Monday, February 26, 2007

Others Answers

While it is my goal (as stated in my bio) to understand the world, and then cure all its ills, I have found it is tough going it alone. Therefore I am looking for other people’s solutions this week. The plan is to find a few different points of view on today’s major international issues, and see what other serious bloggers suggest we do about them. Then, after some careful consideration, comment with what recommendations I have, in hopes of further developing the discussion. Thus without further ado I would like to direct your attention to a Needlenose.com article entitled “Persian Paranoia?” and a Huffington Post blog from February 24th: “How to End the War in Iraq - In A Way That Will Actually Work”. For your convenience I will post my responses to these articles below, along with direct links to the corresponding pages.

Comment 1: To Needlenose in regards to “Persian Paranoia?”

I have to thank you for this post and the light it sheds on this issue. Like you, I am far from an “Islamic scholar” and as such I have only the most basic of understandings when it comes to sectarian differences in the Arab world. Knowing only as much about the “civil war” between the Sunni and Shi’a as CNN will tell me, I am that much more grateful to find a article that will look at the intricacies of the situation.

I could not agree more that poking things with a stick at this point would be inane beyond comprehension. But as someone who (if labels had to be applied) would be leaning more right then left I would like to say that it is not just the progressives that need to ensure that this issue is handled with finesse. We all need to take a more Bismarck like approach to understanding not only the factors involved in the Middle East, but also how to reconcile our actions and support with our own ideals and self interests.

Comment 2: responding to “How to End the War in Iraq - In A Way That Will Actually Work”

I think you have some champion-able causes here. We do need to take a more hands on approach when it comes to our representation if any change is to be made. And I agree that we as Americans need to overhaul the face we show the world. But I wonder about a few things. If Iraq were to pursue the decision to “divide into more than one country along ethnic lines”, countries that would be self determined and nationalistic in nature, wouldn’t we be confronted with another 1930’s German analogy? That is, several small, relatively weak ethnic states bordered by large and militarily ambitious countries with traditional rivalries to those ethnicities.

And while the world would certainly benefit from more charitable donations, certainly far too many people go hungry every day, isn’t the United States already the world’s largest charitable donor? Maybe the key to helping reshape the global economy isn’t the percent of donations given, but better organizing and administering what we already do.

What ever the case may be, I agree that it is high time we start moving away from “private solutions” and work together to make things better and safer for us all.

- T.W.M.K- http://twmkatirusc.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The British are Coming!... Home

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, pictured on the left, announced the phased withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq earlier today. He called for return of nearly 1,600 troops within the next few months and the removal of all British troops by early 2008. Britain’s force, which currently stands at around 7,000 men will transfer control of the southern part of Iraq, particularly the town of Basra to Iraqi security forces over the next year until full Iraqi authority is established.

The announcement has been met with praise from many different sources. President Bush and Vice President Chaney have stated that they viewed the decision as evidence that things in Iraq are starting to shape up. Many residents of Basra themselves have expressed happiness in seeing the British force there leave. Many parts of the British government have also expressed their approval of the decision.

Yet while it is a positive sign that the local commanders feel comfortable enough to transfer control back to the Iraqis, there are several factors that most news reports seem to be overlooking.

The 7,000 British troops represent the largest coalition fighting force in Iraq aside from the American forces. While their departure may represent a step forward for the Iraqi security forces, it also serves as a signal for other coalition allies to revisit the possibility of leaving the fight. In fact Denmark announced the removal of all of its forces as Britain made its announcement. While the U.S. had been bearing the brunt of this war for its duration, it seems hard to share the president’s optimism as two allies tap out of the fight.

Of further concern is the situation the British leave behind. While most accounts again are positive, there are reasons for concern. The city of Basra, which as shown on the right, is located at the southeastern edge of Iraq, will be significantly weakened. The city and most of the surrounding region is mainly identified as Shia in religious ethnicity. And while the city has not experience the levels of sectarian violence that areas such as Baghdad have suffered, it is certainly not free of bloodshed. It seems reasonable that groups such as Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni extremist group, might find the diminished coalition presence in Basra the perfect opportunity to ignite a new front in the ethnic conflict.

