Who will the Fed vote for?

As I continue to contemplate Citizens United v FEC ruling, I had a thought that disturbed me. Since the Fed is a collective of privately held corporations, how will that central banking entity respond to the news?
After all, this is the central bank of the United States. So, if the central bank is group of corporations, then the new supreme court ruling says it’s game on for the central bank of the United States to make political contributions, right?
Somehow that seems, hmmm, unconstitutional?
Any thoughts?

Aaron Ferreira

“Don’t Ask Don’t” Tell Comes Home

I’ve not know anyone discharged under the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy discharging gay and lesbian service members. I’ve known gay and lesbian soldiers who made it through the military without being discharged, but never anyone serving their country and then caught and expelled for being gay.

Until now.

In a discussion last night with a fellow classmate he disclosed that after three years serving as an Army linguist he had been discharged back in 2000. “It was a long time ago” he said, his voice a mixture of regret and anger.

It was a long time ago – but for many service members it’s all about today. Today is when they worry about being caught and discharged under DADT – a policy which myself and many people in my generation find ludicrous and unsupported by the facts. Study after study shows the policy is unnecessary and it makes a mockery of the ability of our armed forces to deal with changing societal conditions at the same time they so ably adapt to the changing tactics of our enemies and the changing conditions on the battlefield.

The policy is wrong – it was wrong when it was implemented by then-President Clinton back in 1994 and it’s wrong now. We don’t need another year of study – what we need is for the policy to be lifted and for the United States to follow the same policies regarding gay and lesbian soldiers as out NATO allies have been following for decades.

We’re a strong nation with an excellent military. Somehow I think all four branches of the service are going to be able to handle this. That’s the kind of confidence I have in our military – I just wish opponents of repealing the law, people like Sen. John McCain, exhibited the same level of confidence.

Citizens United v FEC

Lunacy in the United States government has run amok.  The quiet but pivotal decision by the Supreme Court last week will inevitably speed the destruction of “representative democracy” in this land by allowing bloated corporations to take the reins during any given election cycle. Where disguised attempts at election manipulation using money once stood, now stands a rubber stamped endorsement by the “highest court” in the United States for corporations to buy and sell candidates like trading cards.  I feel like pulling my hair out.

Modern history has shown us that candidates who spend more, win more. Now I don’t know about you, but I think my bank account may be slightly smaller than Haliburton, or ExxonMobil, or Lockheed Martin.  Simply look at those three corporations and ask yourself what kind of agendas will they be pushing on Capitol Hill, and on the campaign trail all the way down to your local representatives.  If it pains you to imagine these corporations may not have your best interests in mind, humor me, and continue reading.

Do expanded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continued production of gas guzzlers, and increases in “secret” weapons and defense operations budgets sound like what you would donate your money to a campaign for? Well, guess what America? Those are the types of agenda items that will be shoved down our representatives throats by these multinational corporations which portray a façade of national affiliation while by reflex, follow the largest profit margin no matter how detrimental the consequences of its meddling may become.

Now, I often sit discouraged knowing that since the founding of the Republic and indeed throughout history, blunt warnings of special interests were written on historical documents (Federalist Paper No. 10) by revered past leaders, yet the words go unheeded by our own “supreme court” in this recent despicable ruling. All of us that live within the United States will soon feel and taste what will spawn from this ruling. However, there is a bright side to all of this. Now you can actually see the puppet strings.

Aaron Ferreira

Guest Blogger – Aaron Ferreira

We’re going to have a guest blogger for the next week.

Aaron Ferreira is a 1st year International Security student He has a military background, having served two tours as a Marine in Iraq as well as a marksmanship training chief at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Aaron has a research background as well and is a former associate of the National Defense Council Foundation (NDCF) in Washington, DC. He received his BA in International Studies from the University of South Carolina in 2006.

The Concept of “Security”

We often think of security as being almost entirely militarily-based. Our “national security” establishment is composed of our armed forces and intelligence services with a whole host of paid consultants, almost all of them former military. I think this is an extremely limited and narrow view that in the long run is costing our country and our allies enormously, both in blood and treasure.

