Angels and Demons

There is something beautiful about reverence.  It's what transforms flocks of tourists into worshipers, noise into quiet, and cynicism into reflection.

Normally when you hear about the West Bank you hear about strife, loss, and one group pitted against another.  Yet on my first visit to the Palestinian territories, the Palestinian people and the tourists they welcomed from across the globe schooled me in the ways of tolerance, cooperation and faith.

This is not to say that suffering does not persist.  Only a short ride away from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem looms the partition wall and a Palestinian refugee camp.  In Manger Square a banner of Yasser Arafat hangs adjacent to the city's Christmas tree as a reminder that despite the city's enduring history, its future has yet to be written.

I have been contrasting my experience as a guest of the holy city, in which people of many backgrounds and ethnicity came together to stand in awe of what they say there, with the ongoing turmoil and desperation of a people for whom justice has yet to be resurrected.  

What came to mind was a sentiment scrawled in black and white on a portion of the partition wall inside the refugee camp: "Light is the only end to darkness."  

For many that light is religion.  It is a force that in its pure form helps us to recognize not only the divine in our world, but also the humanity in each other.  

Whatever the reasons for Bethlehem's impressive peace, I pray that tomorrow grows ever lighter.

Rough Road Ahead

The fog of war shows no signs of lifting.  Instead of throwing on our headlights and inching forward until the road clears, security professionals are doing their best to draw a new road map that will offer clear direction based on the measurements of morality and justice.  Moral cartography was the theme of the day at the Institute for National Security (INSS) conference on urban warfare here in Tel Aviv, Israel. 

If there was consensus among the presenters it was that the rules must be changed.  We are traversing terrain for which all the rules of the road harken back to the times of conventional warfare.  Armies fighting armies in uniform with internationally understood just war precepts.  The onset of terrorists and insurgents fighting in civilian clothing amongst an innocent civilian population proves that the rules of engagement have not adapted to the times.  General Stanley McChrystal (Ret.) reminded the audience that urban warfare is not a unique or new phenomenon, but our missions in these urban areas require overcoming evolving challenges.  This will only worsen as the world becomes more and more urbanized.

The second consensus of the day involved the idea of balance.  We must find the balance between the security of our soldiers and protecting the lives of the enemy’s civilians.  Major General Amos Yadlin described the question of what to do as a tragic dilemma between action and inaction.  Decision makers are pulled between two polls, at one end the willingness to harm civilians in order to hit terrorists and protect our citizens, and on the other allowing terrorists to escape for fear of harming civilians. 

General McChrystal also spoke of balance and what he called the paradox of urban warfare.  He described the recent wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq as struggles for the support of the people.  The civilians there had a choice between supporting insurgents and the security forces.  In order to win their support, the forces had to balance being credible and capable in their efforts to increase security with demonstrating care and concern for the innocent population.  Insurgents try to tip this balance, which is why military conduct in urban areas requires great discipline.  In this way fighting ethically is strategic, but both McChrystal and Yadlin emphasized that moral conduct is equally philosophical. 

In keeping with the discussion of balance, Major General Yadlin posed the question, to whom are we more obliged, our own soldiers or the enemy’s civilians?  Professor David Enoch called upon us to remember that the innocents on the opposing side are no less innocent as the ones on our side.  He argued that we must demonstrate a willingness to accept casualties of soldiers on our side in order to save civilians on the other side.  McChrystal too spoke of the willingness to sacrifice stating that it would go a long way in demonstrating the importance of mission. 

The key to ethical conduct in urban warfare and counterterrorism is to let moral principles guide strategy and tactics so as both to minimize the loss of life and God willing justify the losses that are unavoidable.  Fighting terrorists and insurgents ethically is an ongoing challenge, one made especially difficult by the lack of roadmap.  As we prepared to inch forward through the ethical fog, Professor Enoch left us with a sobering but important point, that in war the price is paid in blood.  


Today a new definition is needed to understand what it means to fight justly in these irregular times, because judging from the past stretch of road, there are curves ahead.

Must start somewhere

When grappling with large tasks, it is sometimes the smallest steps that make the most difference.  Tonight while one roommate immigrated to my room for the promise of a stronger internet connection, and the other prepared for a date, I decided to write the first paragraph of my research paper.  Line zero is always intimidating but once begun it is exhilarating in its freedom.  The paragraph I composed is less than academic and therefore may soon fall victim to convention, but until then I thought I would share with you the first step of what will prove to be a long, arduous path to completion:

Buffalo Springfield said it best.  "There's something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear."  States meet each other’s gaze with the cold stare of geopolitical calculations as they slowly draw lines in the sand.   Whether the tide of history is coming in or going out remains to be seen.  According to the latest IAEA report, Iran marches towards nuclear capability with strategic, security, and ideological convictions.  Many believe a nuclear Iran is inevitable, while some maintain that a military strike or threat of one could alter the course.  The future of Iran’s nuclear program may be shrouded in the veil of uncertainty, but what has been exposed in the past year is Iran’s standing in the region.  This notoriously revisionist state has managed to elude the American crystal ball, but what is clear is that for Iran the status quo is unacceptable and therefore unsustainable.  By analyzing the Iranian reaction to the Arab Spring, policy makers can understand where Iran stands in the region and what might be next for the state behind enemy lines.

Fear and Loathing

My research question began as precise and targeted, but the path to the answer requires an investigation into the mysterious inner workings of a foreign policy outlier.  Just like Salvadaor Dali's surrealist clock, so my research question has melted like a distressed popsicle slipping slowly down the stairway of precision to the steps of murky fundamental, underlying belief.

I am talking about Iran.  But aren't we all.

I want to know if the events of the Arab Spring have any effect on Iran's nuclear ambition.  In order to answer this question I first have to understand the effects of the Arab Spring (a process that is still ongoing), what they mean for Iran, and how Iran might react.  Judging Iran's reaction requires an understanding of the country's leaders and their motivations.  How do they see the world?  How do current events fit into this world view?

