United States Hypocrisy

Some of the most disturbing news stories that we see on television today are the threats of chemical weaponry. Most recently, Syrian troops were accused of using chemical weapons on their own civilians. Joby Warrick states more than 1,400 Syrian civilians have been killed. The Syrian government has denied these allegations; however, the United States threatened action against the government in retaliation. The United Nations is now overseeing that the chemical weapons in Syria be destroyed. I have heard discussions about the United States being hypocritical about wanting to take a hard stand against Syria. How could taking a stand against chemical warfare be hypocritical? After doing research I have found information that is very shocking to me and is very evidential that the United States is being quite hypocritical. According to the Washington’s Blog, “the U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran … which was the largest use of chemical weapons in history. While the number of people killed in the August 21st chemical weapons attack has been estimated at between 350 and 1,429, 20,000 Iranians and 5,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks with full U.S. support and backing.” After doing further research I came across a substance called Agent Orange that was used by the United States in the Vietnam War and what I found was shocking. Chemical weapons are defined as “chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants.” They can be dispersed in gas, liquid, or solid form and often affect more people than just the intended target. Was the United States guilty of using chemical warfare in Vietnam? During the Vietnam War, the United States sprayed a powerful mixture of chemical defoliants known as Agent Orange in the jungles of North Vietnam. The U.S. program of defoliation “sprayed more than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.” The intent was to thin the dense jungles where the Viet Cong were so effective in fighting the American troops. Unfortunately, the method of distribution allowed the chemical to contaminate the water supplies and vegetation consumed by not only the North Vietnamese, but also the U.S. troops fighting in Vietnam.
The herbicide Agent Orange “contained the chemical dioxin, was the most commonly used of the herbicide mixtures, and the most effective.” The effect on humans is equally toxic causing birth defects, muscular dysfunction, nervous system disorders, and numerous forms of cancer. It was not until Vietnam veterans began complaining of numerous health conditions including skin irritations, miscarriages, type-II diabetes, cancer, and birth defects did the United States began recognizing the link to Agent Orange. A class action lawsuit on behalf of 2.4 million Vietnam veterans that were exposed to Agent Orange was filed in 1979. A settlement of over 240 million dollars has since been reached. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Agent Orange Act. This law mandated that some diseases associated with Agent Orange be treated as a result of wartime service. “In addition to the massive environmental impact of the U.S. defoliation program in Vietnam, that nation has reported that some 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. In addition, Vietnam claims half a million children have been born with serious birth defects, while as many 2 million people are suffering from cancer or other illness caused by Agent Orange.” Also, another way the United States is being critical about Syria is how they are trying to expedite the process of eliminating the chemical weapons so quickly. I have discovered the United States itself has been very slow in eliminating our own chemical weapons but yet we demand Syria to do it in such a short amount of time. Dave Lindorff states “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has referred to Syria as having one of the largest chemical stockpiles in the world. But the US and Russia both still have stocks of chemicals many times as large. The U.S. caches, at 3100 tons, are three times as large as Syria’s reported 1000 tons.” History will state that the intent of the United States to employ Agent Orange during the Vietnam War was not as a chemical weapon by definition. It was used as a defoliant to thin the dense jungles of Vietnam in an effort to aid our soldiers. Unfortunately, the argument does not stand today knowing what we have learned about Agent Orange in the years since the war. Agent Orange clearly was a chemical weapon that has caused long-term damaging effects on millions of innocent lives. As we continue to fight the battle against chemical weapons, let’s hope we don’t lose sight of the fact that we too were guilty of using chemical warfare

Help or Hurt the Economy?

Many people believe war is good for the economy. At first glance, one could easily argue the economy is stimulated when we enter into a war. Let's suppose that the economy is in a recession. The unemployment rate is high and production is down. But then the government decides to enter into a war. This calls for workers to supply the soldiers with clothing, vehicles, weapons, and military supplies which creates jobs for people who did not have jobs before, therefore lowering the unemployment rate. With the unemployment rate down, people have more money to spend creating a boost in the economy. I am surprised to say that the idea of war helping an economy is actually a myth. 