Security means many things – it means providing a population with basic needs, with adequate nutrition, health care, education and more in addition to ensuring a secure military environment. And there is conclusive evidence to show that many factors not traditionally associated with links to conflict, in particular high infant mortality rates, are connected with increased risks of internal and external state violence, as shown in Peace and Conflict’s latest report for 2010.

Today in Afghanistan we’re shortsightedly focusing, again, on a counter-insurgent campaign built heavily around themes of militarily “defeating” the Taliban when experience shows us, as in Iraq, that co-opting insurgents by employing them (as in the Sons of Iraq program) is far more effective than employing a timeworn doctrine based on military tactics from the past.

The point of all of this is that we need to take a more holistic view of what exactly “security” comprises. We need to involve experts in conflict analysis and resolution as well as military experts when faced with military conflict or better yet, before we face military conflict. There are enormous resources available which can alert us to the possibilities of conflict including the World Bank’s Conflict Analysis Framework (CAF), USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) User’s Guide on Measuring Fragility. And while pursuing advanced degrees, as I’m currently doing and as many of you reading are considering or in the process of completing, we need to educate ourselves on the means and methods of providing and maintaining a secure environment for people everywhere as well as those we seek to protect and defend in conflicts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Beginning of a New Term

Everyone is back in Colorado for the start of the winter term. It’s been a cold one but the good thing is we know we’ll be getting more snow in the mountains, which means one thing – better skiing!

I’m looking forward to this term and the things it holds – more learning, more exciting discussions and as usual – a lot of work. I’m taking 18 credits – Political Risk Analysis, Comparative Politics, Civil Wars and International Responses & Advanced Security Methods. It’s gonna be a tough but rewarding experience.

This month will be a busy one. I’ll be working on applications for summer programs and also on my app for the Josef Korbel School in DC fall semester. In addition I have several projects with which I’m involved on campus including interviewing Ph.D students as well as Korbel alumni doing interesting things.

The Debate Over the Obama Escalation in Afghanistan

Because the President’s speech happened so close to the end of the term we really didn’t get the chance we all wanted to debate the merits of the plan he announced for increasing US forces in Afghanistan along with announcing a withdrawal date. Opinion amongst my peers varies – this weekend some of us were out together and one commonly expressed position was bewilderment at why Obama would offer a withdrawal date for the US mission before we had successfully completed the mission.

Rather than buy into the current polemic being circulated which states that insurgents would simply “sit around” and wait the US out (as if insurgents, by their very nature, aren’t already doing that) it’s useful to look at past conflicts as prologue to this one. The US also said it wouldn’t send troops into Kosovo, which many felt would embolden the Serbian forces to “wait the US out.” That didn’t happen, mainly because NATO began building a reinforced road from the Ionian sea off Albania to the border with Kosovo to use an an invasion route, and the intelligence services of the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Russia knew it. The US indicating a long-term committment through the establishment of permanent facilities in Afghanistan is one way to provide the level of confidence necessary to encourage the Afghan army and Afghan people to fully commit to the fight against the Taliban.

In addition the President was right to speak about the dangers of continual warfare, something our Founding Fathers wrote about when they warned of the dangers of perpetual warfare, including James Madison in this quote:

“The means of defence agst. Foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

The other issue I didn’t see addressed was Pakistan. Pakistan is not, by any reasonable measuring stick, an “ally” of the United States. This thinking, that we must continue to pour huge amount of weapons into Pakistan which it then uses mainly along its border with India, is a fallacy which must be corrected. Personally I oppose the continuance and increase of massive aid packages to Pakistan, most of which are lost to corruption, unless they aid is channeled through NGO non-affiliated with the Pakistani government or military. In addition the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal must be assured before any additional US aid is provided.

These are all very tough issues with no easy answers and personally I appreciate the amount of time the president and his administration took to respond to General McChrystal’s request, especially in comparison to the previous administration where decisions over serious issues like war were resolved in minutes. It was exactly that type of non-reasoned thinking, soaked in mirror-imaging which led us directly into quagmires like those we’re currently mired in in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. It’s refreshing to have a deliberative president who seriously considers every option.