In what has become a crash course on Iran, I have developed one main quandary about the country and its thinking.  On the one hand, Iran is a Realist's dream come true.  Their goal is survival, they see the U.S. as a threat in this regard, so they strive for ever more power, seeking to become a regional and perhaps global hegemon.  Nuclear weapons capability is a way to ensure both security and power.  Pursuing this path is rational and predictable.  This is Realism in practice.

Flip the coin and you see a darker side, a less predictable view of the world.  Iran sees its role as the growing hegemon that will spread Islam and Islamic rule throughout the world.  Ahmadinejad in particular (and his supporters in the army) subscribe to apocalyptic teachings that require such a situation before the coming of the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah.  Nuclear weapons are a good tool for the apocalypse.

As the international community attempts to deal with Iran and it's pending nuclear threat, it is best to keep in mind the side of its world view we do understand.  Iran has watched as countries without nuclear weapons have been invaded and dismantled, or had their leaders forcibly removed from power.  They have watched as dangerous countries with nuclear weapons have remained untouched.  They fear for their sovereignty.

I should note that while I am getting closer to being able to see the world through Persian eyes, I do not support Iranian foreign policy, especially in regards to its nuclear agenda.  I have heard the argument that it is not fair to deny countries the option to develop nuclear weapons.  The international system exists in anarchy, countries are allowed to do as they please.  Additionally we still maintain an arsenal of thousands.  I don't care.  The world needs less destructive power, not more.  Any country who cannot admit this should be faulted.

Still, I encourage those who get the chance to influence Iranian policy to keep in mind how Iran views the playing field.  Sure there are religious story lines and goals running through their policies, but we can only operate in the reality that we know.  If we can understand the root of their fear, perhaps we can orchestrate a remedy.

Pride and Precedent

Republican presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney promised one thing in last week's GOP candidate debate; that this would be an American century.

The economy, used to soaring now sinks slowly lower like a forgotten balloon.  Two wars reach their twilight but at extraordinary cost, and America fails to shape or even properly support Middle East affairs.

Despite these realities, Mitt Romney and I have something in common.  We believe in American exceptionalism.  Born out of our intrinsic idealism mentioned in the previous post, many of us still subscribe to the idea that America should be the guiding light on a dark trail of moral ambiguity and lost values.  Surely we can show the way.

The country will have to make great strides on many fronts in order to secure the coming century.  Education and health care are not least among them.  But as others jockey for position the best way to maintain our grip on the reigns of leadership is to adhere to principled policy.  This includes how we treat terrorists, convicted and otherwise.

Thus far in my course on terrorism we have looked at varying definitions of terrorism.  Perhaps the most surprising element in discussing a definition is why we need one at all.  As my professor explained, terrorism needs an operating definition not to soothe the curious minds of academic theorists, but to allow us to decide how to react, punish, and prosecute terrorism and terrorists.  The subject is steeped in moral judgment and uncertainty but the fact remains that as terrorism takes its course, we must take action.

I argue that the actions America takes in combating evil will define our role in the world.  We alone can gild our pedestal or draft our obituary.

The last couple of years and even the past few months have entertained debate on how to handle terrorism.  For example, how best to try convicted terrorists - either in military tribunals or civilian courts - and how to handle American citizens who choose to pursue terrorist goals.  The recent incident in which the President ordered the targeted killing of an American-born terrorist is the best example of what I argue is dangerous policy.

Situations involving terrorists, both foreign and American born, will always be unique.  There will always be reason and urgency in taking certain action.  Leaders will find ways to send suspected and convicted terrorists to what physicists have surely discovered to be a black hole on Earth, Guantanamo.  There are valid and compelling arguments to take aggressive and extra-judicial action against terrorists.

None of these reasons outweigh the value of precedent.

If we disregard the rule of law in favor of "national security" interests, we will be digging our own grave.  Yes, Americans can pose a serious threat to their homeland.  Yes, military tribunals exist.  Yes, Guantanamo is still open for business.  But sacrifice in the name of principle must be made today if we are to lead tomorrow.  In the case of  Anwar al-Awlaki  many deemed it appropriate that he be targeted and killed.  But tell me what precedent does this set?  Today it is the justified, targeted killing of a known terrorist, but tomorrow it is just a suspicion, a black list, a McCarthy state.

If there was one thing worth repeating from the latest GOP debate it was Ron Paul's answer to the question on supporting torture.  He stated simply that torture is illegal, immoral, and un-American.  This is the kind of clear principled thinking that we need to practice in order to ensure our longevity.

Terrorism is a new phenomenon, one policy makers will continue to grapple with.  As they make their decisions and decide which precedents to set, I hope they ask themselves that if one day we do reach the end of history, what will it say on our tombstone?

The end of history

I was reading about the theory of offensive realism the other day.  That's the kind of thing you can say when you're in grad school.  In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer argues that despite our idealism, world peace is impossible.  States will continue to seek power in order to ensure their survival.  This will continue forever, hence the tragedy.  Mearsheimer juxtaposes his argument to the thinking at the end of the Cold War, thinking that prompted descriptions of the times as "the end of history." It was thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a shift so great it would usher in a stable, multipolar reign of peace. Mearsheimer argues this was not the case.

Just yesterday I was thinking simultaneously that history is repeating itself and that what is unfolding now has never been.  Let me explain.  If you would like to read the front page news in terms of great power - realist theory you can.  President Obama wants to counter the rise of China by stationing more troops in the region.  Emphasis will be placed on naval capability to ensure dominance over resources in the South China sea.  Reading this it is hard to pinpoint the century, let alone year we are discussing.

Conversely, I also read a very telling piece regarding Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's plans to cut the U.S. defense budget.  His projections would have realists quaking in their boots.  There will be cuts in military benefits, personnel and weapons spending.  Instead investment will be made in targeted war necessities (Navy SEAL teams, drones etc.) and cyber war capabilities.  These cuts indicate a notable shift in policy, historically speaking, from conventional, numerical might to leaner, albeit meaner strategy.

