Because the western democratic model may not be applicable, affordable, or even attainable in nations struggling for democracy, we negate the Resolution: The United States should intervene in another nation’s struggle for democracy In this debate, we would like to provide definitions for the following terms: - The United States should: it is imperative for our national interest that the United States influence the outcome of another nation’s struggle for democracy ****SAY ONLY IF NEEDED IN A REBUTTAL**** - Democracy: a VIABLE established system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives - Intervene/military intervention: use military
US has been time and again in the past questioning the commitment of the Pakistani establishment in its war against terror and now locating Osama just under the nose of the Pakistan army establishment and the US forces conducting a unilateral operation without any assistance or intimation to the Pakistani authorities, speaks volumes about the trust deficit which the two countries are facing at the moment. China seems to be ready to exploit this situation to expand its influence in the energy rich middle east region. China has shown keenness to further tighten its already close relationship with its long term strategic ally, driven by the view that Pakistan is going to play a crucial, even defining role in Afghanistan amid declining US influence there, especially amid expectations of scaling down of ‘war on terror’ post Osama and US troops withdrawl. This is visible in the Chinese backing Pakistan upfront against the unilateral US operation in Abbottabad which was seen as a violation of sovereignty of Pakistan by the US. Further China has promised to give Pakistan 50 advanced multirole JF-17 Thunder fighter jets during the recent visit of Prime Minister Geelani to
In applying the UCMJ to civilians, there are three degrees of inclusiveness that may govern jurisdiction. First, the military might, as a matter of policy, limit its prosecutions to DOD contractors. While in keeping with Congress’s earlier MEJA legislation, such a limitation would run counter to the legislative intent behind the 2007 act. MEJA was not applicable to the civilian contractors in the Abu Ghraib scandal because the DOD had not technically hired them, even though they performed military functions. According to Senator Graham, the recent change in UCMJ jurisdiction was intended to curb contractor abuses such as Abu Ghraib.38 Thus, at the very least, nonDOD contractors actively involved in military operations should now be subject to UCMJ authority.
Yoo “argues that the language of the constitution, long-accepted precedents, and the practical need for a speedy action in emergencies all support broad executive power during war.”(Taking sides p73). Yoo describes that the constitution examines the two branches power- the president as Commander-in-chief and congress with control over funding and declaring war. The Framers made it this way to be more flexible and create a more deceive action instead of going through the legislative process. Yoo believes that the President has unilateral war powers based on what is written in the Constitution and does not need Congress approval Michael Cairo on the hand thinks different. He believes the founding fathers never envisioned to grant exclusive war powers to the president.
While Murphy covers a variety of subjects for comparison in his book, I have chosen to look specifically at the military similarities, which Murphy does in chapter two his book, aptly titled The Legions. While I do not agree with all of Murphy’s claims, after reading through his book I feel that America could be seen as a new Rome in some lights, and the
Anti-American feeling in Pakistan is intense, while American officials are no longer able to button up over what they see as Pakistani double-dealing. Admiral Mullen was right to say that in supporting groups such as the Haqqanis “the government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistani Army, continues to jeopardize Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected and prosperous nation with genuine regional and international influence”. But on the other hand, he knows that there can be no successful (or even partially successful) conclusion to the mission in Afghanistan unless Pakistan can be somehow persuaded to see its strategic interests differently. Admiral Mullen says that America must “reframe” its relationship with Pakistan, but resist the temptation to “disengage” from it. That is easier said than done.
Scholars have also shown that political polarization has implications for mediating institutions, namely the media, elections and political parties. As Mann and Ornstein argue, political polarization and the proliferation of media sources have “reinforce[d] tribal divisions, while enhancing a climate where facts are no longer driving the debate and deliberation, nor are they shared by the larger public.”[4] As other scholars have argued, the media often support and provoke the obstruction strategies used to disrupt the regular order of policy procedures. [4][65] Some scholars assert that the media are not disconnected from general public opinion and that media outlets work to remain unpolarized and nonideological in order to appeal to a larger
I believe that the sovereignty of this nation is at stake, and that the lack of resolve of many of the elected officials currently in power is disgraceful. There are a few notable exceptions. For example, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California in a staff editorial titled "Mission Creep: A House Bill to Allow the Military to be Used to Patrol the Border is Misguided and Dangerous" from the May 26, 1998 The Orange County Register, stated: "If nothing else, the primary goal of the federal government is to secure our nation's borders...If it takes military troops to secure our borders, then they should be permitted to do so. "(“Should the US military patrol the borders?”). Well said,
This is where Virtue Ethics falls short on this topic, because its focus goes from person to person, and case to case, and this philosophy can easily get lost in the shuffle, when you take into consideration, that in most civilized countries are governed by more than just one man or woman, rather the country is led by a group or system of groups, to make military decisions. For example in America the President as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, however, he can only recommend to the Senate and House of Representatives a military plan of action. And on the opposite side of this coin, in the days of Genghis Kahn (1206-1227) noted Emperor of Mongolia in the 13th century, had the power to declare war on his own without significant resistance. This is not to claim that Genghis Kahn was a virtuous or a Virtue Ethicist in itself, it is purely for the example of the early Mongolian power structure. One other drawback to Virtue Ethics is relativity, for example in American culture it is perfectly acceptable by many groups to consume cows and cow bi-products, while in Hindu culture cows are considered sacred, revered, and is considered the symbol of life, so it is against their beliefs to ever kill a cow.
Unfortunately, it has often been treated as a summary of Clausewitz's mature theory--which it most emphatically is not. Rather, it is only a primitive precursor to On War. Its subject matter is largely tactical. While some of the more important theoretical concepts of On War are fairly well-developed ("friction," for example), many are embryonic and others entirely absent. In particular, and in great contrast to the later work, "Principles of War" is not notably sophisticated in historical terms.