- In your first post, write a 100 word (max) letter to the editor in response to this piece. A good letter to the editor presents ONE idea in reaction to the original piece, and brings in NEW information or insight. It can be in agreement or disagreement.
- For your second post, read at least four letters from your classmates and choose one to briefly comment on.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
U.S. Policy in the Middle East
DUE MONDAY APRIL 4, 2011 Please read this Op Ed by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI found Thomas Friedman’s editorial on the state of affairs in the Middle East both enlightening and worrisome, as he really outlines clearly what a state of confusion we are in. One of the more important points that Friedman makes is that we are faced with creating a Middle Eastern democracy, not an American one, and that we cannot just translate the things that have worked well for us in the US to other places. One point I’m not sure I agree with is that America should always be seen as the go-to for humanitarian aid.
-Rachel
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Mr. Friedman’s commentary on the status of America’s affairs in Libya and the fact that as a country we are pushed by so many factors to be the forefront of all the messy occurrences in today’s Middle East. I think that it’s burdensome that we must always get involved in international affairs. We lose popularity in the Middle East when we intervene, but would otherwise be criticized if we took no action. I think it’s time for other nations to play a bigger role as international peacekeepers.
-Ty
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI thought that Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion piece about the United States’ brave and very much needed intervention in Libya was very insightful and right on the mark. The United States is always caught in a very confusing area when it comes to when they should step into a problem and when they shouldn’t. No matter what the U.S. does to help, they will always be criticized. This is why I agree with the statement that Friedman brought up about hoping that President Obama will be very lucky at the end of the mess that is going on in Libya.
-Lena
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the situation in the Middle East is messy (to say the least), I don't think that the U.S. should be the one to fix the mess. Not because I don't care about the people of Libya and not because I think America shouldn't help the people of Libya, but because this country all too often doesn't seem to understand what "help" means. We simply go in, take over, shove our ideas down everyone else's throats, and then don't understand why it doesn't work when we leave. If we truly want Libya to be a successful country, then we must work with the people of Libya, not for the people of Libya.
-Tema
Dear Editor:
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Friedman was absolutely correct in his doubts that a “decent outcome” would come without boots on the ground. This statement made me wonder if it was in fact a good idea for the Obama administration to say there would be absolutely no troops from the United States intervening in the Libyan turmoil. It’s such a difficult situation because I feel as though Obama had to say that to ease worries from the public but it would have been strategically smart to be more ambiguous for possibilities in the future. It is always dangerous when a president makes promises in such an unknown and unpredictable situation, which is exactly the situation unfolding currently in Libya and across the Middle East.
-Ali
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI found that Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed on Libya provided me with expert analysis on an extremely complicated situation while making the piece easy to understand. I agree with his statement that we cannot afford to provide ground troops during the war, or after. However, I think that it is also necessary for us to have zero ground troops in order to not be completely ostracized by our Middle Eastern allies. I believe that many American ground troops in Libya could mirror the prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that if we just maintain an aerial presence then we can more easily keep our allies happy and save American lives (and money).
-Brendan
I agree with Tyler and Lena. I think that the U.S. is almost always the go-to country when humanitarian aid is necessary. And, often the military aid we provide angers many other countries. It seems as though other countries are always unhappy with the actions we take. For example, the Arab league that supported a no-fly zone became unhappy with the extent of the U.S. bombing. Therefore, I think it is a good thing for the U.N., NATO, European Countries, and other Arab Countries to contribute forces and lead the multi-nation attack on Libya. I think a backseat role would benefit the U.S. in enhancing our credibility and stopping us from further increasing our debt.-Brendan
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI truly appreciated Mr. Friedman's article, discussing the involvement of the US in Libya as well as the Middle East. Obama is optimistic in wanting to stand up for the people of Libya, AND the government, (because they are so important to us), but realistically, how can we stick up for both? In my honest opinion, I'd rather we stay out of it completely but in order to maintain our relationship with the government (seeing as they have oil and we cannot cut our dependence on it), maybe a few troops could help: but how many? It's a complicated issue that I hope Obama can somehow solve because the outcome is unclear and could put us at risk if we maximize our involvement by putting troops in Libya. Although we are heavily reliant on its oil, the boots cannot be ours. I feel as though we have a plethora of issues in our own country to be worrying about, that we cannot possibly fix another's issues. If we do, it will require a military, money, energy and attention as Friedman pointed out that we would have to invest and frankly, we cannot provide any of that. We always keep going to war, but do not have the courage to look at what's really going on. Reality is an acquired taste.
