Broadside Opinion

Justin Lalputan, Broadside Correspondent

Last year, the H1N1 virus, also known as “swine flu,” struck many countries worldwide. Americans especially have been filled with fear since the flu has struck campuses and communities nationwide. However, despite the so-called “imminent danger,” I think it’s time that Americans calmed down and took a logical look at the situation.

Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed what many had been saying when she announced that, “The severity of the disease, the severity of the flu [and] how sick you get is not stronger than regular seasonal flu.” Essentially, what that means is this: if you’re not at risk to die from the regular flu, then chances are that you’re not going to die from H1N1. However, those whose immune systems are compromised, are above the age of 50, are young children or pregnant should be more careful as both the regular flu and H1N1 could have a significant impact on their health.

People are scared of H1N1 because of what they may have heard from rumors and speculation, but in actuality, in the United States, almost all of those infected with H1N1 have made full recoveries. The worst cases of H1N1 have been in Mexico, where many people have died, but it is completely illogical to compare conditions in Mexico to those in the U.S.

In Mexico, many of the infected did not report their illness until it was too late and sadly, they died. Also, many of those infected in Mexico lived in highly unsanitary conditions with poor nutrition, as opposed to the relatively good conditions found here in the U.S.

So even if you happened to get infected, chances are that you will be just fine; the medical facilities located here in the U.S. are more than adequate to treat H1N1.

Now that the vaccine is being handed out by the government, there is a rush to be the first to obtain it. Though research has been done and the vaccine has been approved by the FDA, it still may be a good idea to wait a while before getting immunized. Despite all the research, you never know what might happen. Also, there are some groups that need the vaccine far more than others: for example, the elderly and the sick need the vaccine more than a healthy person in their twenties does.

Some people think that H1N1 is one of the worst things to happen to the U.S. in a long time, but it has had some positive effects alongside the obviously bad ones. Americans are now improving their personal hygiene, something that can have benefits other than helping to avoid H1N1. Also, there has been an increase in the amount of people who have lined up to receive the seasonal flu shots, a shot which has few, if any, side effects and helps many people maintain their health throughout the flu season.

By itself, H1N1 won’t cause much damage—if everybody remains calm and views the illness with a level head, things will work out for the best. It’s when everyone starts panicking and treating every little cough and sneeze as a sign of the H1N1 virus that bad things start happening.

The human mind can have a powerful effect on the body and if you truly believe that you are sick, you can actually make yourself sick. Mass paranoia is more deadly than H1N1 and while Americans aren’t there yet, if we don’t calm down soon. We could find ourselves faced with a disease far deadlier than H1N1 could ever be.

Brandon Minster, Broadside Correspondent

Wolves are getting randy for coyotes at an alarmingly ever-increasing pace, and we have evolution to blame.

For readers unfamiliar with these animals, I’ll remind you that wolves are the direct ancestors of chihuahuas, and coyotes are used by cowboys as a pronunciation test of the claims to authenticity of other cowboys, much like English merchants making a suspected Dutch say “bread and cheese” in the Rising of 1381.

A fellow might be practically indistinguishable from the Village People cowboy, but if he says “coyote” with anything more than two syllables, he’s a good-for-nothing city slicker, bent on fencing the last free range of the West.

As it turns out, the coyote is more useful than any of us suspected. In a pinch, it can serve as the nightcap of a wolf’s Saturday night. According to Jennifer Viegas of Discovery News, wolves are getting their interspecies freak on (paraphrasing) and the result is something called a coywolf.

Like any good modern American, I have two questions. Firstly, who is responsible? Secondly, is that responsibility fiduciary in nature, or can I at least convince a Mississippi jury that it is?

Roland Kays of the New York State Museum lays the blame on Charles Darwin. “This is an evolutionary mechanism to generate new variation that can work faster than genetic mutation,” Kays said.

Of course, I’m the product of a public school, but I seem to remember that evolution is non-sentient. Now I come to find out that not only can evolution pick faster methods, it’s also a little kinky. Dave the Wolf is walking along in the forest, contemplating the infinite, and he sees a lady coyote. His natural reaction might be to kill the coyote, but now evolution steps in and says, “I can’t let you do that, Dave.” Instead, Dave gets hot for his new lady friend and if you want to know the rest, ask your parents.

Before the advent of television lowered evolution’s attention span, here’s how it used to work. Of all the slightly different coyotes, some might be more suited to fill the hole left by a thinning wolf population. These would flourish and be more likely to pass along the genetic traits that helped them succeed. Eventually, these super coyotes have cornered the means of production and lord it over their standard coyote brethren, who gnash their teeth and foment revolution. The circle of life.

That might have worked before, but now evolution has a plane to catch. Instead of the thinned wolves prospering from a lack of competition, they are saving everyone some time by going against their nature and wooing coyotes. Perhaps coyotes are incredibly easy lays. It’s hard to say; all that fur around their tails makes it difficult to spot lower back tattoos.

Using sex as a weapon of conquest has a long history – from Pat Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield” to Jose Luis Marques’ profanely-titled movie about reconquering the Falkland Islands by Argentines impregnating the British women. Before these two instances, though, I don’t think it ever occurred, which raises the question: who is letting wolves listen to Pat Benatar and watch avant-garde minimalist cinema?

Now that I know evolution can be sped up, I’m looking to do a little cross-species hanky-panky myself. Trying to teach kids can be a long, thankless task, and often the end result isn’t even what was desired. So I’m going to use hybridization to run an end-around on evolution. I’ve got a hot date this weekend with an encyclopedia.

Ausan Al-Eryani, Broadside Correspondent

If you’re anything like me, you’ve always got to have that cup (or multiple cups) of coffee every morning. But have you ever taken a look at your bank statements or examined your spending habits and realized that coffee is probably at the top of the list for what you spend? I don’t want to disclose any numbers, but I’m pretty confident that my coffee-spending habits aren’t exactly wise.

With that said, I love coffee and I love getting coffee from a lot of different places. I’m not about to give that up. So here’s the question: How is it possible to save money when it comes to something we love?

Well, for one, invest in a coffee mug! It’s incredibly efficient, convenient and will pay for itself in due time. A lot of places even fill your coffee order in your mug and save you money too. Plus, you can fill up more in your coffee mug than you would get if you bought a cup of coffee.

Second, and I know this is going to break many of your hearts to hear this, cut down on buying coffee from places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. What I’m saying is, think twice before you walk into one of those places. You could just make your own cup instead of wasting another $2, $3 or maybe even $4. If that doesn’t work, think about only going on the weekends or a few times a week. If it helps, start slow – you’ll get better eventually.

Trust me – you’re killing your budget if you don’t. An alternative would be to get a coffee machine and brew coffee you bought from places like Starbucks. It’s the same thing, so why not? If you’re not feeling the whole coffee machine idea, buy some instant coffee (which I think is pretty awesome). Just add hot water, sugar, milk or whatever you want and you’re done!

If all else fails, consider getting a rewards card, especially from a place like Starbucks. With a Starbucks rewards card in particular you can get free refills on brewed coffee and flavor shots for your drink, among other things. An example would be to pick yourself up a Starbucks Gold Card.

This is an especially smart decision for those of you who consistently get the $4 or $5+ drinks. It saves you 10 percent on every single purchase, whether it is coffee or food. For only $25, for some of us it can pay for itself in no time. One more thing about Starbucks. If you want flavor and a pick-me- up, consider getting a Café Misto (brewed coffee and milk). You can add vanilla, caramel or whatever flavored syrup they have that you like. The best part is a venti cup is that a lot cheaper than you would assume it to be.

So if you don’t plan on listening to anything I’ve just said, please listen to this: think twice. The days of constant excess and luxury are just not practical anymore. We’ve all got to cut back, rethink and reevaluate our attitudes, particularly with something so many people want and need.

You don’t have to give it all up, just make sure you’re not giving everything away to purchase something that’ll last you about 10 to 15 minutes (or less!) Good luck, I know I’ll need it!

Natalie Losik, Global Affairs

For the month of September, every Wednesday from 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the North Plaza on the Fairfax Campus hosted a weekly Farmers’ Market, where local growers and producers brought their wares for sale to students and faculty of George Mason University.

Traditional Farmers’ Markets close shop around the end of October (like the one in Old Town Fairfax) and begin again in May of the following year. In recent conversations with some of the regular sellers, there is a real interest in keeping the Farmers’ Market on the Fairfax campus open through the winter. Without the winter sales, the Farmer’s Market may not continue ever again past the end of this month. The Farmers’ Market is an important staple to the George Mason community, the greater Northern Virginia and Maryland area, and to the world in general. There are some real benefits for allowing the Farmers’ Market to continue year-round.

As for the average Mason student, making healthy choices in a hectic, high-paced life can be difficult. Everything offered at the Farmer’s Market is not only delicious and fresh, but it provides a convenient and healthy alternative to potato chips and Red Bull. It is incredibly nice to walk back from class, pick up some apples and freshly baked bread, and walk back to the apartment with groceries set for the week.

Some have said that the Farmers’ Market competes with Mason Dining Services. With the Market only offered for a few hours one day a week, a correlation between a drop in Food Service patronage and the Farmers’ Market seems unlikely at best. Most on-campus students do not have the equipment to cook and prepare food for themselves in their dorms (and those who do pay a lot more for the privilege).

Even still, having fresh fruits and veggies readily at hand in the dorm is much better than pigging out on junk food bought throughout the year. Even with its limited hours of operation, the Farmers’ Market can make a big difference in the health and well-being of resident students (the “Freshman 15” is very real and it’s very difficult to get off once it’s on).

Mason’s Farmers’ Market also helps the community as a whole; every vendor is a local producer from Northern Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley or surrounding areas. Buying locally produced goods stimulates the economy at a base level and keeps the enterprising powers alive.

Also, the Farmers’ Market represents a wide and eclectic group of cultures and individuals: some of the regulars include bee handlers, Shenandoah bakers, Miss Booger’s animal aid group and representatives of the Mennonite community. Having even a five-minute long conversation with any one of these people can be enlightening, if not a real trip in entertainment.

Buying locally also helps the world in a noticeable way. The average American dinner must travel thousands of miles from start to plate, often crossing oceans and continents multiple times. Buying locally cuts down greatly on transportation costs, reduces environmentally damaging carbon emissions and protects fragile ecosystems. Overall costs are cut down (one can buy a bag of fresh snap peas, $4.49 per pound at the grocery store, at $1.50 for half a pound from a local grower), and the quality and freshness of food are improved greatly.

All things being said, preserving a tradition like the Farmers’ Market is important to Mason as a university, as a leader to the community and to the world beyond Northern Virgina and the United States. Keeping such traditions alive is an important part of who we are as an institution training the next leaders of tomorrow’s uncertain, ever-changing world.

Colin Bennett, Office of Sustainability

In response to “Global Warming: The Falsehood Coming to a Campus Near You” by Alan Moore:
In July 2007, President Merten signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment committing George Mason University to climate neutrality. That means that, as an institution, we are committed to reducing our total greenhouse emissions to zero. Considering the size of Mason, figuring out how to eliminate our emissions is no easy task. For the past year we have been working on our first-ever Climate Action Plan, which will, when completed, clearly lay out the steps that we need to take to achieve climate neutrality. To date, over 80 people from across Mason, including both undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff and alumni have actively assisted in creating this plan. Once it’s completed, we’ll need the help of every member of the Mason community to reach the goal of climate neutrality.

As such, it was with great disappointment that we read Alan Moore’s opinion piece in the recent edition of Broadside. While we fully support academic debate and scientific research, we feel that Mr. Moore’s piece was full of misinformation and claims that are blatantly false, and we are concerned that such misinformation seriously undermines the work that we are doing to reduce our collective climate footprint at Mason. In fact, it was difficult for us to find one true claim in the entire piece but since it appeared in the opinion section of Broadside, we can’t admonish the editors for allowing unchecked statements to be published. We would, however, like to set the record straight. Rather than go point-by-point, we’ll just address a few of the most egregious errors.

First of all, the two sources that Moore points to as evidence, The Petition Project and John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, have been largely discredited by the scientific community. The Web Site that hosts the petition references the National Academy of Sciences, however, this is what the NAS has to say about it, “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

Sea levels are rising but not because of the melting of the Arctic ice cap, which is, in fact, floating ice. Sea levels rise due to the melting of land based ice, like the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, as well as due to thermal expansion. Contrary to what Mr. Moore states, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states, “The estimated rate of sea level rise from anthropogenic climate change from 1910 to 1990 (from modeling studies of thermal expansion, glaciers and ice sheets) ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr. It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice.”