Also, Basra is one of the larger cities that lies a very short distance from the border with Iran. Aside from geographical proximity, the two are both Shai dominant regions. Given the recent concerns of Iranian contributions to the violence in Iraq it seems shortsighted to reduced coalition forces in the area.

What is more, it is overly optimistic to praise the removal of forces from Iraq when most non-government agencies still view the nation as too volatile to occupy. Groups such as Doctors Without Borders, who pride themselves as being international first responders to crisis situations, continue to avoid the country because of the nature of the violence. Suffice it to say, their absence underlines the seriousness of the issue. Though many groups are still attempting to aid in humanitarian efforts though other channels, the situation, at least medically, is still far from acceptable. According to the World Health Organization, Iraq has approximately 1 physician for every 2000 people, and facilities are insufficient to meet demand.

With factors like this in mind it seems disconcerting that a sizable military force is leaving Iraq. While it is always heartening to see soldiers come home safely, we have to wonder what they are leaving behind. If indeed the situation in Basra is secure enough to reduce the number of combat troops, would it not be a perfect opportunity to shift those forces to supportive non combat roles elsewhere in the nation. 1,600 troops could be immensely helpful in speeding up reconstruction of important infrastructure, or in securing areas for international aid groups to reenter the country.

As it stands I salute each returning British soldier, and give my heartfelt thanks to them, their families and their nation for all the contributions and sacrifices they have made. Truly, whatever your stance on the war may be, we must be thankful to have such a steadfast and dependable ally. However I can not help but fear that as British troops leave southern Iraq, the void they leave will be a magnet for insurgent and terrorist forces to expand the regional conflict, further hurt chances to improve medical and humanitarian relief to Iraq, and give Iran greater leverage in the region.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Exploring Alternative Views

This week I have the privilege of turning to other blogs to provide sustenance for my intellectual curiosity. In hopes of inspiring the cross pollinization of thoughts and ideas I am seeking out two other blogs that deal with international relations to shed light on a looming specter in current events. Actually two specters; Iran, and North Korea.

Once heralded as members of the “Axis of Evil” these two countries have continued to be of eminent importance to the United States, especially in regards to national security. Indeed, either one of these states can usually be found on the nightly news on any given day. And now, with growing concerns over Iranian involvement in Iraq, and questionable nuclear developments in both countries in the last few months, I feel it is important to gather information on what appear to be the next major centers for global political development and security.
With all due modesty I can say I know very little about both countries, and hope that by interacting with other writers concerned with nations I may alleviate that unfortunate condition. As mentioned before, it is my intention to make this excursion interactive, and to that end will not only be commenting on what I find, relating my findings here, to be listed below:

My first find in this excursion was a fellow blogger post providing a history and commentary on North Korea. My hope was that it would provide a solid foundation for interpreting the events that are unfolding on that peninsula, and hopefully provide some analysis of those same events. The post does indeed provide a rich background of the nation’s history, which will likely alter one’s views on current events. However the point of view of the post verges on being radically different then a standard western viewpoint. Indeed the author would probably consider “radically different” from standard western views a compliment. But seeing as the most informative and productive modes of enlightenment and learning can often come from developing an understanding and appreciation of alternate views, I was encouraged to proceed.

I find that I do disagree with the author on several points, but am still grateful for an opportunity to better understand how others; and probably a significant number of others, interpret the situation in North Korea. Due to a formatting issue with blogger, the link to that comment can be found at the end of this post.

My second search found the politically motivated DigbysBlogspot which had a recent post regarding American diplomatic and military policy with Iran. The poster had provided a appreciable number of provocative print sources to substantiate his point. The effect made what appeared to by a cynical commentary turn into a thought provoking presentation of evidence of diplomatic failures in dealing with Iran. Again I was compelled to make a statement of my own which can be seen here.

