but you and a terrorist share at least one thing—you are both members of the human race. You are both human beings. hmR

estimates state that there are from 4,000 to over 12,000 muslims in the army, and it has been noted that some muslim soldiers do get mocked and teased in a derogatory manner.

Shooter A photo of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood gun-man. Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down after the shooting.

inthenews

Devotion Sgt. Fahad Kamal prays Friday at the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen near Fort Hood, Texas.

Domestic

HM Review Vol. XIX6

maguindanao is the sec-ond poorest province in the Philippines. Its econ-omy is based solely on agriculture. When fifty-

seven people were found murdered there, it looked to be the most violent political

crime in recent Philippine history. The bodies were identified as the family and supporters of Ismael “Toto” Manguda-datu, who had sent his wife and three sis-ters to file his candidacy papers to run for governor of Maguindanao after he had reportedly received threats that he would

be kidnapped if he personally filed can-didacy papers. The massacre was quickly connected to the Ampataun family when a government construction vehicle was found near the scene of the crime. The patriarch of the family, Andal Ampatuan Sr. is the current governor of Maguin-

by hannah jun

murder and martial law in maguindanao

international

eyesgonzalez


danao. The Ampatauan clan is politically powerful in the region; relatives, in-laws, or close allies of the Ampatuan clan run most of the Maguindao’s thirty-six towns.

By filing candidacy papers, Mangu-dadatu challenged the Ampatuans and their absolute control (enforced with guns and a reported private army of five hundred men) over the province. Simi-lar to cities controlled by gangs, very few will talk about the Ampatuans out of fear. These killings prove the desperate lengths to which the elite are willing to go to pro-tect their political power. “Political offic-es have become attractive due to the bil-lions of pesos in I.R.A. [Internal Revenue Allotment] Remittances electoral victory provides,” Francisco Lara of the develop-ment studies at the Institute of London School of Economics says, referring to the share of national taxes local govern-ments are given.

Andal Ampatuan Jr., the current mayor of Datu Unsay, is believed to have ordered the massacre. He and his brother Zalday, also a governor in the Maguin-danao region, are now under arrest after surrendering a few days after the killings, and await trial on twenty-five counts of murder.

What makes this ordeal controver-sial is that President Gloria Macapa-gal Arroyo, along with declaring state of emergency on the Maguindanao province, declared martial law on the southern province on December 4th and deployed thousands of troops to the province. Martial law allows the mili-tary and police to make arrests and raids on property without warrant. Raiding a warehouse and ranch that belong to the Ampatuan clan, Philippine police and military found firearms, ammunition, and vehicles. They have arrested seventy suspects including three other brothers of Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Andal Am-patuan Sr. without warrants. The armed men resisted on December 6th in a fire-fight, withdrawing only after reinforce-ments were brought in. But even with these finds, critics remark that declaring

martial law sets a dangerous precedent, especially since neither of the two consti-tutional conditions that allow a president to declare martial law—foreign invasion or rebellion—have not been fulfilled. But isn’t a cache of 1,500 firearms and half a million rounds of ammunition and fifty-seven dead (including thirty reporters) enough to define a rebellion?

President Arroyo probably did the right thing for this unique and horrific situation both politically and ethically.

With the power the Ampatuans have, would the national government have been able to conduct a speedy and fair trial or even find the suspects involved? With 4,000 loyal armed men, the Ampa-tauans have not surrendered to the 24-hour deadline they were given by leaflets dropped by helicopters urging them and clan followers to surrender and give up their firearms. Philippine military have now started to move and position troops

in the Maguindanao region with intent to pressure the militiamen to surrender. Luckily, President Arroyo didn’t take that chance and let the situation worsen or turn into a full-blown rebellion. She also saved face when people doubted if the government would push the importance of the situation when it was clear that the Ampatuans were involved, especially since the clan had supported the presi-dent politically since 2001. The clan’s rise to power probably also gained President Arroyo more support.

Even with critics and more then half the senators opposing the declaration, martial law will likely not be overturned, due to the fact that only the House of Representatives (dominated by Arroyo’s allies) can reject President Arroyo’s dec-laration. On the other hand, with the Ampatuans’ power shaky after numerous arrests and suspicion, the power in the province will probably shift to the family of Mr. Mangudadatu, which controls the neighboring province of Sultan Kudarat. Mr. Mangudadatu filed his papers for candidacy just days after the massacre, exclaiming that now nothing could stop him from running for governor. hmR

but what makes this ordeal controversial is along with declaring state of emergency on the maguindanao province, President gloria macapagal Arroyo, had declared mar-tial law as well as deploying thousands of troops to the province.

blogspot

international

candles Journalists light candles for the victims of the Maguin-danao massacre at a rally.

HM Review Vol. XIX8

President Obama has pledged since his 2008 campaign that he will open a dialogue with Iran and negotiate in a way that his predecessor

did not. This policy was most recently affirmed by the Norwegian Nobel Com-mittee when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” While di-plomacy is the ideal course for America’s foreign policy, the United States needs to remember that its national security is paramount, and that the complex nature of United States-Iran relations may call for serious action instead of lofty rheto-ric.

Iran’s recent history is plagued by the issue of nuclear proliferation. There is little doubt among our country’s lead-ers and top intelligence officials that Iran hopes to develop nuclear weapons. Ira-nian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publically stated that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map and after the

most recent Iranian elections, it is clear that Iran has become a dictatorship with no regard for human rights or human life. Almost all nations agree that appropriate action must be taken against Iran in or-der to prevent not only greater tensions, but also a total, chaotic destabilization of the entire Middle East region.