“Enhanced Interrogation” or Torture?

Today in our Research and Methods class we discussed ethics – what are they and who decides them? We also discussed the issue of torture. Or what some people refer to as “enhanced interrogation”.

The discussion was respectful but it was heated. I’m going to be blunt when I say that I feel the use of the term “enhanced interrogation” is nothing more than an excuse for what is, undeniably, torture.

The use of “non-lethal” insects, threats of physical and sexual assault on detainees families, face-slapping, mock-executions, intimidation with a handgun and power drill, sleep deprivation, waterboarding or other “non-lethal” methods of interrogation to procure information from suspects in US or Allied custody are all a shameful violation of the principles we as a country are supposed to hold dear – the principles the men and women of our armed forces have fought and died for in all the wars before the ones we’re currently fighting. It is not a small thing to point out that after WWII Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes for subjecting American soldiers to what today is referred to by some as “enhanced interrogation.”

I can list the reasons some feel torture is justified – that it has resulted in intelligence which has saved lives, that the mere fact detainees think they may be subjected to it means they’re more likely to cooperate, and others. But the fact remains that torture is essentially aversive conditioning, which anyone who’s ever taken a class in psychology can tell you is ineffective. Subjecting someone to aversive conditioning doesn’t mean they change the behavior for which they’re being punished, or in the case of interrogation means they offer up information the interrogator is seeking. It results in them doing whatever they have to do to stop the form of aversive conditioning to which they’re being subjected.

The great thing about the Josef Korbel school is that we’re all free to express our opinions on controversial issues like this. Our professors and fellow students may or may not share the same viewpoints but we all allow each other to express them freely and even though we may disagree we’re always respectful of one another. And it tends to liven up classes that can, at times, get a bit academic

Ethics in Security Studies – Avoiding Mirror-Imaging

One of the issues we struggle with as we move through the process of obtaining our MAs is that of ethics. How do we make decisions? Who do we consult when making them? What sources do we use? How do we avoid mirror imaging – the process defined as such:

Of the obstacles the intelligence community must overcome, mirror-imaging is among the most challenging. Mirror-imaging means that an analyst may perceive and process information through the filter of personal experience. Mirror-imaging imposes personal perspectives and cultural background on incomplete data, undermining objectivity. Because objectivity is a key component of intelligence analysis, mirror-imaging impedes efforts to make accurate judgments about incomplete information.

I myself am guilty of this practice – I don’t think there’s a student, analyst or policymaker out there who isn’t. When we make judgements they’re inherently biased by our personal experiences. Learning to reach beyond this – to avoid this trap – is one of the most challenging aspects of advanced study of issues of security. As our nation’s policymakers struggle with General McChrystal’s request for additional troops to implement a comprehensive COIN in Afghanistan they to will seek to avoid this problem – and hopefully arrive at a solution that balances the sometimes conflicting needs of the NATO alliance, the United States, Pakistan and the Afghan people.

International Security at Josef Korbel

My name is Shane and I’m a 1st year International Security graduate student at the Josef Korbel School.

This term I’m taking three classes: International Terrorism, Security and Defense Methods I and US National Security Policy. We’re almost done with the term – it’s gone by so fast! I went to NYU as an undergrad where we were on semesters so the term system is taking some getting used too, but in a good way. It’s shorter and more intense.

I’m loving my program so far – I really enjoy my classes, my professors and most of all my fellow graduate students who are all as actively involved in theory and practice on issues of security as I am. Tonight I attended a meeting of the Organization of Security Students where we discussed the simulation we’re going to run next term and possibly putting together a much larger, all-day simulation involving the Air Force Academy and UC Boulder. Simulations allow us to create a live-action event where we each play a government or international agency as it responds to an emergency situation concerning security, for example a terrorist attack, the hijacking of a train or ship carrying hazardous cargo or a coup in a country with strategic importance to the United States.

I’ll blog more as we move through the year – I’ll include my plans for the future and what my fellow students are up to. In addition I’ll include news and information on the school and what’s going on in the world and fill you in on how we incorporate real events into our analysis and learning processes here at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies.