Reconstruction

I am an intern at the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) at the Army War College. It’s been really interesting so far, especially since I’ve been assigned to a really complex project. I’m working on a proposal for a new model for Reconstruction and Stability operations (basically trying to find a way for the military to help rebuild nations after conflict). In my research, I have come across quite a few case studies of operations in the Middle East. I am basing my recommendation on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Afghanistan. The PRTs aim to combine both civilian and military staff and to extend the authority of the government, promote and enhance security and facilitate humanitarian relief and reconstruction operations.  If you’d like to learn more about the PRTs, I suggest you look at this report: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADG252.pdf

            There is a lot of opposition to much of the United States' involvement in other countries but I feel like the United States has a responsibility as a world power to help democratize and stabilize volatile nations. By spreading democracy through nation-building, the US is helping to foster a new and improved world system. 

            

"Court in UAE says beating wife, child OK if no marks are left"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/19/uae.court.ruling/index.html

This man from the UAE slapped and kicked his wife and 23-year-old daughter, injuring both, and was brought to court under charges of abuse. The court ruled that he punished them too severely, although “a man is permitted under Islamic law to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he leaves no marks and has tried other methods of punishment.” As discussed later in the article, violence against women goes against all of the teachings of Islam. Under shari'ah law, “it is ‘absolutely unlawful’ to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.” While I suppose that they were trying to make strides against violence against women, the fact that this court ruled that it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife and children, as long as he doesn’t leave marks, is completely outdated.

What do you think?

Is the war on terror winnable? What would this look like?

If the War on Terror is able to be won, there would be no more terrorism. The world would be a much safer place because there would be no attacks on civilians and wars would be fought conventionally.

I know that this is pessimistic, but I do not think that the War on Terror can ever be won. I think that it is a noble goal but there is no way to completely  eradicate terror from the world. For one thing, the War on Terror is a war on a concept. Because there is no concrete enemy, there is no way to evaluate when the war has been won. Certain terrorist groups can be removed but terrorism as a concept will always be present.

I am planning on having a career that involves counterterrorism and national security.  It might seem weird that someone who wants to spend her life protecting her nation from future terrorist attacks doesn’t believe that the terrorist attacks will ever stop. I do think that it is possible to prevent terrorism, however, it will never truly be eliminated.

Research Topic

I just posted on the Wiki but I thought I’d describe my research paper topic a little bit here so it is easier to receive feedback from you guys!

 I am trying to research how the use of terrorist tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed since the mandate period. In order to do this, I’m going to need to evaluate the goals behind the attacks and the extent to which these goals were met. Because there have been so many instances of terror since the beginning of the conflict, I will probably select a few major terrorist attacks and focus on those.

I’ve started researching a little bit and have already found so much information.  I think it will be a really interesting project!

This is the first time that I have ever kept a blog..I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing this but am excited to figure it out! That said, please bear with me as I get the hang of this.

I came across an interesting article this morning... Apparently, the Dove World Outreach Center, an evangelical church based in Gainesville, Florida, has been rumored to have plans to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to commemorate the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. "Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist that it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive." (Dozier) This demonstration would undoubtedly cause much anger among Muslims. General Petraeus warned that images of a burning Quran could be used to incite anti-American sentiments and could potentially be very dangerous for Americans worldwide. 


I think that General Petraeus was right in warning against this demonstration. While I understand some of the emotions that are playing into this church's decision to burn the Quran, doing so would do some serious damage to our image abroad. Some may argue that the Dove center has the Constitutional right to do this. However, since exercising this right to demonstrate could cause more harm than good, the Dove World Outreach Center should not be allowed to go through with this.


If you're interested, here is a link to the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090600589.html