So which is it?  Is history on a 100 year track, repeating itself like an eternal record?  Will great powers face off for ever more power, living cyclically in the security dilemma?  Or are the situations we face today unprecedented?  And if so, doesn't that imply that progress can be made if history is in fact changing?

Realists will call me "utopian" and "optimistic," but if I have to choose to see the world in terms of an eternal power struggle or on a path towards something better, I choose the latter.

Act II

I am a fan of the theater.  But theatrics is best left to the Opera house, a more appropriate setting than the world nuclear stage.  Dramatic plot lines within the arts are to be celebrated. Swan Lake or Romeo and Juliet are all the more poignant because of the sweet tragedy, but recall that Shakespeare's players tempted fate with sonnets sung from a moonlit balcony.  Today's players tempt fate with whispers not of romance but of military strike, incurring inevitably drastic retaliations.  While indeed theatric, these plot twists are not to be celebrated, but condemned for the recklessness in which they are conceived.  Literary scholars will tell you that characters are motivated by different, sometimes irrational factors.  Players on a stage have this luxury.  Players walking the line between existence and destruction, as they claim, need only be motivated by security and justice.  What happens when those occupying the leading roles forget their lines and deviate from their sole motivation?

It is true, eventually Israel, the United States and others will have to anticipate the scene in which a response to a nuclear, or potentially nuclear, Iran is necessary. This is a serious threat worthy of serious consideration.  Yet this imminent second act is threatened by what is a reckless and needlessly political intermission.  If Israel is seriously considering a preemptive attack on Iran, surely the audience should not know about it ahead of time.  To preemptively provoke Iran is a detriment to Israeli security, but the real threat lies with the leaders who believe that all the world is a stage, and the men and women they are sworn to protect, merely players.

Occupy Everywhere

Last night I went to Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to check out a protest.  The protests in Israel started this summer sparked by the rising cost of living, low wages, and lack of jobs.  The event was in Hebrew, and while I didn't understand a word, I got it.  The people demand social justice, students demand opportunity.  It's Tahrir meets Occupy Wall Street.

Surprisingly I find that when discussing these worldwide social protests with my compatriots, I find as many critics as I do supporters.  For some the demonstrations in the States and here in Israel are displays of entitlement by ignorant youth who lack an understanding of basic economics.  For others the protests are a pure and democratic form of outrage, one that is both necessary and overdue.

Many Facebook posts have drawn comparisons between the States and the rest of the world.  Pointing out, and rightfully so, that our 99% is the world's 1%.  Likewise, many have pointed out that Israelis enjoy more social programs than Americans.

Here is where I stand: while I understand the arguments that poverty and hardship are relative, there is one fundamental concern that the protesters (and others of our generation in more private environments) raise that is worth acknowledging.

As per the New York Magazine article, young people in America are losing faith in opportunity.  For many of us, our life here on Earth has taught us that hard work does not necessarily pay off.  Opportunity is not a by product of achievement.  Say what you will about entitlement, this is a dangerous precedent for America to set.  We are losing faith in our most precious natural resource: the American Dream.  The disillusionment of an entire generation of educated, accomplished Americans will have consequences for years to come.  What do you think we will tell our children about the benefits of college?  About following their passion even if there are no jobs in that field?

Call the protesters what you will, but America is slowly becoming a place where pulling yourself up by your boot straps is no longer enough.

Is this acceptable?

The Eagle has landed

Alright security fans, the journey has begun!  I write now from my room in Tel Aviv where I am currently eating hummus for breakfast.  As soon as classes start, I look forward to using this platform to share insights about security policy, the reading I do, and life in general.  Until then I will share a few opening observations.  It would be hard to tell that Israel is cause of much controversy here in Ramat Aviv (a northern suburb of Tel Aviv) but there are some clues.  For instance, dorm security is thorough.  There is one entry/exit point and a guard watches you swipe your card for entry.  To enter the main campus which is across the street, a guard checks your bag.  Other than that it seems life goes on as normal in these parts.  In general, Tel Aviv is known to be a bit more secular and a bit more liberal than other parts of the country.

I will leave you with that for now but look for more thoughts soon.

Tough Love

I had lunch with a boss of mine awhile back.  She asked me what I wanted to study in graduate school.  At the time I was considering a degree specifically focusing on counterterrorism.  The advice she gave me was semi-prophetical.  She said terrorism is trendy now, but will you still be interested when it is no longer a hot topic?  She added that as a Soviet studies student in 1989, she knew how it felt.

I was reminded of this conversation as I read this week's 9/11 anniversary where-are-we-now pieces.  Surprisingly there was more consensus than I would expect about how America is doing ten years later.  Essentially, we have a hold on terrorism.  Though as one author pointed out, eradicating terrorism would be like eradicating disease.  It will continue to be a threat and we should be especially aware of home grown terrorism and cyber terrorism.  Okay, that's logical.  Al Qaeda is close to being sacrificed on the alter of history, the Arab Spring helped to etch its tombstone no doubt.

From where I am sitting (which is in a trendier than usual Starbucks that serves beer...) there is an echo tragedy.  9/11 was unfathomable, senseless and understandably a call to arms.  However, ten years later I would like to look back and be proud of our reaction, and see how our investments, both financial and ideological helped create a stronger, more sustainable world.  Sadly this is not the case.  Instead we spent billions on an optional war (maybe the worst phrase in the English language) and saw the end of too many lives.  Okay you say, mistakes were made but the clarity of hindsight is nothing compared to murky present.  Yes, but what we lost and continue to lose in opportunity cost is more of a threat than we care to admit.

On an economic level, Bid Laden may have been successful.  An Al Jazeera report tells us that Bid Laden spent up to $500,000 on the attack.  We in turn spent $5 trillion.  This morning, along with the rest of Portland's farmer's market-attending public, I wrestled with my parking slip balancing it on my curbside window just so because apparently the city can no longer afford adhesive.  Awesome.  My point is, if he wanted us to feel the squeeze, we're feeling it.  The sad part though is that the economic crisis we find ourselves in was not an inherent result of the terror attack, it was a consequence of our own actions.