Monday, February 5, 2007

Surviving After Combat: Soldiers Live, But at What Cost?

America’s current "war on terror" is unlike any that the nation has fought in its history. The battlefronts spread out over several countries, the tactics employed by both friends and foes are unconventional, and technology has drastically altered the combat environment. New technologies are being implemented in command and control systems, weapons, and of particular interest, medical treatment of injured soldiers in abroad and at home. Indeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, state of the art field hospitals are allowing unprecedented levels of care for those who can be evacuated form the combat zone. And while these field hospitals are able to save lives that would surely otherwise be lost, they create unique new problems that are as unprecedented as the fields of combat that cause them. These problems are not only physical but psychological. They arise from soldiers who survive that would have previously been lethal wounds and then must reenter a mostly peacetime society. It falls to us, as the members of that society to both acknowledge these unique challenges faced by returning soldiers, and do what is in our power to support their rehabilitation and reincorporation to life here at home.

To understand the situation it is important to have a basic knowledge of the incredible levels of health care being provided by the field hospitals in places such as the 21st combat support hospital (or CSH) near Balad, a city just north of Baghdad in Iraq. Because allied forces have nearly unchallenged air superiority in Iraq the first stage of care for an injured soldier is often a medical transport helicopter. These field units are often able to assess and prepare their patients for surgery as they leave the combat zone. The next stop is a combat support hospital, which is staffed by both military and civilian doctors.

These hospitals are on the cutting edge of medical technology and are able to provided services previously unheard of in a combat zone. For instance the 31st CSH reported preforming over 80 neurosurgeries in three months in early 2004. It is truly remarkable that field surgeons are able to perform brain surgery within hours of the initial injury. Such capabilities have saved hundreds of lives throughout the duration of the war.

However the effort does not stop there, because the primary mission of the field hospitals is only to stabilize its patients for more encompassing treatment elsewhere. Most patients treated in the CSHs are transported out of the combat zone to permanent hospitals in Allied countries such as Germany to undergo prolonged care before being brought back to Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in the United States.

This entire process is carried out with impressive haste. Soldiers that need to be removed from active duty normally leave Iraq within 72 hours, and are back in the US in a matter of weeks. However most of these soldiers return with life changing injuries. Because the field hospitals are able to do so much, survivors are returning with injuries that are as unprecedented as the technologies that saved them. In the case of Iraq in particular, the type of injuries that are most common, such as those from improvised explosive devices, are severe head injuries that result in trauma to the brain which is irreversible. And while the field hospitals are saving lives, they cannot promise a full recovery.

One field surgeon from Iraq in a interview with Washington Post acknowledged the sucess of thier medical operation, while aluding to emotional and moral dilemas that it caused, saying "We're saving more people than should be saved, probably,” in regards to a patient who was alive, but was going to loose a significant amount of brain function. Another doctor, Maj. Richard Gullick stated that most soldiers returning after having a traumatic brain injury will have permanent disabilities that are similar to those that occur from mild or moderate strokes. Furhtermore a full quarter of those patients would have severe disabilities. There are indeed some accounts of soldiers coming home in permanent comas, which forced their families to decide whether or not to continue life support.

Cases like these are difficult for not only the soldiers, but the families and communities they return to. It is imperative that we as a people understand and empathize with the situations these families face and help them overcome their hardships. And while the Veterans Authority has been tackling these issues for years, many private and federal projects have started to address these issues such the Intrepid Foundation. The Foundation recently opened the Center for the Intrepid. The facility is a physical rehabilitation hospital that provides the highest levels of care to help return its patients to productive daily lifestyles. While this represents a great step forward, it should be just one of many to follow. Hopefully similar initiatives will help create centers that are just as advanced that focus on psychological and emotional rehabilitation for the grievously injured.

EDIT 3-5-07: There has been a large investigation of the failures of the Army to deal with its injured veterans, to learn more please see this CNN article