One year ago, then Senator Barack Obama promised that he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran. The move was supported by many Americans who rejected President Bush’s statement that he would only engage the Iranians in dialogue if they stopped enriching uranium. The problem with President Obama’s plan is that it assumes the Iranians have the same goals of peace and international unity that guide the Democrat’s exemplary foreign policy. When two opposing parties have oppo-site views but hold a common desire for international peace and security, engage-ment can be a powerful tool. The world witnessed the power of engagement in the context of nuclear weapons during the Cold War; the Strategic Arms Reduc-tion Treaty between the United States and

Russia led to a reduction in nuclear ar-maments. This strategy, whenever appli-cable, should be used to the fullest extent possible.

However, when both parties cannot agree on a common ideal, there are sig-nificant risks to engagement, which the Obama administration must consider more carefully. Engaging Iran without a display of good faith presents both risk

of future extortion and moral hazard for the world. If we appease Iran without de-manding anything in return, we make ourselves vulnerable to perpetual Iranian demands. If the Iranians believe that we will continue to make concessions as a security building measure regardless of their actions, the Iranians will have no incentive to change their course of behav-

Tehran and the bombby greg barancik

The united States should not and must not submit to iranian terms while iran continues to flaunt its disregard of interna-tional law.

international

Digi

tal j

ourn

alw

orDpress


ior. Similarly, if we reward Iran’s misbe-havior by unconditionally welcoming it back into the fold of International Diplomacy, we establish a dangerous precedent where other disenfranchised nations may act up in an attempt to gain international acceptance.

Although President Obama’s inten-tions are genuine, his offer should not be extended unilaterally. There must be a visible Iranian commitment towards disarmament before we agree to sit down at the table or we place our na-tional security at risk. The Iranians have consistently ignored binding United Nations resolutions and show no re-spect for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Through their reckless disregard for agreements, the Iranians have al-ready proved that they cannot be held to their word. Now the burden shifts to Ahmadinejad to make the show of Good Faith; the United States should not and must not submit to Iranian terms while Iran continues to flaunt its disregard of international law. If the United States and Iran cannot agree on a similar goal on similar terms, any time spent on diplomacy is merely stalling on the part of the Iranians in order to fully develop their nuclear technology.

Considering Iran’s history and the domestic risks associated with engage-ment, heavier sanctions would seem an ideal solution to this issue. The premise is simple: make the economic situation so bad for Iran that it will be forced to choose economic stability over a nucle-ar weapons program. However, despite the United States’ best efforts, enacting these tough sanctions has proven far from straightforward. The principal is-sue with sanctions is that they are only as strong as their weakest link. The Unit-ed States may put any amount of sanc-tions on Iran but if China and Russia do not take similar measures, Iran may simply trade with them and our sanc-tions would have little consequence. So far, the United States has been able to convince China and Russia to put stronger sanctions in place, but Iran’s economy has remained steady. In addition, as we have seen with North Korea, if a dic-tator is determined to build nu-

clear weapons irrespective of harm to the country’s people, there is nothing that even unanimous sanctions can do about it. Although sanctions con-tinue to be the best plan at the moment, given their risks of failure, we cannot afford to limit ourselves to this option.

When all diplo-matic and economic measures have been tried, there is only one instrument of for-eign policy left to pre-vent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Amer-ica should be prepared to use precision force to disable Iran’s nuclear program. At this moment, the United States cannot af-ford to wage a full-scale war against Iran but the cost of a small military strike against specially targets is far less costly than do-ing nothing, and allowing a dangerous country to become a nuclear power. This option is far from ideal. Fixing the Iranian issue through diplomacy or economic measures would be a good model of peaceful for-eign relations. However, if these two options do not prove effective, we need to be prepared to use force against Iran. While Iran may not yield to diplomatic pressure and while the world may not unite in sanctions, the United States certainly has the power to disable Irani-an nuclear weapons by force. Hopefully, the United States will not be obliged to take military action against Iran but we need to be prepared to do so. hmR

Tehran and the bomb

international

huff

ingt

onpo

st.c

om

Digi

tal j

ourn

al

HM Review Vol. XIX10

Neutral No more

In a blow to Switzerland’s repu-tation as a neutral stronghold, Swiss voters have overwhelmingly decided to ban the construction of new mina-rets. Minarets—tall spires built on a mosque— are a distinctive feature of the Islamic religion and used in the call for prayer. This vote comes as a surprise to many, as the referendum, pushed forward by the rightist Swiss People’s Party was expected by most to fail. Leading up to the vote, the Swiss People’s Party led a campaign of nega-tive advertising associating minarets with Islamic terrorists, igniting fear in the hearts of many Swiss voters. The vote reflects not a tangible threat to the people of Switzerland, but a fear of Islamic fundamentalism, the spread of Muslim immigration, and the ero-sion of Swiss values. Of the around 150

by anDre manuel

internationalw

ebsh

ots


mosques in Switzerland, only four have minarets, and only two currently have plans to build them. The ban represents more than the prejudices of the Swiss people. It represents a growing trend of anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe, the increasing tensions between the Muslim world and the West, and one of the big-gest drawbacks of a Democratic society: the possibility of a tyrannical majority.

The ban has experienced back-lash all around the world as European leaders, including those in Switzerland, have been quick to denounce the ban. It has also caused anger in the Muslim community and from religious leaders. A statement released by the Vatican called the ban “a heavy blow to religious free-dom and integration.” Yet the surprising realism of the situation is that Switzer-land only represents the surface of the underlying problem of religious tensions now being faced in Europe. In France, a ban on certain traditional Islamic veils is being considered to curb the effect of some of the more fundamentalist sects of Islam. Europe, a continent often praised for its equality and ability to overcome differences appears to be reverting to the bigoted values that led to World War II and the Holocaust.