Moreover, the melting of glaciers is not countered by the formation of glaciers in other parts of the world. Pointing to one, or even a few, specific regional examples when discussing a global phenomenon, in this case a global crisis, is flawed. The reason that “you never read about it in any of the news” is that there is scant evidence that any ice sheets are actually growing. According to NASA, “Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet’s mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.” Average global temperatures are rising; again, according to NASA “2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The 10 warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.” That does not mean that there is uniform warming across the globe, but it does mean the planet is getting warmer.

Global cooling is often referenced by people that deny anthropogenic climate change – this is a case of grasping at straws. According to a paper originally published by the National Meteorological Society, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

Mr. Moore claims that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, however, according to the U.S. Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA), it is. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is absolutely harmful; like any substance, it is toxic depending on the dose. To say otherwise is totally false. Global warming skeptics say this to distract from the fact that there is almost no scientific evidence to support their claims.

Mr. Moore claims to have “miraculously survived to this point” in the face of threats such as swine flu, avian flu, Ebola virus, the end of the Mayan calendar, floods and droughts; however, countless people around the world have not been so lucky. Most of the things that Mr. Moore lists are serious threats that kill at least hundreds of thousands of people every year. Referencing the end of the Mayan calendar distracts from that fact. Furthermore, this is an incredibly narrow-minded point of view that clearly represents the perspective of someone who lives a privileged life and knows very little about the inequalities that exist in this world. Almost all of the things he mentions are happening all over the planet. Just because Mr. Moore is unable to see beyond his own perspective certainly doesn’t make him right.

Again, we fully support academic debate and research and we are fully confident that research will clearly show that the vast majority of truly scientific evidence shows that climate change is, in fact, real, exacerbated by unchecked and unregulated human activity, and poses a serious threat to our planet and humanity. For decades, cigarette companies distorted the truth about the negative health effects of cigarettes; the same thing is happening here. Much of the so-called research that disputes anthropogenic climate changed is not peer-reviewed or even conducted by actual scientists to begin with. If you are interested in doing more research, we recommend starting with Mason’s own Dr. Shukla, a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at http://www.iges.org/people/shukla.html. If you are interested in helping us in our fight against climate change, or otherwise want to help us protect the environment, please contact us at gogreen@gmu.edu.

Justin Higgins, English and History

In “Global Warming: The Falsehood Coming to a Campus Near You” (9/28/09), Alan Moore presents a number of points that, from his perspective, not only disprove anthropogenic global warming, but even fundamental issues like the role of CO2. It’s worth looking at these points he raises in greater depth. First, Mr. Moore discusses the issue of sea levels rising to unsustainable levels because “the polar ice caps will melt.” He says that “the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the rising sea levels may in fact be cyclical and there is no evidence that man contributes to these rising sea levels.”
In fact, the most recent assessment report from 2007 concludes that anthropogenic warming and sea level rise will continue to rise even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations now, and that the probability that this is the result of natural processes alone is less than 5 percent. All of this can be read at The Intergovernal Panel on Climate Change’s “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.” The IPCC report itself does not back up Mr. Moore’s claims about what they have stated.

Mr. Moore then continues by arguing that the melting of some glaciers is countered by the formation of glaciers elsewhere. I would direct him to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre at http://nsidc.org/ and their Glacial Balance page at http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html. Looking at the overall status of glaciers around the world does show an overall rate of glacier mass loss, meaning that there is not enough glacier formation elsewhere to counterbalance the glacier loss.

He then raises the point that “Greenland was once fertile for farming”, which seems like a distortion at best. Aside from some of the historical problems with this claim (i.e. Erik the Red naming the land Greenland to try and attract colonists), data shows that Greenland’s ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old, and covers over 80 percent of the island. Most of the rest of Greenland is rock and permafrost.

