Uncategorized

On Tuesday October 3^rd, the 47^th Vice President of the United States Joe Biden served as a distinguished guest at the fifth annual Tom Johnson Lectureship. This event was free of charge, for those who snagged the first come first serve tickets available weeks prior that is. However, several hours of waiting in line for the tickets at the break of dawn didn’t prevent students from attending: the auditorium was packed and the standby line circled the LBJ ground floor several hours prior to the event.

Despite the long waits, the energy surrounding event-goers waiting outside of the auditorium was bursting with excitement. Arriving around three hours early to the event, I was surprised to find that the hall outside of the auditorium was nearly packed. People representing different parts of the Austin community such as university students, public servants, the elderly, were camped out. Even when it was announced that Biden would be over an hour late due to a flight delay, the enthusiastic atmosphere didn’t falter.

While we were waiting for Biden to arrive, UT Chancellor Bill McRaven gave a surprise appearance. McRaven, who served as the ninth commander of the United States Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2015. He is credited for organizing the execution of Operation Neptune Spear, the ops raid that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden. McRaven’s interview focused how it felt to work closely under President Obama’s administration. He claimed that former President Obama and Biden’s relationship was one of the strongest President-Vice President relationships he had ever witnessed, essentially affirming the ‘bromance’ rumors. He believes this relationship was key towards helping President Obama determine what to do in high risk situations, such as the Bin Laden raid.

Towards the end of McRaven’s interview, Biden sneakily took a peak from backstage and was signaled to finally come on stage. The auditorium erupted in applause. Biden, appropriately wearing a red tie, blue suit, and white button up, grinned from ear to ear as he embraced McRaven and took the stage.

My first impression of Joe Biden was that he reminded me of an elderly family member: he embraced the audience as though we were his family. Leaned back on the leather chair with his armed spread out as he spoke, Biden projected his memories and thoughts to us. He began to speak of his childhood in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The lessons that his father taught him regarding virtue and intent has stayed with him throughout his life. While Biden did not always explicitly point back towards his father’s words, it was obvious that these lessons have guided him throughout his life.

This is especially true when Biden spoke on his concerns regarding political polarization. Biden described that as a young senator, he fell into the trap of passing judgement on other politicians for the bills that they supported. As time went by, he realized that while his Republican counterparts had different motives, their morals were still of high standard. These difficult lessons taught him that party lines should not define character. Looking back to his father’s words, Biden realized that he should not judge others for their political motives. The distinction between inner character and political motives is essential, he believes.

Biden describes a time where he and Republican senators would collaborate and respect each other’s’ characters. Even now, he says, some of his closest friends are Republican politicians. Now, he sees that this bipartisan respect is lost.

A simple tale he told personifies his fears. While he was Senator, Congress had a large dining room table where Congressional members of both parties would sit and have lunch together. This was a time for bonding and getting to know each other on a personal level. Now, he says, that dining table has been replaced with smaller tables scattered around the room. Entering this newly decorated room, he took notice that there was a lack of mingling between the parties. Instead, members are separating themselves by party.

Biden stressed that his biggest fear in politics is the wave of partisanship divide in politics. He highlighted that personal attacks, whether that be during political debates, television interviews, or rally speeches, should not be tolerated. Character, he again stressed, is separate from political motives. Rationalizing the two prevents bipartisan efforts and greater unity in America. Despite this, he still holds hope that the younger generation can move forwards, looking past partisan lines.

Ending the interview, Biden left a few words for the audience to ponder over, “Your generation is why I have so much faith and so much certainty in knowing that we will prevail through the 21st century, but do not rationalize.”

 

On the front lines in the fight against ISIS, referred to as insurgents in the countries they live in, the Kurds have faced a long and chaotic history of statehood, ethnic discrimination, and war. The Kurdish people the fourth largest indigenous ethnic groups in the Middle East, with about 25 to 35 million individuals inhabiting the mountainous borders of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. They are also the largest ethnic group in the Middle East to not have a nation to call their own. Their lack of statehood makes them a minority in the countries they live in, and has contributed to a history of discrimination and violence between Kurdish militant groups and national military. Today the Kurds have gained more media attention for their involvement in fighting ISIS. Peshmerga forces, an Iraqi Kurdish military group, has worked with the United States and other countries to fight off the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. In recent news, a referendum was put up in the Autonomous Kurdish Region within Iraq’s borders to secede from the country and create the independent state of Kurdistan.  

The vote caused quite a stir in both the national and international governments. Even before the vote happened Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish, American, and other governments urged Kurdish leaders to not hold the referendum for reasons of security and political stability. Iraq was especially mad at Massoud Barzani’s, former leader of the Kurdish Regional Government, decision to continue with the referendum. The Iraqi government was outraged by this call to action and retaliated by taking over Kurdish strongholds, displacing close to 183,000 people. International organizations like the United Nations also called for a halt on the referendum. The Kurdish government proceeded with the referendum and, according to the results, ninety percent of the population wanted an independent state.

Now officials are left with the question “now what?” How is this going to shape policy making in Iraq? How is the secession process going to be carried out? What are the international ramifications of this vote, since significant Kurdish populations reside in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. The immediate effects of the referendum came in the form of threats from the Turkish, Iranian, and Iraqi governments. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to stop all trade with Kurdistan. Whether or not this will happen is a different question, since five billion dollars has been invested into their economies through trade. Out of fear of an insurgency in their own country, leaders in Tehran threatened military action against Kurdistan. Iraq has also halted all flights going the autonomous Kurdish region, and has sent troops out to reclaim the city of Kirkuk.