-Elicica
I agree with Tyler. Because the US is always called upon for humanitarian aid, the Obama administration is really strained to spread help across the Middle East with all of the uprisings taking place. Also, now that we have intervened in Libya, many are calling for us to also intervene in the massacre taking place in the Ivory Coast. I worry that the US and the Obama administration will now face increasing pressure to provide assistance in other places not only in the Middle East but also in other parts of the world such as the Ivory Coast. Given the budget problems we are facing domestically it seems almost impossible that the US could provide all the military or diplomatic help needed. I agree with Tyler that it is time for other countries to step into issues to help in a more hands-on way and stop relying so much on the US for both military and political assistance/guidance. We just don't have the resources at this point and although the turmoil in the Middle East is really important, there are also important problems to focus on domestically.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Mr. Friedman's op-ed piece about the situation in Libya. I think he did a particularly good job at highlighting what a confusing state the Middle East is in, and how difficult it is for the United States to decide where, if anywhere, action must be taken. The United States already has the reputation of getting involved in the problems of other countries all over the world, and I'm not sure if this is the precedent we should be setting in the Middle East. While I agree that some sort of action did need to be taken in Libya, it concerns me that the US now might be expected to intervene in the other situations in the Middle East like in Bahrain and Syria. As Mr. Friedman noted, we don't have the money, manpower, or energy to have troops down in Libya, so we definitely don't have those resources to be anywhere else.
- Lara
I also agree with Ali about our dwindling resources and manpower, as well as the dangers of making too definitive promises on situations that are unpredictable. But I also thought Rachel and Tema hit on a very crucial point, that the American way is not necessarily the right way for other nations. We can't keep on barging in with guns a-blazing into political hot spots and force people to conform to our ideals, it's straight up Imperialism. Helping other nations in turmoil needs to be a collaborative effort to find the right solution for each situation. America has a completely different culture than that of the Middle East, and their governments need to reflect their own, not ours.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rachel that a Middle Eastern democracy is being created, and that may not be anything like the democracy the United States has. The countries in the Middle East are very different in a number of different aspects, and our way of democracy may just not fit there. Rachel is right when she says that our way of democracy just might not translate there. I believe that forcing the American democracy on countries in the Middle East would be a very costly mistake.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Friedman's op-ed piece about the dire situation in the Middle East. The fact that the United States will always be the go to country for humanitarian and military aid presents a possibly troublesome outcome in the potential powder keg of the Middle East. I feel that there will have to be American troops on the ground at some point, but this will most likely occur after (if) Gaddafi is ousted, in the form of peacekeeping ground forces.
I agree with Lara on the fact that the U.S. does not have enough resources - whether it be money or manpower - to have troops on the ground in countries other than and including Libya. I also agree that this is not the sort of standard or example we should be setting in the Middle East. If other countries get to the stage where Libya is at, it may pose a serious problem to NATO and the U.S., probably forcing one or the other to put troops on the ground somewhere.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler’s point above about how whenever we try to intervene with other countries conflicts that we always lose popularity. I also agree with the idea that other countries should step up to help and that the United States should not always be the go to for aid and to know what to do. The United States should not have the role of the country that has to look over all the other countries and then get criticized for it.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Friedman makes a lot of good points in his piece, especially illustrating how messy the situation is in the Middle East. However, I think something that he is missing is that all of this change is inevitable. We can see by the number of young rebels in these Middle Eastern nations that the desire for change is pumping through their veins. There is no doubt that in order to bring about their desire for change, people are going to loose their lives. Shouldn’t we let them fight it out amongst themselves and then step in with humanitarian aid?