Mr. Moore then brings up the fact that water is not created or destroyed. I’m not quite sure of the relevance of this point, as I’m not aware of a global warming supporters or skeptics arguing that water is “created or destroyed.” Either way, he uses this to segue into an experiment asking the reader to fill a cup with ice and then water and wait for it to melt, demonstrating that because of displacement, it won’t result in the water rising.

This is really only relevant to water under the surface. The issue at hand has to do with the ice caps above sea level, glaciers, etc. Land-based glaciers are some of the most concerning, which is why there is so much attention focused on the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. The “ice melting in a glass of water” experiment is completely irrelevant to these cases. It’s also worth noting that the other concern about sea level rising has to do not so much with melting ice but expanding water (a significant majority of this is based on warming water). The IPCC 4th Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 5 on Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level addresses this in much more detail, and can be read on “Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”.

Another point to address is Mr. Moore’s argument that increased carbon dioxide levels are not serious because “CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful”, and that we “breathe out CO2 everyday and plants absorb it to create oxygen”. He even states that the more “CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants and trees thrive and the more life-sustaining oxygen there is in the world.” He asks “What is wrong with that?”
First off, it’s worth pointing out that one of the main problems with the increased output of CO2 is that, right now, more CO2 is being produced than the world’s plants and oceans can absorb (which is why things like deforestation only exacerbate the issue). Simply put though, this seems to completely sidestep the issues at hand. The argument is not that CO2 is a pollutant. The argument is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of the most significant contributors to the greenhouse effect on earth (accounting for about 20 percent of the effect).

The problem with CO2 is that even small increases can have a profound effect, as it persists in the atmosphere much longer than water vapor. Carbon dioxide and methane also trap much more heat per molecule than water vapor. Again, quoting from the IPCC summary cited above, “Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.

“The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.” On the topic of anthropogenic global warming, they also conclude that the “primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use providing another significant but smaller contribution.”

One last point I’d like to address is Mr. Moore’s suggestion that global warming and climate change is simply the latest in a long line of seemingly “made up” threats that were never really serious. He cites “global cooling” as one, although it’s worth noting that the scientific literature does not support the notion that scientists themselves believed this would be a major problem (the most commonly cited example of a global cooling panic comes from a Newsweek cover story from the time period, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal).

Even back in the 70’s, scientists noted that although we were in an in-between period that was leading to a new ice age, global warming could actually end up trumping the expected cooling periods. He cites acid rain as another, which is puzzling, since acid rain actually was a demonstrable scientific problem, one which also had a scientific solution. 5 percent of New England lakes were found to be acidic in 1991, incapable of supporting a variety of fish species including Brook Trout and minnow.

To address these problems, a cap and trade system was added to the Clean Air Act to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

It’s worth noting that, thanks to these measures, sulfur dioxide emissions have dropped 40 percent since the 1990s and acid rain levels have dropped 65 percent since 1976. So again, it is puzzling to cite acid rain as an example of a non-existent threat, when it was in fact real. Our reaction to acid rain and our ability to deal with it scientifically actually provides a great case study for what we can do if we actually try and study a problem and implement solutions, rather than deny the problem exists at all, or that there’s nothing we can do about it.

James Lepore, Professor, School of Dance

I was heartened to hear that in Mr. Alan Moore’s opinion (in an editorial entitled, “Global Warming: The Falsehood Coming to Campus Near You”), that the overwhelming majority of Mason faculty believe that global warming is an “indisputable fact…caused by man.” Mr. Moore’s opinion aside, this would put Mason faculty in agreement with the scientific community-at-large. It is ironic that Mr. Moore characterizes the conclusions reached by an overwhelming majority of scientists as “laughable,” while directing his readers toward the opinion of a former television personality, John Coleman. I was about to read some of John Coleman’s writings when I discovered that he had been a frequent guest on Glenn Beck’s bombastic, agenda-driven cable “news” show on Fox News. Glenn Beck? Now that would indeed be “laughable,” were it not for the fact that some folks actually take him seriously.

Mitchell Huber, History

On behalf of the Environmental Awareness Group:

In last week’s paper, Alan Moore tried to convince us that anthropogenic climate change is “laughable.” As a group dedicated to fighting global warming on campus, we’d like to correct a few of Mr. Moore’s claims, and tell you why this issue is no laughing matter. The first and most glaring error he makes is that the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the rising sea levels may in fact be cyclical and there is no evidence that man contributes to these.” In reality, the IPCC’s most recent report found there was over a 90 percent likelihood that global warming is in fact human-caused.