Kirkuk is the center of a large amount of the conflict for independence. After Iraqi military troops abandoned the city due to approaching ISIS forces, Kurdish forces stepped in and occupied the city in 2014. The city is also sitting on oil deposits worth billions of dollars. Russia has continued to invest 3.5 billion dollars on the autonomous region because of their control over the oil pipeline in the city. Yet, in redrawing the Iraqi border both governments would be caught up in dispute over control of the city of Kirkuk. Demographically the population is a mix of Kurdish and Arab people, so in regards to ethnic claims of the land there is not much to go off of. Kirkuk was brought to the forefront of the Iraqi Kurdish disputes of an autonomous country and until this issue can be solved it does not seem like much progress will be made in regard to peace talks.

The idea of a separate Kurdish state garnered supporters from countries all around the world, but timing of this referendum caused leaders to withdraw support and create even more conflict in the Middle East. While the idea of a separate Kurdish state could alleviate violence in the region, conflicts with ISIS, international trade deals, and oil have complicated desires for secession. Now that the Iraqi military claims to have defeated ISIS and retook the Syrian-Iraqi border, governments for both areas can now focus on internal conflict. Military forces are now trying to repair the country and rebuild the cities that were once claimed by the terrorist organization. Rebuilding the country will take much time and collaboration between all leaders in both Iraq and the autonomous region of Kurdistan. Working together may help talks of secession relieving tension between leaders of the contentious issue. Yet, while the defeat of ISIS is a huge relief to the nation, much work needs to be done in order to reach a state in which Kurdish and Iraqi leaders have a serious discussion of independence and redrawing the border.

To wrap up a long and hectic semester at UT Austin, I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Paul Miller, Associate Director of the Clements Center for History, Strategy and Statecraft. Dr. Paul Miller brings a unique perspective to the discussion of national security on campus, drawing on his background as a former intelligence officer. Looking at his background and credentials, one would assume that Miller planned for success since birth. On the contrast, Miller had no idea he would go into foreign policy or counterterrorism. After getting his BA from Georgetown in Political Philosophy, he joined the military in order to broaden his experiences. He explains his change in direction quite simply, the occurrence of 9/11. During his time in the Army, Miller became an Intelligence Officer in Bagram Afghanistan and later an analyst for the CIA, specializing in counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and South Asia. His conservative position, shaped by his studies at Georgetown, Harvard, the National Defense University, and his own time in the National Security Council, can be seen as a stark contrast to the overwhelming liberal majority point of view on campus. However, it seems that this difference in opinion appears to be a motivator for Dr. Miller. He engages his students questions thoughtfully, respectfully, and challenges them to step outside their comfort zone and their regular patterns of thinking. He approaches topics of national security and foreign policy with a sense of urgency and sincerity, that is rare in today’s world of cynicism and confusion.

The major take away I got from time with Dr. Miller, is that the U.S. is engaging the world almost haphazardly and that we are not doing our due diligence, in regards to national security policy. His main argument is that we are not digging our heels in deep enough to military commitments and belief systems that are in play in Afghanistan today and in regard to radical violent Salafism as a whole. In light of Afghanistan, Miller is one of the rare policy experts who believe that we should increase our troops and funding. We have gone from a 90,000 soldier presence to 10,000 in the past five years and have significantly cut our funding. This was in response to the war fatigue that plagues the American public and if you ask Miller, is also due to America’s unclear grand strategy. Without clear goals defined and explaining how those goals are met by troop presence in Afghanistan, it is easy for the American public to want to pull out. Our presence in Afghanistan has lasted over ten years and many Americans do not feel that there has been tangible victory. A good portion of the public is tired of paying taxes that support these efforts and do not want the U.S. to be caught up in foreign entanglements, especially after Iraq. This is in part what led Obama to adopt a counterterrorism only strategy, forgetting the need for strong democratic institutions, naming it “Afghanistan good enough”.

Dr. Miller simultaneously attacks the orientalist rhetoric of Obama “Afghanistan good enough” and our major troop withdrawal.  After working as an intelligence Officer in Afghanistan, Dr. Miller finds this attitude insulting to Afghan people and oversimplifies their strengths and capabilities. Dr. Miller recently had the opportunity to interview Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the US. In Miller’s interview with Mohib, Mohib states clearly that the U.S.’s decrease in boots on the ground in Afghanistan was equivalent to the U.S. exiting the country. Miller shared, that this policy that has caused over 75,000 Afghan security forces casualties over the past few years among security forces, a number exponentially higher than U.S. casualties during our fifteen years at war. However, bolstering our commitment to Afghanistan is not something that US public is ready for. According to a recent poll by POLITICO, only 20 percent of US citizens agree with increasing our troops and aid to Afghanistan, with the vast majority calling for a decrease.

The irony of Miller’s message should shock liberal thinkers. Many liberals who accuse, most of the times justly, America of orientalism, are guilty of that same accusation in regard to Afghanistan. From the interview between Miller and Mohib, the ambassador sincerely confirms his and his country’s commitment and desire to rid themselves of the Taliban and build a stable state. Miller argues that as a thinking community, we must accept the idea that it is possible to engage Afghanistan with strong military support and aid, while also correcting previous counterterrorist policies and civic engagement policies that were not effective. Although this idea might be hard to swallow for the majority of America, Dr. Miller has chosen a much harder audience, UT Austin liberal students.