Yet to fully understand the rami-fications of this ban, which appears to be racial and religious prejudice at its worst, we must look at the circumstances that made it possible. Switzerland has a Mus-lim Population of around 400,000 and a total population of 7.5 million. Con-tinued Muslim immigration to Europe sparked by war in the Middle East has lead the Swiss people to become fear-ful that their identity was being lost in a flood of Islamic beliefs. The extreme Swiss People’s Party took advantage of the Swiss Constitution’s loose laws regarding amendments and proposed a one-sen-tence amendment to the Constitution to ban the further construction of mina-rets. In order to amend the Constitution, a majority of both popular votes and the twenty-six cantons in Switzerland is needed. When the ban was proposed, world leaders quickly looked to Swiss leaders to strike down the amendment on one of two grounds. The Swiss Consti-tution guarantees religious freedom, and

in addition, the International Declaration of Human Rights drafted in and signed by Switzerland states religious freedom is a fundamental human right. However, Swiss leaders allowed the referendum to take place, citing that the failure of this amendment would be a testament to the traditional tolerance and understanding of the Swiss people.

Despite this, in a surprise result, 57.5% of voters and twenty-two of twen-ty-six cantons voted for the ban. Now, the Swiss Parliament will have to draft the amendment to the Constitution, a process that often takes over a year. The consequences of this ban will not only be felt in Switzerland, Europe, and the Muslim community, but in the United States as well. The ban serves as a sad re-minder that democracy, the most prized American value, can often be just as evil as dictatorship, tyranny, and the oppres-sion that we so often seek to eliminate. Switzerland’s pure democracy has proven America’s founding fathers’ biggest fear:

the persecution of a oppressed majority at the hands of the tyrannical majority. Our Constitution and method of government is apparently safe from the policies of in-tolerance currently being implemented in Switzerland. Ours is a representative government, not a direct democracy, in which the wishes of a more moderate and reasonable body of representatives and elected officials makes decisions gov-erning the nation. And while voters pick these representatives, the diversity of the American people and the safeguards set in place help prevent obvious narrow-mindedness and discrimination. Our founding fathers’ fear that a tyrannical majority was no better than a tyrant led them to develop our intricate system of government that has worked so well to protect America from travesties such as

the minaret ban in Switzerland. America is not completely free

from the burden caused by the hypocrisy of preaching democracy. Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in sev-eral states around the nation have sent a resounding message of intolerance to the gay community. While legislation against gay marriage may not seem as discrimi-natory as the minaret ban in Switzerland, it is, in reality, quite similar. Proposition 8 struck down the right of gay couples to marry and directly opposed the no-tion that marriage is a human right, as stated by Article Sixteen of the Interna-tional Declaration of Human Rights. The fact that Proposition 8 was struck down expresses a clear cultural bias (often in-stilled by religion) evident in the unlaw-ful and immoral persecution of a particu-lar group of people, in this case the LGBT community in California and across America. Americans, regardless of their religious views, should strongly oppose measures to strip the gay community of its rights, lest our country sink to Swit-zerland’s level of discrimination.

Even if the recent vote in Swit-zerland, which happened miles away, is not a reminder of the dangers of democ-racy, than the current situation involving gay marriage should be. The majority is not always right. Some form of democ-racy is a necessary part of a free state, but the tyrannical majority is a severe side effect. The floodgates of democracy have opened, releasing a torrent of inequality. Those who doubt the effectiveness and fairness of the Electoral College and are in favor of a system where a popular vote dominates need look no farther for af-firmation of the system. Those who are ambivalent toward the effectiveness of our Congress need only look across the Atlantic Ocean. While Congress may be petty, partisan, and corrupt at times, it protects us from the radicalism and bigotry that has recently engulfed Swit-zerland and threatens to harm America. hmR

The ban serves a sad remind-er that democracy, the most prized American value, can often by just as evil as the dictatorship, monarchy, and oppression that we so often seek to eliminate.

international


Features

Features

That every brave man and woman who leaves his or her country to fight can come back in a casket is an unalterable truth of war.

Bearing this in mind, America cannot send her soldiers to foreign lands with-out good reason; we may instead only put them in danger when the benefits to the safety and security of our nation outweigh the terrible toll of human life and limb. President Obama’s recent es-calation of the war in Afghanistan does not pass that test: terrorists will thrive in Afghanistan whether it has a strong, pro-western government or not, and a mili-tary occupation of the area will only breed resentment and hatred among those who live there. Thus, the best thing we can do

for our troops, for our nation, and for our world is send those fighters back to their families and take other, more effective steps to halt terrorism.

Islamic extremism is primarily a religious and transnational movement, not a political organization, and suppress-

ing it in Afghanistan will do little or noth-ing to stop its overall success. Because it is so diffuse and ingrained, it will not dis-integrate if what it views as an imperial Western power exerts military pressure

against its members. Instead, the Taliban will merely shrink into far off corners of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there has been no effective central government or police for six thousand years, and ev-ery single military force since the Greeks has been ravaged by insurgents and gue-rillas. There, they will continue to plan terrorist attacks with a renewed vigor. No army could occupy or control these semi-autonomous areas and we would be foolish to try; our last attempt in Vietnam ended only with the loss of over 50,000 soldiers. Occupation would also breed re-sentment among the local Pashtuns, even those not affiliated with the Taliban, and collateral damage—accidental shootings, poorly aimed bombs, and other mishaps caused by the fog of war—would devas-

Plunging into AfghanistanIs the surge a tonic for peace or a recipe for disaster?

tim

e

by nathan raab

it is an unalterable truth of war that every man and woman who leaves his or her country to fight could come home in a casket.

tim

e


Features

tate the region and add to the poverty that drives so many unemployed young men to jihad. A U.S. drive to deny ex-tremists a safe haven in Afghanistan will fail, merely provoking them. While in the short term they may retreat, in the long run they will spring back more motivated than before.