The question many people have is how could war actually hurt the economy when so many say that it stimulates the economy? World War II came directly after the Great Depression, so war must have been the driving force to pull the economy out of a depression. However, more current history describes a different scenario. There was substantial economic growth during the 1990's when, with the exception of the Gulf War in 1991, we were at peace. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan warned that a prolonged conflict in war in the Middle East would hurt the economy. He explained that "you risk consumer confidence deteriorating" if involved in war for a long period of time. This in turn would effect financial markets and consumer spending. 
But if there is economic spending on the military during war, how does that affect consumer confidence? The New Republic states, it is "because of what economists call the 'broken window fallacy'. Specifically, if a window in a store is broken, it means that the window-maker gets paid to make a new window, and he, in turn, has money to pay others. However, economists long ago showed that – if the window hadn’t been broken – the shop-owner would have spent that money on other things, such as food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or recreation, which would have helped the economy as much or more. If the shop-owner hadn’t had to replace his window, he might have taken his family out to dinner, which would have circulated more money to the restaurant, and from there to other sectors of the economy. Similarly, the money spent on the war effort is money that cannot be spent on other sectors of the economy." During war, there is economic growth in the military sector, but shifts resources away from consumer and investment spending that would actually grow the economy. Defense spending has accounted for almost all job creation in the economy over the last decade. However, Michael Mandel states, "between 1999 and 2009, private sector employment grew only 1.1% which is the slowest growth in a post-depression period."

While a war can provide a short-term boost to the economy, it has an adverse effect on the economy in the long run. Mike Moffatt states, "The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways: increasing taxes, decrease spending in other areas, or increasing the debt." All three of these options will negatively affect the economy in the long run. Increasing taxes reduces the amount of money consumers have to spend. Decreased spending on social programs funded by the government reduces the benefits to recipients thereby reducing the money they have to spend in other areas. Increasing the government debt assures that taxes will have to be increased or spending reduced in the future. 
Therefore, war is not beneficial to the majority of Americans. They find themselves with fewer dollars to spend and less confidence that the money will be there in the future. With less money circulating in the economy, there is less economic growth in the long run.

The Unknown War

I have never heard of the Battle of Mogadishu until watching the film Black Hawk Down and I suspect there are many other people have never heard of it either; but why? Was it an insignificant military mission or an embarrassment to American foreign policy?  American soldiers went into Somalia and saved many innocent lives yet not many people have heard about this heroic act. The reason for this is probably because the majority of citizens did not view the operation as being a success. Dominic Tierney in his article "Black Hawk Up: The Forgotten American Success Story inSomalia" claims, "The mission in Somalia became widely seen as one of the greatest military disasters since Vietnam. In October 1993, 66 percent of Americans thought the operation to provide humanitarian relief in Somalia was a failure. Congressmen angrily demanded U.S. withdrawal." Hollywood movie makers in Black Hawk Down depicted the humanitarian mission as a failure.  Consequently, the Battle of Mogadishu shaped U.S. policy going forward and has limited our involvement in humanitarian crises.  However, a deeper understanding of the events leading to the mission and the aftermath could present a different opinion of something other than a failure.

After the Cold War ended, Somalia suffered widespread famine and fell into clan-based warfare.  Thousands of innocent Somalians were being murdered or dying of starvation. President George H. W. Bush sent American troops to deliver humanitarian relief, arriving in December 1992.  The troops rebuilt roads and repaired schools.  It is estimated that 100,000 Somalian lives were saved and the number of refugees was cut in half.  There were plenty of journalists on hand to report to the world the success of this U.S. humanitarian effort. 

Public opinion took a drastic change for the worse in October, 1993.  American troops turned their efforts toward eliminating the warlord, General Aideed, who was blamed for attacking international troops.  The mission was supposed to be swift with a few military helicopters flying into the region to arrest or neutralize their targets.  However, Aideed and his militants were waiting for the attack and shot down two military helicopters. The battle ended with 18 American soldiers dead and hundreds of Somalians.  The press coverage of the humanitarian mission in Somalia suddenly became a tragic story with images of mutilated American soldiers.  The media ignored the pro-American demonstrations in Somalia and the accomplishments already made to restore order in the region.  Osama bin Laden was quoted in Tierney’s article, “You left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.”  His comment reinforced the perception of failure and embarrassment among the American public. The American troops left the region shortly after the tragic mission.

The consequences of the Battle of Mogadishu were pronounced.  The U.S. government was shocked at the outcome and demanded that numerous officials in President Clinton’s administration explain how a humanitarian effort could become such an embarrassment.  Alexander Burns, in his article “The Battle of Mogadishu: Why It Still Matters” states “the immediate lesson drawn by the United States was of the need for humility in international affairs.”  Foreign policy changed towards a more cautious involvement in international humanitarian efforts.  Burns also reveals that the 9/11 Commission following the terrorist attacks on the United States uncovered that Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network were involved in the attack on the American military in Mogadishu.  He states, “When President Clinton swiftly drew back from Somalia, he hardened Bin Laden’s dim view of American resolve.”  Calling the efforts in Somalia as a total failure may be short sighted.  Yes, American lives were lost but thousands of Somalian lives were saved.  Perhaps by standing our ground and continuing our mission in Somalia, the perception of America as a strong and worthy force would have been maintained.  However, by being so quick to withdraw and admit defeat, one could also conclude that our admitted weakness led the way for a more costly price to be paid later, most notably September 11, 2001.