-Laura
I think Lara's point about the possible "slippery slope" of direct involvement in Libya rings true. If we decide to enter yet ANOTHER war, will the people of Bahrain, Syria, or any other countries in turmoil, expect us to intervene on their behalf? Frankly, that is not something America can afford right now, but it's also unfair to the citizens of those countries seeking our help in starting a democracy. If we promise something we can never give, that's just setting these countries up for failure as well.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteThomas Friedman brings up an excellent point that neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to acknowledge: an incredible amount of American foreign policy is based on luck. To argue that Obama’s decisions are absolutely correct or certainly incorrect is foolish; there are legitimate arguments for intervention and refrain.
Americans’ utter opposition to intervention disappoints me. As Obama mentioned, America is not like all other countries in terms of our humanitarian burden. When civilians are in danger, it is the world’s responsibility to protect the innocent, and as the most powerful nation, it is our responsibility especially.
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI found Friedman's opinion refreshing because he recognized the difficulty of the decision President Obama had to make. Friedman understands the complexity of the situation in the Middle East, and gives Obama kudos for taking action. It has seemed impossible for the President to catch a break, especially since the bombings in Libya began; half of the country seems disgusted with Obama for waiting so long to become involved, while others are upset that the US has entered into another war. I appreciate how Friedman can empathize with the impossible task the President is faced with.
-Sean
I disagree with what Tema said, not because I think that it was a good idea for the US to bomb Libya (I still haven't made up my mind on whether I support the President's decision or not), but because I believe the US is the only country that would've stepped in to stop the violence. I share Friedman's sentiment that other countries would not have acted without American support. For good or bad, the US is viewed as the world police force, and if humanitarian aid is needed, we're the only country that seems to deliver. If you think some other country step up and become involved so the US could take a backseat, you have more faith in our allies than i do.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI feel that this artice was all over the place and a bit sarcastic, while I also feel that it made a few very interesting points. One being the fact that in a few select Middle Eastern countries--as well as in other countries aroud the world--there are many unsavorable happenings going on, but yet the United States chooses to turn a blind eye if its standing would be jeaopardized in any way if action was taken. I think that this is a very hypocritical view of the U.S. as a country, but that it is very true at the same time; if we don't want our hands to get too dirty, we don't get involved.
In my opinion, I think that Obama's way of taking action is effective. I feel that we do need to step up and intervene, while a completely direct approach such as all-out warfare wouldn't be smart and would just be the cause of disaster that could involve the further loss of millions of innocent lives. I think that perhaps the U.S. needs to collaborate with other nations as well as Libya's rebellion in order to reach a consenus on how to best approach this.
I agree with Sean that it was refreshing for Friedman to show empathy and understanding for the difficult decision that President Obama had to make. It is very frustrating because I feel like no matter what the president does, someone else is always going to be upset or dissatisfied with that is going on. It seems that people would either be angry that we are getting inloved, upset that we took too long to get involved, or be completely upset with the manner in which we chose to get involved. No matter what, someone is unhappy. Like Sean, I am glad that Friedman recognized what a hard decision this would be. I wish people would give Obama a break.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Friedman in that the U.S. is in an extremely fragile situation with Libya, and that there are no easy choices that can be made. I also think that is important for other countries to play a big role this time around, as the U.S. does not have unlimited resources, nor the ability to intervene in every single case of human rights abuse in the world. Since we do have some kind of obligation s the most powerful country in the world, maybe we should use that power to convince some European countries to intervene. Just a thought.