Here I go again with what has been a theme of mine this year.  Narrative is everything.  This is true for two reasons; first, as I am learning people are emotional creatures.  Values are more motivating than we know, and people still need to be compelled on a very basic level in order to agree with policy.  America's path must fit into a larger narrative that is agreeable to its citizens.  Second, framing a narrative implies an author that is in control of both the present and the future.  America is slipping like an endangered iceberg into a rising sea, some claim.  China is coming, coming!  Maybe, we'll see.  Still it remains our responsibility to shape our own destiny. 

Which brings me to leadership.  Yes citizens should be involved, yes we can demonstrate and write letters and petitions, but what will make the quickest impact is solid leadership.  Look to your right and you see a group ready to dismantle the family car and sell it for parts, thrusting us into a Darwinian existence in which it really is the survival of the fittest.  To your left you see a mass of knowledge but little know-how.  Democrats know that "winning the future" requires an investment in humanity, namely education, health care and the environment but cannot for the life of them communicate this effectively.  Internationally speaking, we need to hold the bar for human rights at the same height for every country, be it Syria, China or Israel.  But more than anything we need a leader who is capable of warding off the base instinct to plunge the country into defense mode and instead chart a course of progress.

Ten years later, I still have great faith in this country.  Faith that we can do better.

Ruins in the Making

Took a break from blogging. Congress is in recess, guess I am too. Other excuses include spending too much time working at the zoo. On a particularly slow and hot day at the dinosaur store (called much to everyone's delight the Dinostoraus) I tried to reconcile the front page news with what I observe during my daily shifts. The zoo is basically a giant day care. Lots of families, lots of strollers, lots of babies, lots of families with babies in strollers who are much too young to remember anything.

Many things annoy me at the zoo, this is no secret, but many things reassure me. Parents are taking care of their kids, trying to show them a good time. Breaking news aside, kids still like toys, parents still buy them for them. Which leads me to my next point; if ever you feel nervous about the consumer economy come on by, I can assure you it is alive and well.

Though life appears to continue as normal along the winding paths between the penguins and polar bears, scratch the surface and you see all is not well. I was saddened to read an article in the Times this weekend describing the progress of schools experimenting with four day weeks in order to cut costs. The article concluded that cutting hours is not ideal but hopefully it wouldn't be too detrimental to students' education. Wow, is that the best we can do? Hopefully our new reforms won't hurt one of the most vital natural resources we have. The schools are doing the best they can, but government is failing them, society is failing them.

Most people I talk to these days believe that the public school system is broken beyond repair, and that privatization is the key to the way forward. Fine. I am open to that. I am open to a lot of private solutions to public problems. But as usual I ask, where are the proposals? Where is the call to action? Where is the outrage at the crumbling pillars of society? Must we wait for collapse before we begin to rebuild?

Politicians left and right claim to love America. Everyone claims patriotism. But for all that touted love, society is working against itself. Hate of the other is rampant. Hate of those on welfare. Hate of those on private jets. Hate of public institutions. Hate of private corporations. Seems everyone is playing a zero sum game. But please, can't you see that allocating resources -private or otherwise- to the basics of society is not subtracting from any column but multiplying our potential ten fold?

Spend billions on defense, ignore the middle class, go on vacation, but let our schools crumble and one day you'll find society in ruins.

On the Brink

I finally decided to delve into the Mad Men series. It's a quality show, quite nuanced and masterful in how it ties current events of the time into the characters' daily lives. Last night's episode featured the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the background in people's homes and offices were news clips and footage of JFK explaining the situation as it developed. The phrase "on the brink of nuclear war" came up often. I noticed this because that was the second time brinkmanship came up yesterday. The first was in an article about the debt ceiling debate.

Back then it was us vs. them. We had a foreign enemy, and worse we could destroy each other. Now our latest use of the word brinkmanship is reserved for our own internal affairs. Our credit rating and financial health was threatened not by some far away country but by our own compatriots. What happens when the largest threat to our country's well being is internal? Embarrassing as it is, we no longer need the Soviet Union, we apparently can push each other to the brink.

This period in history will be remembered for the Arab Spring, but more broadly it seems now is the time we see people demand improvement in internal politics. England, Spain, Greece, the Arab world, and now even Israel continue to witness mass protests about issues inside their borders, issues that can only be resolved between a government and its people.

I am not suggesting that America take to the streets, but surely it is time we too focus on our own internal threats. As Jon Stewart said in a rant about the Tea Party, "government isn't perfect, but some people want it to be better, not gone." As our ideologies become more steadfast and the stakes rise ever higher, let's remember that no matter what other security threats we face around the world, we can be our own worst enemy.

Two Wrongs

I enjoyed the Cairo streets at night. On Mondays after volunteering at a local NGO, my friend Theo and I would wind through the neighborhood on our way home. We discussed many things during these walks, one time we even stopped for tea with a local gate keeper. Another night we spent our walk back discussing Iran's nuclear program. Modesty shrugged for a moment, I believe our conversation accurately represented the debate on this issue. I argued that while there remains some uncertainty, it is reasonable to assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons - and not nuclear fuel as they claim - while Theo argued, even if they were, who are we to tell them to cease and desist?

Which brings me to a conversation I had last night. I was debating government funded student aid with Dale. I argued that this was an important resource for students who otherwise wouldn't have the means to attend school. Dale argued that if it were not for the availability of these loans, college tuition would be lower in the first place.

Both situations are examples of short term solutions to long term problems (debt ceiling anyone?). I agree, denying Iran its right to build nuclear weapons while we caress thousands of our own is absurd. Yet consider this; it is too late for those with nuclear weapons not to develop them, that ship has sailed. The process for disarmament is slow and delicate, but it has begun and will hopefully continue as the decades advance. However, those who have not yet built their weapons can be stopped before it's too late. This does not have to be an issue of arrogance. Arresting the development of another nuclear weapon, no matter the creator, combats a global threat.