His next claim is that new glaciers are forming, offsetting the hundreds that are melting so rapidly. He is not alone – many people, Alaskans, this summer claimed that local glaciers were expanding because they were advancing further than before. However, as Chris Larsen of the University of Alaska’s Geophysical Institute explains, “Terminus advance, in this case, is not a sign of a healthy glacier. Quite the opposite.” In fact, it is glacial melt that causes these glaciers to drop in elevation and thus advance further into the sea, causing the misconception among locals that the glaciers are expanding. Moore’s claim about new glaciers, in short, is supported by anecdotal, not scientific, evidence.

And if all the ice in Greenland melted, sea levels would rise by 20 feet. Moore may not consider that a “radical shift,” but radical changes have already occurred. In 2006, Lohachara Island was completely swallowed by the rising Indian Ocean; about 10,000 people had to evacuate.

By the way, I’m not sure how John Coleman is an expert on climate. He founded The Weather Channel, but his degree is in journalism, so I’d take his words with a grain of salt.

Lastly, Moore says that we’re “alarmists.” But I happen to think that we’re the only ones who can save the world, especially if more people like Mr. Moore say that it doesn’t need saving.

But anyone can do it, and we’d love for you to join us.

Bardia Mehrabian, Broadside Contributor

“It’s time to get real about Afghanistan,” writes Fareed Zakaria, contributing writer and editor for Newsweek International. He, in a Sept. 21 Newsweek article, continues, “Withdrawal is not a serious option. The United States, NATO, the European Union, and other nations have invested massively in stabilizing the country over the past eight years, and they will not—and should not—abandon it because the Taliban is proving a tougher foe than anticipated.”

These words should resonate for any proponent of seeing the Taliban eradicated in Afghanistan, but from NGOs, think-tanks, to the military itself; everyone is stuck scratching their head regarding how to achieve this objective.

Zakaria’s prescription: pay the Taliban, whom are virtually all ethnically Pashtun, to stop killing and bombing. He elaborates: “Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America’s stabilization strategy, as it was Britain’s when it ruled Afghanistan.” Zakaria’s argument is mainly drawn from the strategies that were employed in Iraq by the U.S. military. During the most violent years of the second Iraq war, the U.S. bribed different militia groups not to kill U.S. troops and rival militias to quell the maelstrom of violence plaguing Iraq.

This was met with success, but only temporarily. Zakaria seems to miss the increasing sectarian violence playing out in Iraq during the last six months with militia groups, namely Sons of Iraq and “Sunni Awakening,” becoming dissatisfied with the treatment by the Shi’a-dominated Iraqi government. It’s a fragile solution.
Afghanistan is not Iraq. As trivial or common sense as this statement may sound, one must rebuff any argument—especially in the context of winning “hearts and minds”— that attempts to justify solutions for a country simply on the basis that it worked in another country.

In said context, the analysis of culture, social structures, social hierarchy, social interaction, commerce and countless other issues must be analyzed before a proper strategy can be put in place.

In order to be pragmatic in the context of Afghanistan, where time spent on analyzing Afghanistan is time given to the Taliban to acquire more territory, I address Zakaria’s secondary argument: Create a potential coalition between President Karzai and leading opponent Abdullah Abdullah. While Zakaria makes light of the post-election fraud allegations in Afghanistan, I argue that it is imperative to create a coalition among the divided Afghan social and political elite in order to bring some kind of legitimacy back to the central government.

With the allegations of voter fraud dealing a serious blow to the legitimacy of Karzai’s government, the Afghan public views the government doing the bidding of foreign occupiers instead of listening to the sovereign demands of the Afghan people. An ideological win for the Taliban; no Pashtun will want to support a president with such a tainted record, regardless if Karzai is Pashtun or not.

For Afghanistan’s minority ethnic groups, like the Tajiks and Uzbeks, they are left to create militias and regress to their Warlord past as the only option for legitimate resistance against the Taliban incursion in the Northern provinces. This is mainly due to their disenchanted perspective that engaging in political avenues through a central government produces no results and is, instead, just a sham.