-Phil
Like Sean, I disagree with Tema about US involvement. The US, whether we would like to or not, is the leader of the world. In Rwanda 1994, the US took a back seat during a humanitarian crisis, and we promised that the US would never again allow rampant government killing of its own civilians. When people in Libyan cities struggling to bring down a leader who ordered terrorist attacks on Americans and achieve some level of democracy were in danger of total annihilation, Obama wanted to follow through with the promise of the United States. It is frustrating that the US cannot apply this civilian defense everywhere, but at least we are stepping up for justice in this case.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Tyler. America will be criticized if it takes no action or intervenes in a way similar to Iraq/Afghanistan. Therefore, I think we should draw the line at humanitarian aid (which does not include bombing Libyan military bases), and the fact that the international response to our actions in Libya so far have been less critical, tells me that this is a good idea. Though it is a terrible situation there, it is not only up to us to help, and our intervention only dissuades other countries from getting involved, even though they could help. So maybe in not invading and taking over, we will do more to ensure the fall of our dear friend Momar.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion article and found his views very interesting. As he explained, the Middle East is a tangled mess full of conflicting likes and dislikes when it comes to U.S. interests. I completely agree that this is the case. However, I do not think the U.S. should entangle itself further by handing out military support in these radical hot spots. As history has shown, U.S. involvement in political civil wars has most often backfired. Secondly as Friedman pointed out, the US simply can not afford to commit itself to yet another war overseas. So, contradictory to Friedman’s belief, I do not think the U.S. needs to be the leader in humanitarian help, nor that the U.S. needs to/should step in to handle these issues by giving troops or weapons.
-Becca
I found Tema’s point that the US “doesn’t seem to understand what help means” very interesting. Political civil wars are always tricky and it often seems like we don’t always help the countries in the ways they need or in ways that could actually be the foundation for sustained positive change. I really like her point that the U.S. needs to work with the people. If the people truly want democracy and the U.S. chooses to get involved, the U.S. must educate these people about government and democracy. While this would obviously be a more time consuming and expensive endeavor I think if the U.S. is not willing to spend this kind of time then maybe they shouldn’t get involved in the first place because what good does it do if the government crumbles when we leave?
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI am writing in response to Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed piece on Libya. I agree that it is hard for the United States and it's allies to interfere in current unstable political situation in Libya. While I agree with Friedman that I wish the President luck, I agree with Gen. Wesley Clark who stated that, “Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action.” The United States should not play a role in the overthrow of dictators and provide support for anti-Qaddafi troops for a Libyan Civil war. The Unites States should allow UN forces take control of the situation. This would have avoided the current situation that the US now finds itself it of having to walk a fine line of overthrowing dictators in one country and supporting them in another.
I agree with Becca’s comment that the US involvement in political civil wars have not worked out historically for the US and therefore the US should not get involved in the Libyan civil war. Following this argument it is not the responsibility of the US to educate and provide assistance for creating new democracies in the Middle East, especially in countries such as Libya, where the country is in the middle of a civil war.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteThomas Friedman's article on Libya shed light on the extremely complex political situation in the Middle East. I trust Friedman's assertion that a positive outcome in this war torn country relies heavily on luck. However, while the piece praises Obama, I don't think this praise goes far enough. America is now stuck with maintaining a costly military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight, so it was highly prudent of Obama to ensure that the U.S. would not become entangled with Libya as well.
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteWe need to proceed with caution in Libya! I think this idea of “help[ing] rebels we do not know topple a terrible dictator we do not like…” is very scary. How can we know for sure that the “rebels we do not know” are actually better than “the terrible dictator we do not like?” The C.I.A. has launched some clandestine missions to gather intelligence about the location of Qaddafi’s forces, munitions, etc. It is crucial that the Obama administration consider the intelligence before making any major moves. We must make sure we know what we’re getting ourselves into.
-Rebecca
Ali seems to worry that the U.S. may eventaully be dragged into sending ground forces into LIbya. However, I am confident that this will not happen. In a recent congressional session, Secretary Gates said that as long as he had his job, there would be no American troops in Libya. I'm optimistic that the U.S. has learned its lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, and will avoid sending in ground troops to Libya at all possible costs.
ReplyDeleteI like Phil’s comment about using the United States’ power to get other nations to take some responsibility for humanitarian aid and step in. It is often said that the best leaders are people who are able to delegate, facilitate, and inspire others. Why shouldn’t this apply to foreign affairs as well? Yes, the US should provide aid to other nations. But, the rest of the world shouldn’t just rely on the United States to jump in and save the day whenever another nation needs help. The US simply does not have the resources to fix all of these problems, not to mention that it will be near impossible for the US to find a solution in the Middle East that will make all of its “friends” happy.