Iran, if you're listening, I can understand your frustration but what I do not like is exercising a dangerous right just because you can. Take a page from South Africa's book and say, yes we could choose to build nuclear weapons but instead we will abdicate our right and choose not continue down this dangerous path. Just because you have the right to own a gun, doesn't mean you should. Certainly the argument that someone else has one so you should have one too shouldn't make it past the kindergarten doors.

In terms of college loans, if the government is responsible for creating a system in which tuition rises artificially, then students need aid more than ever. Sure, I would like to see higher education prices come down significantly, but until then let's not abandon those living in the reality of the current system. More and more we will see our short term solutions be incongruous with our long term goals. This is okay as long as we work to ensure long term strategy. We can hold the flood gates shut with one hand, but let's make sure we are turning off the faucet with the other.

Money Talks

I know a thing or two about living outside my means, and it seems that others do as well. Greece, Great Britain, even Egypt are all dealing with balancing spending on public welfare systems and depleting bank accounts (i.e.rising deficits). Open up Newsweek, you'll find an interesting op-ed that argues "indignants" who protest against government action to correct spending deficits are misguided, hard work and sacrifices for the future must be made now at the expense of the present. Tragic but true the article argues. New York Times' Week in Review has a spread on the death of the consumer economy. And of course my favorite, the ever-popular more-college-graduates-are-living-with-their-parents article. Democrats want to write bounced checks, Republicans want to throw the check book out the window. No matter your spot on the party line, it is clear that our government's split economic perspective is unsustainable.

I normally shy away from numbers, despite my father insisting that "numbers are your friends." I am attracted to this crisis of economics however because at the root is the most definitive debate of American politics: the role of government. Every debate (occasionally heated) I have had with someone to the left or right of me on the political spectrum has derived from disagreement over definitions of government responsibilities. My conservative friends maintain that a government's main if not sole priority is defense. The rest is up to the free market. I on the other hand, believe that providing fundamental services such as access to health care and education is a central role of government.

There is vast disagreement on what government should do, so it is not surprising that there is vast disagreement on how to pay for what it does. If we can't agree on what to buy, how can we agree on which credit card to use? Okay second question: even if we did agree on what the government should provide, what happens when we realize the government can no longer afford to provide these services? If you ask me (and sadly no one is), we need to get very clear on what the country really needs, politics aside. People need jobs, they need insurance (or free market health care prices), they need nutritional food, and access to education. Now if the government is no longer able to provide these, due to finances or efficacy or both, then the private sector needs to close the gaps.

What is lacking is intention. Public schools are quite literally falling apart. But where is the free market alternative? More and more you see places like ZoomCare popping up, providing an affordable alternative to those seeking medical attention without health insurance. I recently wrote a paper discussing an end to poverty. I pride myself in the catchy slogan, but I believe it's true; need must meet business and more than ever business must meet need.

I haven't lost faith in government, I believe it can be a champion for its people, protecting freedom while at the same time providing a safety net of humanity. But I will admit I'm tired of reading about the wells of resources drying out with no rain in sight. Let's get our priorities straight and when we do let's make sure our purchases are investments in the future and not stop-gaps for the past. Just as I accumulate more debt with the hope of a greater payout on the other side, let's make sure our spending pays off in the end.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fundraise

Yes, there has been a bit of radio silence on my part this past week, but fear not I have been contemplating. I've been thinking a lot about Israel, and the reactions that word evokes. I am in the middle of a fund raising campaign you see. Asking for money is tricky, but even more so when that money benefits a country steeped in controversy. For the most part, the American adults I know are strongly supportive of my ventures and are fans of Israel. Some of my younger compatriots however, view the country with disdain and have even claimed they would rather try to get into Libya than cross borders controlled by the IDF.

I see both sides. On the one hand, Israel is seen as a violent occupier, defying international law, snubbing Washington, and perpetuating humanitarian crises. On the other, Israel is a vibrant, democratic state full of culture and knowledge, just trying to defend itself enough to survive. I am going to keep my true opinions on the country quiet for the moment. Regardless, it has been an interesting process navigating my way into a brewing storm because politics aside, this country will (hopefully) provide me with a Master's degree.

I set out on an e-venture (ha an online adventure) yesterday, looking for varying opinions among Israelis and American Jews about current affairs in Israel. I found them. There is a lot of dissent among the people as to how the government is running both domestic and international politics, but there was one constant: all of the articles were written from the perspective of a strong Jewish identity. As Jews how should we react to the Arab Spring, should we let the government influence food prices, where is the balance between religious and civil law? This strong sense of identity has strengthened the Jewish people and have helped them survive. At the same time, it has led I fear to an equally strong sense of Us vs. Them. After a certain point this can only lead to losing sight of the humanity in the Other. This benefits no one and is tragic to watch.

Luckily, the proceeds raised from my fundraising campaign will go to planting trees in Israel. So even if the land is disputed I think both sides can agree that they want trees there. And hopefully both sides will want me there too.

If you are interested in donating you may do so with my gratitude here: http://support.jnf.org/site/TR?px=3103052&pg=personal&fr_id=1010

Nation Interrupted

I enjoyed going to the movies in Cairo for one reason in particular: cheap popcorn. Popcorn is one of my favorite foods and getting a whole bag for less than $2 is awesome. Sometimes I would go to see a movie I didn't particularly care about (The Town anyone?) just to sit there and enjoy my cheap and salty popcorn. It gets better. Egyptian theaters include an old fashioned intermission half way through a film. Which means, I think you know, more popcorn for me. Instead of having to make my popcorn supply last through the entire film, Egypt's genius tradition allowed the audience and me to pause and stock up on supplies so that we might properly enjoy the second act.