Even if an occupation only par-tially fails, the loss in space and resources for Al Qaeda (which currently is not even officially affiliated with the Taliban, mak-ing even more tenuous the connection between a strong Afghan govern-ment and safety from terrorism) in Afghanistan would not sig-nificantly impact their operations. Training terrorists does not require large amounts of land or labor; only a few square miles will suffice. They can make bombs in small apart-ments. Even if a few are caught, what can happen to them? Two options present themselves: either they are be sum-marily executed, in which case they become martyrs for Islam, or they are sent to prison and then released, in which case they rejoin the jihad with greater resentment toward their captors and a better knowledge of how the sys-tem of capture and trial works. Neither option appeals, to say the least.

History itself is telling concern-ing the probability of success in even temporarily occupying and building a stable government in Afghanistan. Al-exander the Great managed to hang onto it only for a brief while, as did Genghis Kahn; Britain did not keep it as a colony for very long and Russia bogged itself down in a war there that eventually led to the fall of communism and the U.S.S.R.

Nor have foreign interventions in other lands proven themselves successful in re-cent years. Somalia, for example, is still a failed state even after the United Nations deployed a peacekeeping force there (and ironically, only began to see a rise in its standard of living after the peacekeeping force left). After eight years of bloodshed, Iraq is about as stable as it was before the United States sent troops in, and although the U.S. did remove a brutal dictator, they did it at a cost of some three thousand lives and one trillion dollar—enough,

more or less, to buy all Iraq’s land instead of fighting for it (Iraq’s GDP was $19 bil-lion in 2001 and 2002, and $12.5 billion in 2003). Everyone knows how Vietnam and Korea turned out. All these failed interventions inspired what is known as “blowback” or resistance to military oc-cupation for ideological reasons. We can expect the same blowback and failure in Afghanistan.

Just because Islamic terrorism is an indestructible ideology does not mean we cannot neuter it without massive loss of life; it merely means we must be more careful in our fight. In our quest to make

jihad against America cease, we must first seek to minimize the collateral damage to people and property and avoid the blow-back that has caused previous attempts to make peace to end in failure. We must ensure every strike against a member of the Taliban is exactly that, and not the murder of an innocent civilian. We must use our massive technological advantage effectively, through precise surveillance and proper targeting. We must foster re-lationships with the Afghan people, and invest in development in their economy,

so that they turn to honest work and not suicide bomb-ing. We must not occupy their land or remain an over-bearing presence in their lives but in-stead watch carefully from afar, destroying only what requires it via tactical strikes with drones and other, less invasive measures. This is how we can suppress violence and ter-ror successfully and with minimal loss of life. We will succeed not through tearing down but by build-ing up, not through killing innocents but by singling out the guilty, not through brute force but by clever strategy, not through the dirt

and grime of war but by the warm fire of peace and prosperity, interfering with the lives of the Afghan people only when ut-terly necessary. If we leave the Afghans alone and give them no reason to hate us, but instead lend a helping hand in their development, they will abandon the Tal-iban. The fanatics who are left will be abandoned in a dark corner of the coun-try, helpless to harm the rest of the world. hmR

time

tim

e


Features

patDollarD

learning from the Past

in recent weeks President Barack Obama has met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to determine the fate of the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan. The war

torn country is used to foreign military presence within its borders. The country has been occupied by three of the most powerful nations of the last two hundred years: the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States. In 1839, when the UK attempted to establish its military superiority over the Russian Empire, Afghanis began forming their own militias to fight back, successfully defending themselves from the larger, more powerful United Kingdom.

More than a century would pass until the Soviet Union’s failed attempt at supporting a weak Afghan govern-ment. The Soviet Union attacked the eastern borders of Afghanistan to defeat the Islamist Mujahideen who ruled over the lands with no regard for the Afghan government. The Soviets deployed their troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to support a fellow Marxist regime, which was the official ruling party of Afghani-stan at the time. However, when one of the most powerful and feared countries of the time attempted what should have been a quick invasion and occupation, the Mujahideen’s lack of power proved false. The Soviet Union, unlike the Muja-hideen, was equipped with cutting edge military technology, with the ability to at-tack via air and land. The Mujahideen, by contrast, were stuck in the notorious cave complex known as the Tora Bora. Even though Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev deployed nearly 280 military bombers similar to United States’ C-141 crafts, the Mujahideen prevailed. The So-viet Union was misled into believing that the Mujahideen were savages, but they had actually devised a military strategy

that rendered the Soviet bombers use-less. The Mujahideen situated themselves safely within the caves, yet were still able to fire at the advanced military airplanes using Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG-7s). Warlords placed their RPG-7-wield-ing fighters throughout the area and or-dered them to fire at any Soviet vehicle. As a result, the Soviets were forced to abandon their planes lest they be shot out of the sky and their High Mobility Mul-tipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HUMVEE) lest they be shot at or blown up by mines. The Mujahideen forced the Soviet Union to descend to their level to fight – soldier to soldier. By that point in the war, the Mujahideen knew the battlefield too well to lose. Throughout the previous decade, members of the Mujahideen carved out caves and tunnels from the mountains. Snipers and soldiers on turrets had been placed throughout the region. It was in 1989 that the Soviet Union realized its inevitable failure in the region and had to withdraw.