To force Karzai to cooperate with opposition leaders in order to solve their differences and make concessions will infuse the government to create indigenous strategies and tactics to tackle and win Afghanistan’s future.

Instead of foreign think tanks condescendingly making suggestions (or decisions) on how Afghans should run their country, Afghanistan’s political elite will have to walk the balance between traditional and cultural values and merge them with the modern state. Karzai will also need to be pressured in bringing other Pashtun leaders—even Taliban or ex-Taliban, if willing—into the political fold.

By doing so, more and more Pashtuns will be involved in the political discourse, which will undercut the power base of the fighting Taliban. As ugly as it may sound to “deal with terrorists,” the United States and Afghanistan must be pragmatic and include the Taliban into institutions where compromise, deal-making, and concessions are made, regardless of ideology.

In the end, all feel empowered, regardless of ethnic, religious, or political affiliation, without having to purchase anybody and saving our deficit in the process.

Alan Moore, Broadside Contributor

A colleague in one of my classes, whom I have nothing but the utmost respect for, referred to “America’s Dirty Little Secret” in class the other day in the context of the widespread oppression in the United States of America. Another person alluded that Marxism should be mulled over more in the U.S. because when people are being oppressed it should always be considered. They spoke as if Marxist governments embodied some romantic, revolutionary, blue-collar paradise and that we should be ashamed of wrongdoings committed by some people in this country.

Huh? After hearing that I felt like I was taking crazy pills or something.
America is not only a country, but an ideal. The ideal that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This was written by great men who were truly being oppressed by a tyrannical foreign government without direct representation. The point being that the individual is responsible for his or her actions, not a country. To label this country as having a “Dirty Little Secret” is utterly ridiculous and offensive. That would imply that all residents of our country are oppressors in some fashion or another
You’ll have to forgive me, I didn’t know.

Americans are put in office through the democratic process. These caretakers, as with all humans, can act responsibly or irresponsibly. Most would agree that they acted responsibly when they liberated Europe and Asia from Nazi and Japanese imperialist domination. Others argue that they acted irresponsibly when they enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. But it was the caretakers who did this, blame them if you insist on looking back to judge people who are no longer here to defend themselves and did not consider the morals of future generations, but do not blame America.

With Marxism there is no other political model that when put in use has caused more death and destruction at the hands of a government. The Communist regime of the USSR was responsible for millions of deaths, with estimates ranging from 20 to over 60 million murders in labor camps or through Stalin’s purges, and deaths under squalor conditions. Over 65 million have been killed under Mao Zedong and the Communist Regime in China. Numbers are not known for sure in North Korea, but it is known that political dissidents, Christians, and three generations of their families are murdered in gas chambers similar to those found in the infamous concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Does Marxism really sound like paradise? Maybe this time it can be different, you ask? Well, how many times must we bang our head against the wall before realizing it hurts?

The ideal that Marxism represents is evil, plain and simple. To even suggest that America should resemble the governments for which these atrocities took place is shortsighted and reckless. Butchers like Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong Il were and are the true oppressors in society, not the United States of America or any of its elected leaders.

Yes, there are some small-minded people in the U.S. There are racists and sexists who push the right of Freedom of Speech to the very limits. But, to lump all Americans together for the unjust actions these sick people have committed is inappropriate. Furthermore, to somehow insinuate that others are responsible for these past transgressions based on race, gender, or socio-economic status is beyond incomprehensible and has no place in our society.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Call me an idealist but I believe wholeheartedly in that statement.

Individuals have the right to be whatever they want, to achieve whatever dreams they may have. Class warfare and compartmentalizing society on ethnicity, gender, or any other physical attribute is counterproductive and can be destructive even when the intentions are good.

Instead of creating artificial equalizations by pushing people down and raising up others based on these attributes let us celebrate the fact that the ideal of the U.S. allows all of us to have the opportunity to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Let us focus on character and how the individual can be free to pursue their own interests instead of crying foul by playing the victim card. If you believe that you absolutely cannot succeed because America won’t let you then, please, attempt to see how far you can get in a place like North Korea or China.

So what is America’s Dirty Little Secret? There isn’t one, and I refuse to apologize for it.