Just as it is mid way through a C+ film, it seems the nation is begging for a proverbial pause, one in which we can redefine our identity and our goals for what is to come. No one recognizes an identity crisis better than I. I've alluded to this feeling before, but for some reason here in the beginning of my career I find myself thinking most often about the end. What will I have contributed with my lifetime? What legacy do I want to leave? In the same way twenty-somethings are reevaluating their purpose, so too I detect the nation searching once again to define its identity. Those questions that have been camping on the tips of our tongues have left our lips and arrived in our national conversations. Recently friends and I have been discussing war in our time, American exceptionalism, and a potential shift in global power. Even last night's episode of the Daily Show had Jon Stewart and his guest Bill Kristol grasping at some fundamental questions about our foreign policy and our role in the world more broadly.

Via facebook messages, a friend and I discussed the realities of today's American wars. Essentially, if you or your family do not serve in the military, you remain largely unaffected by the large scale wars America fights abroad. This is both dangerous and unfair. I am not advocating for the draft. I would much rather see large scale, armed conflict remain off the table for the coming decades unless deemed absolutely necessary by many countries. There is also debate over how effective wars are in fighting terrorism and in nation building. Certainly the military should not be asked to be both a fighting force and a development enterprise. If I can be so bold as to judge the national mood, I would say that after a grueling ten years since September 11, we might look at some of our foreign policy decisions and say, let's not do that again.

Terrorism is by no means vanquished. Just today the New York Times warns us to keep our eye on Somalia, the host of a growing Al Qaeda presence. Arguably however, the focus has shifted from countering threats, to encouraging mass political movements - potentially one of the greatest counterterrorism efforts the government could undertake. Lately, I've heard many claim that it is time for America to step back and take a more isolationist stance. We can no longer afford to be involved in affairs abroad as we are now, and in the end it is not our place. Alternatively, I've heard many argue that America needs to maintain its superpower status and grasp firmly to its leadership reigns.

I'll tell you my opinion. For reasons deserved and undeserved, America has the resources to do good in the world. These resources should be put to good use. We do need to be honest with ourselves, there is suffering at home. We cannot justify billion dollar tabs in other countries, especially when we may or may not be buying a more secure future for the citizens there. At the same time, we cannot sink into a cocoon of isolationism. That is counterproductive to our security, but it would also rob us of the opportunity to do some good in the world. The key is to make sure our policies are smart, sustainable, and promote security at home and prosperity abroad.

Easier said than done. To start, I would encourage the President to address this identity crisis. It is healthy and entirely appropriate that we take stock of our role in the world. The nation would benefit from an updated definition of American foreign policy. Where can we add more resources? Where will we be cutting back (defense spending)? What is our counterterrorism strategy going forward? What is our role in NATO, given Secretary Gates's remarks, and how will we be cooperating with allies to combat common threats?

A decade after September 11 and two wars later, it is time we pause to redefine our strategy and of course get some more popcorn.

20/20 Hindsight

I can blog today because my shift was canceled due to slow foot traffic caused by clouds. In Portland a cancellation due to clouds is a lot like a cancellation in Cairo due to sand. That also happened to me. A word to the wise: cloudy and cool is the best zoo weather. Why everyone waits for the hottest day of the week to flock to see animals asleep because it's too hot is beyond me.

Anyways, I'm reading a book I like. This is exciting because I don't like all books. If you don't have me in the first ten pages, you don't have me. Luckily, In the Garden of Beasts is keeping my attention nicely. Author Erik Larson tells the story of the American Ambassador to Germany during Hitler's rise. Through narration, quotes, and excerpts of letters I am learning how it was possible for Hitler to consolidate power, virtually unchecked. The U.S. could have taken several steps to oppose the suspicious developments in Germany, but for various diplomatic reasons, history unfolded as it did. The most interesting part of reading this book is knowing the ending without knowing the rest.

This has prompted some reflection about the ability to predict events. I recapped some of my Egypt stories over the weekend. One thing I tend to repeat is how surprised we all were. I remember the first days of protests, everyone thought it would die out. Ironically, given the corruption and tyranny of many Middle Eastern/North African governments it's shocking people did not revolt sooner. Okay, we couldn't predict the Arab Spring, but if we had, would U.S. policies have behaved differently? Would we have supported, politically and financially, the dictators that brutally opposed their own citizens? If we had clues would we heed them? Or would we miss, or worse, ignore the signs?

In the Garden of Beasts is convincing me that there are some things we cannot predict, they rise slowly and gradually grow out of our control. But there are the threats we can predict now, and if we can see them coming down the line, it is time to start preparing. For example, a recent Al Jazeera article reminds us that come 2030 half of the world will experience water scarcity. Conflict over "blue gold" is inevitable and has already begun. Consolidated power of some countries or groups over others will lead to unfair water advantages. Yes, climate change is exacerbating the issue immensely. A change in weather patterns leads to disrupted agriculture, increased migration and excess strain on already limited resources. Are we working to combat this, or are we waiting until conflict erupts?

Were I allowed to speak frankly to zoo guests, I would ask them to pause and plan according to the information at hand: the sun is hot, your kids are tired in the afternoon, the zoo is less enjoyable when crowded. So too I beseech those shaping security policy in this country to plan ahead, and by ahead I don't mean election cycles, I mean generations.

Thoughts from the highway

Hey security fans, thought I'd write a quick note about President Obama's address (which I listened to in the car.) It is appropriate that the draw down starts now. What Afghanistan needs is a holistic strategy, a combination of continued coaching of Afghan security forces and development initiatives addressing agriculture and education. In the meantime, I agree with the President. Time to work on nation building at home.

A Common Denominator

I was waiting in the Bahrain airport. I had nestled into an uncomfortable chair beneath what were tauntingly bright florescent lights, at least they seemed that way after we failed to talk our way into the executive lounge. I commenced what I do best at airports (besides complain) and began to people watch. One image stuck in my mind. A woman, fully covered (burka, veil, and gloves) was pushing a luggage cart while her two kids ran along beside her. What struck me most was not her clothing or the fact that she and I live by starkly different religious and social customs, but how similar the scene looked to any mother pushing a cart while trying to keep track of her kids. That image, that scenario was almost universal. My point is not that luggage carts are useful. My point is that despite all our differences, people are pursuing the same basic goals - take care of and support their families.