Afghanistan’s lawless Tora Bora re-gion struggled for years between local leaders who ignored the rule of the sit-ting government. As time passed, the once united Mujahideen disintegrated. The local warlords individually led the newly divided states of the Tora Bora. The most notable of these warlords is the Saudi-born Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda. He and his warriors have been linked to attacks such as the bombing of the U.S embassy in Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the U.S government sent the most qualified soldiers to the most troubled region of Afghanistan. The elite Special Forces Unit, knows as Delta Force, was sent on a mission to capture or kill Bin Laden. Along with Delta Force, mem-

by stephen paDuano


Featuresb

oston


Features

bers of the Special Air Service and the Special Boat Service, the British Queen’s elite commandos and six intelligence op-eratives from the CIA were deployed to the region. Learning from previous mis-takes in Afghanistan, the CIA worked with members of the Mujahideen to draw them from Bin Laden’s grip.

This latest attempt at stabilizing the lawless region is the most successful so far. However, despite the evident techno-logical advantage of the United States and its allies, Delta Force did not achieve its main goal of capturing or killing Bin Lad-en, though the elite warriors did succeed-ed in killing or capturing most members of Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the region.

President Obama has now been left dealing with a situation with which few have succeeded. The president must de-cide if the United States and its armed forces will remain in the region until they entirely wipe out the remaining fighters. The main problem is that intelligence re-ports from CIA and Delta Force have dis-covered that Bin Laden and his top advi-sor Ayman Al-Zawihiri, have escaped to

the turbulent, northwest region of Paki-stan, called Waziristan. If Barack Obama goes ahead with his plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to the area, it will be cru-cial for the troops to cross the border to where Bin Laden and his closest allies have escaped.

As President Obama plans to bring an end to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, he and the members of the JCS must realize that we are fighting a mobile force. An in-telligence report by military personnel in the field following the final days of Delta Force in Tora Bora states that we lost Bin Laden and Ayman-Al Zawihiri on De-cember 13th, 2001, when Bin Laden had allegedly been working on a peace treaty with members of the Mujahideen who had allied with the United States. How-ever, during this time, Bin Laden, his top adviser, and other members of Al-Qaeda escaped over the Pakistani border. There-fore, as of December 13th, 2001, mem-bers of the U.S Special Forces, whose mis-sion was to capture or kill Bin Laden, had no business in Afghanistan. It is crucial to listen to intelligence reports and act

accordingly if we want to capture Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, this abhorrent disregard for military intelligence dates back to the beginning of the Bush ad-ministration, when the President’s Daily Brief landed on his desk at his Crawford ranch entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.” These blunders have led us to our current state; approximately 38,000 troops are deep in Afghanistan and our targets in Pakistan. Continuing this course of action would lose us the war. Despite progress in the occupation of Tora Bora, it is time that we address the Pakistani government for its approval to cross the border and hunt down Bin Lad-en in Waziristan. Looking forward in this war, we must use strategy, technology, in-telligence, and even brute force. Ignoring these key components as we have done for the past eight years will prevent prog-ress and allow the enemy combatants who fled from battle at Tora Bora to re-establish themselves in an untouched and unregulated land. The war in Afghanistan is no longer in Afghanistan. hmR

Digitaljournal


Features

War’s Devastation

Following the attacks on September 11, 2009, U.S. intelligence sought the persecution of Osama bin Laden. After the Taliban government ignored demands to deliver him to justice, a U.S.-led coalition of forces began bombing Afghanistan, and a full scale invasion caused further animosity. A resurgent Taliban, supported by al Qaeda, has made the future of Afghanistan extremely bleak. Further exacerbating the devastation was the fraudulent Afghan election in 2009. Obama has been forced to increase troop numbers and try to instate a more centralized effort. Despite all efforts, the devastation of war remains pierc-ing in the hearts of all civilians both in the United States and Afghanistan.

boston

time

time

newsweek

newsweek


economics

The chinese FacadeAn Unconventional Analysis of the Chinese Economy

by DeepenDra mookim

Due to its dynamic G.D.P. growth, burgeoning middle class, and future prospects, China has caught the atten-tion of those on Wall Street

as well as Americans on Main Street with its potential as an emerging superpower. After this tumultuous period in econom-ic history, China is now helping to lead the global economic rebound despite the continued negative pressures on the sys-tem. However, predictions for Chinese economic growth are no longer tethered to reality or sound economic principles.

The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC) believes

that China’s overcapacity is “wreak-ing far-reaching damage on the global economy.” The 4 trillion yuan ($586 bil-lion) stimulus package passed last year is exacerbating this excess industrial capac-ity, especially in the steel, aluminum, and cement industries, among others. Spend-ing in these industries will likely yield a low return on investment due to the in-efficient nature of many of the projects being funded or subsidized. Money that could have been invested in research and development or the like is instead spent on making goods in excess of the market demand. Instead of spending more mon-ey on health, education, and innovation that are more likely to increase Chinese

living standards and benefit the economy in the long run, the Chinese government has been allocating a disproportionate amount of resources with only next quar-ter’s G.D.P. report in mind. Investors and politicians in China are so set on G.D.P. growth of 8% in 2009 that there is a tre-mendous incentive for politicians to un-dertake actions to reach this growth rate, regardless of whether or not their actions are beneficial to the long-term prospects of the Chinese economy.