ReplyDeleteSince it appears as though the US is the go-to country for humanitarian and military aid, it is difficult not to get involved. And although I agree with Becca and Matt's point that we should not intervene in Libya, I agree with Jayme's point as well: we need to. I honestly am torn as to which path we should take because either way, soemone will be dissatisfied. It's impossible to please everyone. I wish Obama the best of luck because boy, does he need it.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your claim that the revolutions in the Middle East are a politically and morally ambiguous area, as well as that the United States has until now been known as an international activist peacekeeper, I disagree with the military plan you outlined, which calls for physical presence in Libya. I believe that the revolutions have given America a chance to become an equal player with other first world, democratic nations. In order for America to regain its deteriorating international reputation, we must work in partnership with our democratic and Middle Eastern allies to help promote and regulate burgeoning democracies.
-Pam Levy
I found Tema's argument, that America generally appears to take an activist, nearly imperialist plan of action in the realm of international policy, very profound. While I agree with Tema that the United States may not necessarily understand what "help" means in relation to these countries, and may overstep its bounds, I also believe that America is an important guiding force. As the author of the article points out, many countries do come from disunited backgrounds, where tribes often clash and there is often the threat of civil war or genocide. I believe that American intervention, while it may be bad for American international reputation simply because it is America that is doing it rather than an alliance of countries, may give these countries stability and a uniting force that may help them through shaky political and social times.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteOne of the ideas I found particularly potent in your article was "you bomb it, you own it." While it seems as if the easiest way to treat any political situation we see as adverse to the health of our nation (or another nation that we depend on for oil, etc) I agree that "these boots cannot be ours." This all seems like high school to me--one minute we're friends, the next day we're not; we like this person except for this one thing they did this one time and because maybe they talked to someone else we sort of don't like either. I think that getting further tangled up in the Middle East would only put us in greater danger of never being able to leave peacefully.
-Katherine
I agree with Becca that the US shouldn't be "handing out" political or military assistance without being completely sure of who the recipient is, but I do believe as Pam said that the US has to work on Middle Eastern relations in order to regain out international reputation. I realize that this does create a conflict on interest because it's difficult to discern whether taking sides and becoming involved in the conflict would end up helping or hurting us in the long run. Though the US has a history of involvement in foreign conflicts especially when they are about an idea like democracy, but in this case I think it would be best to stand back unless we absolutely must get involved.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Friedman's Op Ed article really hit the nail on the head with its approval of President Obama's desire to help out. There have been too many atrocities over the last century that have gone ignored by United States Presidents and it is satisfying to finally see a President that seems aware of what is going on oversees. I also am worried by the simple wish that President Obama is "lucky." I wish there were more substance; what do we mean by "lucky?" Unfortunately, I don't really know, either; these waters are indeed, uncharted.
So many excellent points have been made here. I think Rachel and Tema's point that American Democracy isn't the only Democracy is valid. However, not to sound ethnocentric or elitist, our Democracy does, for the most part, function pretty well. There are certainly things worth sharing with the Middle East that America knows about a successful Democracy, should these countries want our help. I certainly agree that it is not the place of the United States to aggressively intervene without being asked to, or to be the only nation that intervenes. I think working with other nations in assisting this progression towards Democracy would be the key to making sure we aren't "shoving American ideals down anybody's throat," as Tema so articulately stated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tema’s point somewhat, especially that the US should not be the one to fix the mess. Our time in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that these nations, in many ways, don’t want our “help” in the way that we want to give it because they don’t understand what it means. TV and internet have brought a whole new set of ideas to Middle Eastern nations in the last 50 years or so. With modern technology, leaders of these nations are not able to keep information from their people the way they used to, and they are starting to catch on to how people in the west live. It is no coincidence that the strength of the internet and rebel movements are happening at the same time. The US could step in the way they did in Iraq and try and force a democratic government upon them. Or, we can wait it out and let these nations develop democratic governments of their own. I will not happen perfectly and as quickly as we want it to, and it will definitely be messy, but the bottom line is that these people are ready for democracy. They have more access to our ideas then they ever have before. Let’s give them the chance to do it on their own and not go rushing to their side.
ReplyDelete