The value of work is something I have been thinking a lot about recently. Lack of job opportunities was one of the factors driving the Egyptian revolution. Having struggled with finding proper employment since graduation, I can emphasize with the frustration. These thoughts were turning over in my mind during my new-hire orientation at the zoo (yes folks, it's happening.) Part of me dreaded my first day. I certainly did not expect to be 23 and earning less than I was at 14. At the same time, one hundred people applied for my spot, I was lucky to get it. The Oregon Zoo will be sponsoring part of my graduate school experience, and for this I am extremely grateful. On an even more basic level, I am finding the psychological difference between being unemployed and having a job, any job, is immense.

I hate being unemployed. I would never wish it on anyone. But it's been said before, our greatest enemies are our greatest teachers. Unemployment has taught me some humility, yes, but more than that it has taught me that there is dignity in work, any work. I may have won this battle, but the war between me and unemployment is hardly over. I just hope the next time we see headlines that divide people in some way, "Muslim extremists" vs. "freedom-loving Americans," was one that I heard recently, we remember that no matter the religion or the continent, we are all trying to do our best to make a decent, honest living for ourselves and for our families. Remembering this common denominator will do more for our national security than any arsenal of missiles.

Nuclear weapons are not sticky

The pop psychology book Made to Stick argues that in general we fail to communicate messages effectively, they do not stick, they are not "sticky." This is unfortunate given how hard we try to get our point across. Ultimately, the book shows us that vague corporate language (think mission statements) doesn't cut it. Instead, using surprising, concrete examples and anecdotes will allow us to convey messages that will stick with people long after we've shared them.

The book provides the example of movie popcorn. A researcher, attempting to demonstrate just how unhealthy movie theater popcorn was (back when they used coconut oil), decided to make his message "sticky." Instead of lamenting the fact that the popcorn boasted 37 grams of saturated fat (about twice the daily recommended value), he invoked a more appalling reaction. Consumers did not inherently know if 37 grams of saturated fat was bad, the message had to be communicated with more than just the facts. At a press conference presenting his findings, this researcher and his team displayed the medium-sized bag of popcorn on one side of a table and a bacon and egg breakfast, a Big Mac and fries, and a steak dinner on the other. The popcorn had more fat than the other side of the table combined. This message was enough to get the nation's major theaters off of coconut oil.

As you may have guessed from an earlier post, nonproliferation is a particular passion of mine. Yet, I can see that nuclear weapons are not sticky. We all know that as of now, the world could be destroyed many times over with the amount of weapons present in the world's arsenal. Terrifying as it is, it is too big a concept to fully comprehend. It is like saying that movie popcorn has twice the amount of fat you should eat in a day, let alone one snack. We hear this and know it is "bad" but the argument isn't grounded in reality. Brookings lists some interesting facts about nuclear weapons, but given the scale of the numbers, it is more likely our eyes glaze over than we are swept up in a call to arms (pun not intended). What the nonproliferation community needs is a popcorn display. Some kind of message that conveys just how threatening nuclear weapons are to the world but on a personal, visceral level.

Made to Stick also cites the problem of nuclear weapons as a particularly hard message to convey. "How do you make clear to people the staggering destructive capability of the world's nuclear stockpile? It's so intangible, so invisible." One solution was a demonstration, in which a representative from the group Beyond War would drop a BB into a bucket. The one BB represented the Hiroshima bomb. He would then drop 5,000 BB's into the bucket representing the world's nuclear arsenal. This had both a strong visual and audio effect.

Perhaps an image of a large glass bucket with one small BB in it would be enough to evoke some sort of emotional response. Maybe it's sticky. Regardless, it is clear that despite the grave security threat posed by nuclear weapons both existing and in development, there is less movement on the issue than I would like. Effective messaging can change that.

Duck and Cover

Despite my Middle Eastern concentration in college, I would usually find myself term after term in multiple Cold War history classes. I loved the material; dark, uncertain times, full of trench coats and secrets. My fascination with this war on ice was well known, my roommates and friends teased me often. Intrigue and misplaced nostalgia aside, (I once argued on an essay exam that the Cold War never ended), there are lessons to be drawn from this period in history. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Nuclear weapons are a bad idea. Why yes I am familiar with the mutual deterrence theory. As someone in the business of security, I can tell you that amassing more and more weapons to maintain a constant ratio of threat with an enemy is not going to cut it. Yet, sadly, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall and more than a year after President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit, the headlines assure us we have not progressed as we should. Syria is in the process of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions regarding a secret nuclear site. Need I remind you this is the country currently busy massacring its own people. Also keep in mind that despite the reassuring narration in those black and white videos, ducking and covering will get you nowhere.

Equally concerning is the debate surrounding the IAEA vote. Russia and China both objected. Iran and North Korea are likely sponsors of the Syrian program. I appreciate the haze that exists in determining the objectives of a country's nuclear program, but it seems clear there were no peaceful purposes behind the nuclear reactor. (The violation came when Syria did not report building this reactor as per the IAEA regulations.) The problem is that countries are still thinking in terms of who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons vs. who shouldn't. The answer is simple, no one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

In order for this policy to play out, powers with large arsenals would have to demonstrate a serious commitment to disarmament first before they can ask others not to develop nuclear capabilities. Only after this process begins in earnest would the international community have the credibility it needs to ensure states new to the nuclear community that they too should halt production. No one understands the trust and balance this would take better than a student of the Cold War, but the end result of a policy of nuclear intolerance makes the world exponentially safer than a policy of one-upmanship.

Meanwhile, as you all ponder the attainable, yes, attainable, path to a world free from nuclear weapons, I will be preparing for a follow up interview at the zoo. I'm not kidding. Wish me luck.