China’s own state council has admit-ted that annual output of cement would increase to 2.7 billion tons, compared to domestic demand of 1.6 billion tons, if China’s planned cement projects were all

panoram

io


An Unconventional Analysis of the Chinese Economy

panoram

io

launched. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Chinese industrial company prof-its were down 10.6% on year to the end of August, with state-owned industrial companies -- major beneficiaries of the stimulus efforts to date -- seeing profits off 25.2%.” This suggests that the goods created in excess of demand are hurting suppliers and their bottom lines. If this decrease in profits continues for Chi-nese firms producing in excess, many of these firms would have to layoff workers and possibly shut down. Additionally, Chinese exports fell by 1.2 percent year-over-year as reported in data for Novem-ber. Although exports are shrinking at a slower rate and a probable return to ex-port growth is in sight, China’s exports will likely remain under stress with a sub-dued economic recovery as the consen-sus for China’s major trading partners.

Chinese credit markets have expand-ed credit by $1.3 trillion this year, poten-tially indicating a credit bubble that could burst as more and more debtors default. This cheap credit accentuates the prob-lem of excess capacity in China, since money is flowing to increase production notably into Chinese state-owned enter-prises that are also stimulated by lower unit costs from subsidies. The extensions of the Communist state seem to act more and more as artificial inflators of eco-nomic growth utilized by Chinese politi-

cians to serve their personal interests and not those of the Chinese people.

China’s official economic statistics must be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. In fact, Chinese economic data in general should be scrutinized. For ex-ample, Chinese car sales surged in the last few months but gasoline demand has not made a similar comeback. It is likely that the data used to report these two statistics were incomplete or otherwise flawed. However, there are reports about the Chinese central government forcing state enterprises to buy fleets of cars that are then simply stored in parking lots. The banking industry in China also faces

the dangers of corruption in a command economy, since politicians choose most of the top executives at state-owned en-terprises.

Much of China’s growth results from federal officials requiring a certain amount of production at the state and lo-cal levels. These governments naturally respond by finding ways to boost growth

within their jurisdiction, even if resourc-es are misdirected to inefficient uses as a result. Ordos, a Chinese city, exempli-fies the inefficiency within the Chinese economy. This very modern city, built in just five years, was meant to house one million residents, yet almost nobody cur-rently lives in Ordos. Chinese officials say that the majority of the houses in Ordos have been bought, not as homes but as investments. (This, in itself, suggests the warped perception held by the Chinese regarding real estate markets.) Of course, no individual person is going to move to Ordos unless many people move into the city at once. Those that would actually like to move to Ordos also commonly cite high property prices as an obstacle.

In addition, vacancy rates for real estate in many major Chinese cities are high not because there is not enough demand, but that there is excess supply. Prices continue to rise in Chinese real es-tate markets, though, since demand has also significantly increased, partially due to the increased availability of credit.

If expectations remain irrationally high for a long stretch of time, China’s excess capacity, coupled with factors such as a real estate and credit bubble, could eventually cause an economic crisis tan-tamount to the one the world is now starting to shake off. hmR

money that could have been invested in research and development or the like is instead spent on making goods in excess of the market demand.

economics


on January 14, 2004, George W. Bush delivered a speech highlighting a new U.S. plan for space exploration, in which

NASA would achieve three new goals in space exploration. This plan won wide bipartisan support, a rare occurrence for the Bush Administration, and it rep-resented a new direction for NASA fol-lowing the fatal 2003 crash of Columbia. On December 15, 2005, Congress passed what would be called the NASA Authori-zation Act of 2005.

To fully understand the Act, we have to look at it piece by piece. The first goal was for NASA to both complete the In-ternational Space Station (ISS) and retire the Space Shuttle fleet by 2010. The space shuttle has for many years been NASA’s primary spacecraft since its first flight in the early 1980s. Over the past few de-cades, the shuttle has launched humans into space 127 times on a variety of mis-sions, including the deployment of the Hubble Telescope as well as the installa-tion of many satellites in use today.

For the past few years, the shuttle missions have focused mainly on the construction of the ISS. Early concep-tions for a space station have been around since the time of the Cold War, when the United States was in a space race with the Soviet Union. Since then, there have been few attempts at the creation of a long-term space station, and none have been successful.

In September of 1993, Vice President

Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Vik-tor Chernomyrdin announced plans for a new international space station. Japan and several countries from Western Eu-rope were included as primary investors and participants in this new project. Five years later, when the first piece of the sta-tion was launched into space, the station was on track to be completed in 2003. A series of unexpected delays eventually forced NASA to move the completion back until 2011. Throughout the course of its construction, astronauts have con-tinued to live on the space station for periods of six months at a time. They

spend their days performing various ex-periments that are all key to making con-tinued scientific discoveries, improving life on earth, and helping prepare for and improve future space travel. Because the three remaining shuttles in the fleet are set to retire in 2010 and the ISS is set to be completed in 2011, spacecrafts from other countries, which tend to be less ef-ficient, will have to fend for themselves with the final pieces of the construction. It makes much more sense to keep the shuttle in operation until the completion of the ISS, but that currently seems un-likely.

The second major part of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 calls for NASA to develop and test a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2008. Accord-ing to the legislation, it will take its first manned flight in or before 2014. This is the most dramatic aspect of NASA’s new space program, since the last time NASA worked to develop a new spacecraft was in the 1980s, when the shuttle program was created originally.

NASA began by introducing the Constellation Program. Developed by Lockheed Martin, the human space flight program consists of two launch vehicles, Ares I and Ares V. As the crew launch ve-hicle, Ares I will carry astronauts into the earth’s orbit. Ares V, on the other hand, is a cargo launch vehicle that will not carry any humans. Instead, it will carry ma-terials and equipment needed for longer missions, such as fuel and food, outside the confines of earth. These extra supplies would attach to Ares I in space before heading to the moon or Mars.

NASA has been working on Ares I since early 2007 and hopefully will pub-lish the design by July 2010. Testing will continue until 2012 and a human launch is scheduled for no later than 2014. Un-fortunately, this means that the United States will be without a spacecraft for four years after the shuttle retires. This is even more of a reason to extend the lifetime for the Space Shuttle program.

The third and final aspect of NASA’s new initiatives calls for the return of hu-man explorations to the moon by 2020. Humans have not traveled to the moon since the final Apollo mission in 1971.

Science and Technology

To the Dark Side of the moon

by alex posner

As NASA plans for the future, the Space Shuttle may be headed for history.

unfortunately, this means that the united States will be with-out a spacecraft for four years after the shuttle retires. This is even more of a reason to ex-tend the lifetime for the Space Shuttle program.



Considering that the computers used to bring the Apollo to moon had less pro-cessing power than today’s pocket calcu-lator, this is a great time for this initiative. The Constellation Program is largely de-rived from the original moon missions as many of the fundamental designs that were used 40 years ago still are being ap-plied today.

The recent downturn in the economy has forced NASA to re-evaluate its pro-posed future programs and projected timelines. The Constellation Program, which is supposed to be implemented over the next decade, is expected to cost $97 billion by 2020 and $200.6 billion by the end of 2030, as NASA plans to con-struct a space station on the moon. In an attempt to fully evaluate the effectiveness of NASA’s current programs, the Obama administration ordered a panel review of the Constellation Program as well as an investigation completed in mid-Novem-ber, which proposes five alternatives to the current program.

One proposed modification is essen-tially a minor reworking of the current space shuttle with a side mount to carry the astronauts. This side mount would be attached to the fuel tank, which is po-tentially very dangerous, since if the fuel were to ignite, the shuttle would explode. Unfortunately, this new rocket design would not be powerful enough for a fu-ture mission to Mars. Another idea is also based on the current shuttle in place and would require a redesign by putting the capsule on top. This idea is safer, be-cause the astronauts would be further away from the rocket fuel, but it still isn’t enough for missions to Mars. Two other designs call for a lighter Ares V and are believed to be the best alternative to the current Constellation Program. This would eliminate the need for Ares I, as the new vehicle would be capable of car-rying both crew and cargo. The final de-sign would be to build an all-liquid fuel rocket similar to Saturn V, the rocket that brought people to the moon 40 years ago. It would eliminate the need for expensive solid rocket fuel.

These plans will be presented to President Obama in January 2010, offer-ing him a range of options from which to decide NASA’s future. According to many predictions, President Obama will most

likely decide to change the new space program from a two-vehicle system to a one-vehicle system. This will cost more in the short term, as NASA will work to re-design the spacecraft, but in the long run will cost less because one (not two) vehi-cles will be needed to travel to the moon.

In light of our precarious economic situation, some will ask why the U.S. gov-ernment continues to invest billions of dollars on trips to the moon and space exploration. What do we have to gain by exploring space? The answer is knowl-edge.

Among the questions space explora-tion can answer are these: Are we alone in the universe? What other living things may exist? Scientific advances from past space exploration are readily apparent. Freeze-drying food, heat shield materi-als that protect skyscrapers, bar coding items at stores, memory foam found in mattresses, invisible braces, swimsuits that reduce drag, technology that allows for minimally invasive knee surgery, the Givens Buoy Life Raft (which has been credited with saving over 400 lives), infrared ear thermometers, ingestible toothpaste, wireless headsets (Bluetooth), carbon monoxide detectors, foam in ath-letic helmets, various passenger airplane technologies, Anthrax detectors, artificial limbs, and plasma screen displays are all

technologies engineered in full or part through NASA’s various space missions. These technologies did not exist before NASA’s work in space exploration and for these we owe NASA credit. The scien-tific discoveries we can make in the next decade through the development of the Constellation Program would be key to improving life on earth.

The moon itself has groundbreaking resources. There are large amounts of helium-3 present on the moon’s surface, a substance easily adaptable into rocket or automobile fuel. Also important is the frozen water that exists just below the moon’s surface, which could be impor-tant to helping sustain life.

In the next few months, there will be much debate as President Obama de-cides on the fate of NASA’s Constellation Program. Some experts believe that he will call for a one-vehicle system, similar to the Apollo Program, which would be based on Ares V. If he does, the timeline of the project goals will most likely be pushed back by several years. As coun-tries such as India, Japan, and Russia have already pledged their own lunar explora-tions, the U.S. must continue its scientific journey and continue to lead the world in boldly exploring the final frontier. If we do not, we will lose our largest territory: the skies. hmR

spacearium.com


in 1633, Galileo Galilei and the views of rational science were tried by the Inquisition, in the most notorious trial in the his-tory of science. The church es-

tablishment refused to accept an incon-venient truth—that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet, today scientists have betrayed their martyr and have now be-come the inquisitors, suppressing facts and data pertaining to climate change and waging a crusade against researchers challenging the Global Warming Doc-trine and its globalist clergy.

As leaders and national representa-tives converge in Copenhagen to reach a watershed agreement addressing climate change their efforts are hindered by the cloud of uncertainty and scandal revolv-ing around climate change’s substan-tiation through suspect practice. For the past decade, European progressives and leading scientists have demanded sweep-ing reforms to address perceived climate irregularities. Despite the plethora of is-sues confronting the developing world, international security concerns, and an unstable global economy, the United

Nations has shifted its attention to com-bating climate change and catalyzed an enormous shift in energy policies throughout the world. However, these ef-forts have been based on incomplete or fudged data, exaggerating the externali-ties of man-made emissions and rate of climate change.