Lease on Death

I was listening to coverage of the worsening state in Syria on NPR this morning. I was driving to drop off my resume and get this, a cover letter for a job selling chocolate at a local chocolate shop. The cover letter was rough. Despite many an hour spent on Capitol Hill, in private offices, and in ventures abroad, my most relevant experience was what I gained from selling khakis at the Gap. Try as I might, I just could not write a full page but hey I got close. In all honesty it would be a lovely summer job. But we have more important issues to discuss.

The Syrian government has claimed that 120 of its security personnel were killed by angry mobs. Since the beginning, there has not been much condemnation paid to the violence perpetrated by President Assad's government towards peaceful protesters. Sure some sanctions, some harsh words here and there, but nothing befitting the unacceptable actions the government has taken against its own people. In President Obama's recent Middle East/North Africa address he had this to say about Syria, "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests." Riveting Mr. President, just riveting.

Matters since have only worsened. The government has vowed retaliation for the killings of its security personnel. This retaliation will not come in the form of measured justice, but rather a major assault. "People were struck by fear and panic after the government statements ... it's clear they are preparing for a major massacre,'' a resident told the AP news agency on Tuesday." Indeed, activists are claiming that the security personnel were killed by government soldiers for refusing to fire on civilians. The government insists its personnel were killed by "armed gangs."

France and the UK have been coordinating a UN Security Council vote to support a resolution condemning the government's use of violence in Syria. This is a positive step and something the U.S. will most likely support. Now I know I do not have the 8-10 years of experience or advanced degrees that usually accompany this kind of critique, but even a part-time Gap employee can tell you that it is awkward at least, inhumane at worst that the U.S. has been largely silent when it comes to the Syrian uprising. It is in our interest to defend basic human rights (which includes not being massacred by your own government). End of story.

Security.com

As I mentioned in my intro, I am resisting the temptation to throw in the towel and embrace a career as an event planner (always thought that would be my back up.) Though I am still on track to use my international affairs degree in a relevant manner, my search for a summer job has led me outside the security policy box. I applied for a job at the zoo. As a penguin. Just kidding. On a more somber note, when I arrived for the open interviews this morning there were around 30 people hoping for a spot as an assistant in the gift shop. The applicants ranged in age from teenager to adult. Perhaps this is normal but given the volume of applicants, I cannot help but think this is the sign on of the times. During my interview, when asked about my availability, I explained that I have a Wednesday morning obligation.

I am part of a Toastmaster's club. No, this has nothing to do with bread. It is a public speaking club that creates a forum to practice both prepared and impromptu speaking. The people in my club are fantastic, but often we speak more about matters relating to the club than our own lives. Eventually a friend asked me what I am interested in. I started to describe security policy and that by security I mean national security and not night club bouncers or airport police. He immediately said that he had to send me an article he read recently in the Wall Street Journal. As if putting his finger on the pulse, he sent me an article about... cyber security. I generally try to avoid complicated technology pursuits, I use the internet to read articles and view the latest confirmation that Sarah Palin would be better off as a mime on Youtube, but despite its sci-fi name, cyber security is an issue we must embrace.

Cyber security has been debated for years but recently came back into the spotlight after the famed internet blackout during Egypt's January revolution. I was in Cairo at the time. I can tell you there was very real frustration that a government would have the power to throw the kill switch on a country's internet. Admittedly we used the blackout as an excuse to revert to old-school yet still highly entertaining methods of communicating that involved safe houses, meeting spots and search parties. While surviving an internet blackout during an ongoing revolution is thrilling, it highlights what a delicate balance cyber security demands.

On one side of the coin is the fight to ensure internet freedom. On the other is the ability to protect ourselves from and respond to cyber attack. Today I would like to discuss the latter. The WSJ article that my friend sent to me describes the Pentagon's plan to implement what I see as a bad idea. Given that cyber attacks can be defined as acts of war, the U.S. could respond to such attacks using traditional military force. The Pentagon believes that any attack sophisticated enough to cause the damage worthy of a military response would require state level resources, therefore justifying an attack on a country. While arguably legal, implementing this strategy would do more harm than good. The Pentagon itself admits that it is still difficult to determine the source of an attack, a critical piece of information if a military retaliation is in order. Additionally, the precedent that would result from this strategy has strong potential to lead the U.S. into multiple foreign conflicts with the inevitable opportunity for escalation. The article cites the war in Afghanistan as a response to terrorism as the type of response covered under this strategy. Finally, the incongruity in fighting cyber warfare with conventional weapons is too obvious to ignore. Just as terrorism cannot be fought state to state, cyber warfare will also require limited, nuanced technique grounded in solving the root of the problem as opposed to punishing the result.

With any luck some of my attention this summer will be dedicated to zoo related activities (plush fruit bat anyone?) but I will also be keeping up with the cyber security debate. In the meantime, Bloomberg News reported that the most common password on the internet is 123456. I think it is time that we as citizens do our part to step up our own cyber security.

Intro

It occurred to me last night that in a few months I will have been working (or attempting to) for a decade. As an eager and apparently naive 14 year old, I managed to talk my way into a job at a criminal defense firm. Proud of my strong start out of the employment gate, I often caught myself day dreaming of my inevitable corner office with a view. Ten years later however, my college degree is not worth as much as I thought, in fact it is costing me thousands in student loans. To add insult to interest-ridden injury, my actual college degree is somewhere in Egypt complete with a red ink ministry stamp. This stamp could in fact be worth more than the degree itself considering the government that awarded it has now been ousted and put on trial. As with most tales I have told since graduation in 2009, I am not sure whether to appreciate the humor or the tragedy. Despite the absence of gainful employment after what I would call a successful college career (I graduated magna cum laude but my twin sister graduated suma cum laude - my family still periodically reminds me of this), I am determined to stick to my career aspirations and put in my two cents, even if that is really all I can afford. From here on out I will be commenting on global issues through the intriguing, at times unforgiving lens of U.S. security interests. With any luck (and a Master's degree) I will find myself working in the field of security policy. For now however, I will stick to the couch, put on my best set of p.j.s and start writing about what the country can do to make us safer.