In November 2009, hackers broke into a server from the Climate Re-search Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, one of the leading research entities investigating climate change. Over 1000 e-mails and 2,000 documents were stolen and disseminated, revealing disturbing information regarding the na-ture of climate change research. The CRU is no ordinary university research pro-gram; it plays a central role in shaping in-ternational perception on climate change. The director of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, heads the Hadley Center, a re-

search and data collecting institution whose statistics are the primary scientific data selected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

For years, members of the CRU have evaded Freedom of Information laws in the U.K. Their unwillingness to publicize their findings calls for a serious inquiry into the validity of their data and means of conducting research. The expla-nation for these scientists’ secrecy is clear by the nature of the leaked emails: the results of their research were wrong and skewed. In November 1999, Dr. Jones, explained to a colleague that “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s, a leading scien-tist suggesting that after 1,000 years of de-cline, global temperature has dramatical-ly risen] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the de-cline.” This admission to blatant tinker-ing with scientific data further sheds light upon the willingness of scientists and activists to intimidate and manipulate the public and politicians to fulfill their radical agenda. These scientists have not only revealed the pitfalls and inexpli-cable aspects of arguments for climate change, but also shamed the field of sci-

An inconvenient TruthPerhaps the dangers of climate change from global warming have been exaggerated...

by alexanDer Danielsouthenergy


Their unwillingness to pub-licize their findings calls for a serious inquiry into the validity of their data and means of conducting re-search.


entists. Their conspiracies might sound far-fetched, but considering the billions in research grants funneled to scientists by gullible politicians and fearful pri-vate institutions, the scientific commu-nity certainty has a monetary incentive to overhype global warming. Furthermore, Jones branded skeptics of climate change as “idiots” and even expressed desire to use violence on a skeptic. Such vitriol is commonplace in the highest echelon of the scientific community. Prominent op-ponents of the theory of climate change have been ostracized for failing to sign the IPCC assessment reports.

The central problem at the fore-front of Climategate stems from statistics and trends in temperature and climate that belie the popular notion promoted by unwavering adherents to the theory of climate change. Although man-made emissions certainly play some role in the deterioration of the ozone layer and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere, scien-tists have exaggerated the severity of the situation. The truth is that temperatures have declined over the past two years, con-trary to the ethos of climate change, and according to the BBC, temperatures have also steadily declined since they peaked in 1998. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, from 1945- 1977, when global industrial activity and fossil fuel emissions rose, temperatures dropped. Consequently, it is of little surprise that scientists devoted to the perpetuation of a myth would go to extraordinary lengths to cover up their lies. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research summed up this sentiment a month ago in the leaked e-mails by not-ing: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Americans are now becoming skeptical of the notion of global warming, as the number of indi-viduals believing that warming is caused by humans declined from 47% in April 2008 to 36%. Furthermore the percentage of Americans thinking that there is cred-ible evidence indicating climate change has slipped from 71% to 57% in that same time period.

Furthermore, the approach en-dorsed by the United Nations, the IPCC, and most environmentalists will hinder

economic growth throughout the inter-national community. The most disturbing aspect of the so-called agreement is the massive expenditures required, potential-ly upwards of $100 billion annualy to de-veloping countries, with the intention of investing in “environmentally-friendly” energy. Such expenditures are not only counter-intuitive, but outrageously ex-pensive. These measures will not directly impact struggling people in the develop-ing world. Environmentalists claim swift action is needed to ensure the developing countries are not adversely affected by “climate change”; yet in reality the inter-national community is just pursuing an

unsubstantiated threat, rather than us-ing the potency of multilateralism to ad-dress real concerns, namely development and the eradication of poverty. The E.U. plans to divert funds from Official Devel-opmental Assistance to pay for the $10.6 billion stipend for “green” technologies in the developing countries. Moreover, developing countries emit a fraction of all fossil fuels. The real culprits (yet in reality all countries have the right to pur-sue their own economic interests)—The United States and the People’s Republic of China, which account for over 40% of carbon dioxide—have been reluctant to

ratify the Kyoto Protocol and have made meager emission cuts. China’s stated goal of reducing its carbon intensity, a mea-suring of emissions per unit of GDP, by 40% will in fact cause an increase in its emissions. The international community should scrap these rash plans.

Most concerning, these propos-als will jeopardize fiscal growth on a huge scale in a time of economic tumult. Green energies, namely bio-fuels, wind power, solar power, and geothermal technolo-gies are cancers to economic systems. Not only are such energy sources inef-fective and unreliable, but they carry ob-scene prices. According to the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute, solar energy costs 300% the price of coal, while wind energy costs 150% of the price of coal. The United States would inevi-tably suffer the most from these unsus-tainable economic practices, which will further strain our economy. President Obama has promised to cut the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed 17% cut would cost American households an average of $890. Obama’s environmental policies are tantamount to a tax on all Americans and would also significant reduce our manufacturing capacity—resulting in job losses. In es-sence, the American people will saddle a debt based on the climate change hoax.

In light of Climategate, politi-cians and the public cannot afford to throw their unwavering support behind an unsettled theory. Quite simply, the hacked e-mails render the science of cli-mate change fraudulent. In his inaugural address, President Obama noted his in-tention to “restore science to its rightful place.” His credo, and that of all individu-als and nations seeking responsible sci-ence, has been marginalized by global efforts to address an illegitimate concern based on the baseless inclinations of ide-ology-driven scientists. hmR


in light of climategate, politicians and the public cannot afford to throw their unwavering support behind an unsettled theory. Quite simply, the hacked e-mails render the science of cli-mate change fraudulent.

themoneytimes

?


The

hora

ce m

ann

Revi

ewho

race

man

n Sc

hool

231

Wes

t 246

th S

tree

tRi

verd

ale,

New

yor

k 10

471

Issue 4 - Afghanistan

Documents